• Free health care
    449 replies, posted
[QUOTE=sgman91;36418274]We aren't talking about reporting, but actually helping to stop the murder at a detriment to yourself.[/QUOTE] No, because that would most likely increase the number of murders, as the murderer is likely to stop the stopper. However, (mostly the very rich) paying for health care to save lives most likely wouldn't increase the net number of deaths due to a lack of health care. Even health care investments in very centralized and inefficient central planning under Mao Zedong produced very notable increases in life expectancy.
It seems the difference here is that you are arguing purely from effect while I'm arguing according to what's just and what isn't. Locking everyone in individual cells would decrease the murder rate to 0... therefore it's the best solution right?
[QUOTE=sgman91;36418420]It seems the difference here is that you are arguing purely from effect while I'm arguing according to what's just and what isn't. Locking everyone in individual cells would decrease the murder rate to 0... therefore it's the best solution right?[/QUOTE] No, I'm looking at both - the effect and consequences. Or rather, I'm looking at all the consequences, which include the effects. I'm OK with the very rich paying a 35-40% tax rate on their income for health care. I support a progressive tax scale.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36415960]'Third, why would anyone sell credit card information for $2 if, according to you, one can make infinite money by buying info and selling gold.' Supply and demand. There's an enormous supply. If you would charge $10, almost no one would buy from you, and they would go find another seller who sells for $2-5. 'First, the scammers would have to get the gold in someway shape or form, under their ownership. Meaning they would have to have the gold delivered to a warehouse or a doorstep or something.' 'Fourth, it is in the credit card's company's best interest to protect consumers against identity theft. Canceled credit cards mean no money from either credit card fees, interest, or any potential future merchant fees aswell.' You have no idea what the argument was about, do you? Rob said that in anarchy, no physical coercion would ever be used, except against other physical coercion, as self-defense. This is exactly why I brought this example up. And the scammers can easily use different proxies each time and deliver their gold to different abandoned houses, which would make tracking them very very hard. This is just to respond to your argument. I could've just stopped after explaining you what the discussion was about.[/QUOTE] False, supply would go down because, why sell for $2, when you can get a lot more in gold from the gold/card loop. You can't sell and use the same number. You have to sign off on a delivery at an abandoned house.... I really don't care about the original argument. You say things which are wrong and I correct them.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36418474]No, I'm looking at both - the effect and consequences. Or rather, I'm looking at all the consequences, which include the effects. I'm OK with the very rich paying a 35-40% tax rate on their income for health care. I support a progressive tax scale.[/QUOTE] ... effects ARE consequences. I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I don't think the effect of an action is enough for governmental decisions. For example, do you support the patriot act?
[QUOTE=GenPol;36417720]'Coercion is just forcing someone to behave in a certain way involuntarily. Maybe it's not physical in some cases of theft, but it's still coercion, and that's the foul play we should care about.' This is all I wanted to hear from you. When someone dies due to a lack of health care, that's coercion. The reason why is because it was induced by other people who didn't give up money to save this person's life.[/QUOTE] dying due to lack of health care is not coercion. As Robobbin said, coercion is when you FORCE someone to do something, involuntarily. Not giving money to someone is not a form of coercion, because you are not forcing them to do anything. On the other hand, requiring that you give over money for health care is coercion, because you force them to give up the money.
[QUOTE=Satane;36420814]socialist healthcare is the way to go.[/QUOTE] I'm liking your arguments here. You should probably back it up as I'm interested in somebody else's opinion. I'm being dead serious, by the way.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;36420798]dying due to lack of health care is not coercion. As Robobbin said, coercion is when you FORCE someone to do something, involuntarily. Not giving money to someone is not a form of coercion, because you are not forcing them to do anything. On the other hand, requiring that you give over money for health care is coercion, because you force them to give up the money.[/QUOTE] We are all slaves to the cost of living, it is very coercive. It is as coercive as the wage labor contract. That is, shallowly voluntary and done out of sheer necessity. We need to work because we live in a society. Similarly, we need to live because we need to work. Universal healthcare is the best way to do this as the costs simply must be socially subsidised. Societies have costs that everyone must pay into, even in a post-scarcity situation. Caring about the health of the people, who are our labor force and consumers, is one of the most important. Since these same people enable business to make 100% of their profits, the latter should be taxed to fund the caring of the physical and mental well being of both. It's a no brainer, and who cares if taxes are coercive? Lack of wealth aka lots of unmet individual needs is far more coercive and restricting of free will than any tax or government will be. Those two never wielded the power over people the cost of living does. No amount of guns, tanks, and armies ever shaped society like it does.
[QUOTE=Zally13;36420992]I'm liking your arguments here. You should probably back it up as I'm interested in somebody else's opinion. I'm being dead serious, by the way.[/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imgur.com/pFBKT.png[/img] Khrushev's health care was very fucking good. Too bad, it was dismantled after his death.
[QUOTE=Conscript;36421428]Since these same people enable business to make 100% of their profits, the latter should be taxed to fund the caring of the physical and mental well being of both.[/QUOTE] There already was a voluntary transaction in which both parties (customer and the business) benefited. Those people already received their benefit at the time of the voluntary transaction. The businesses make their profits as a result of running their business intelligently enough to ensure that revenues exceed expenses, they don't make profit by merely existing and mindlessly interacting with those people. So why are businesses liable to provide an additional benefit to not just their customers, but everyone else in society (or maybe just have the money be spent on wars, instead), this time at their own expense, taken by force? No individual has a right to interfere with another individual's natural right to voluntarily interact with whomever they choose. If A and B voluntarily choose to interact with each other, and C jumps in and says they both now owe a debt (or "tax") to C,D,E,F,G,H etc... merely as the price of interacting with each other, it is an interference with the natural rights of A and B. It doesn't magically become justified when the majority votes that it is, either.
As i said, these businesses wouldnt profit at all without society's labor. Customers would have nothing to buy with and capital would have nobody to employ. Healthcare is part of basic sustenance that would help perpetuate more exchange, labor, and investments, so giving all members of society a right to it can only further our wealth production and free people from the coerciveness of need. If the fruits of our society's labor are concentrated in a few property owners, yet we live in a system of socialized production where we rely entirely on each other, it seems nonsensical to restrict access to healthcare on the basis that it's a financial burden or involuntary. We already share financial burdens (society is like that, like it or not youre going to have to pay into a natural disaster fund, for example), and with the market we pay extra to enable capital to profit. And, of course, people who accumulate capital are highly unlikely to volunteer giving some of it, but who cares? Their voluntarism is worth shit compared to large amounts of unmet need, which they ironically need to exist. As i said, we enable their profiting and tolerate their socialized losses, we deserve something in return. Having universal healthcare is another way for the wider society to benefit from its collective wealth, rather than find the most creative way to use wealth and need to simply create more capital to 'trickle down' after concentrating it.
The thing you "deserve in return" is the product or service that you literally get in return. Costs get shifted to the consumer anyway.
[QUOTE=sgman91;36427734]The thing you "deserve in return" is the product or service that you literally get in return. Costs get shifted to the consumer anyway.[/QUOTE] No, costs shift to what if profitable, if providing for a certain class of customer isn't profitable then they won't provide for them.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36427898]No, costs shift to what if profitable, if providing for a certain class of customer isn't profitable then they won't provide for them.[/QUOTE] Except that if you remove a supply for the demand, that won't remove the demand. There will still be people yearning for health care in that class.
[QUOTE=Zally13;36428008]Except that if you remove a supply for the demand, that won't remove the demand. There will still be people yearning for health care in that class.[/QUOTE] Do you think the health companies will care?
[QUOTE=Zally13;36428008]Except that if you remove a supply for the demand, that won't remove the demand. There will still be people yearning for health care in that class.[/QUOTE] Just having the need doesnt mean it's profitable. In the market, need is measured in demand, which is reflective of what buyers can exchange for it, not how much they need it. Some commodities in the market, like healthcare, have costs so high the average person can't afford it with his own money. So it ends up being covered by everyone else one way or another, either through insurance companies or collective funds like those managed by governments.
[QUOTE=Conscript;36427419]As i said, these businesses wouldnt profit at all without society's labor. Customers would have nothing to buy with and capital would have nobody to employ.[/quote] You can't put together individual transactions and call it "society's" labor. They're individual transactions where each party benefits (otherwise they wouldn't make the transactions). You sell your labor, you get something in return (usually money). The business doesn't owe you anything more than that. [quote]Healthcare is part of basic sustenance that would help perpetuate more exchange, labor, and investments, so giving all members of society a right to it can only further our wealth production and free people from the coerciveness of need. If the fruits of our society's labor are concentrated in a few property owners, yet we live in a system of socialized production where we rely entirely on each other, it seems nonsensical to restrict access to healthcare on the basis that it's a financial burden or involuntary. We already share financial burdens (society is like that, like it or not youre going to have to pay into a natural disaster fund, for example), and with the market we pay extra to enable capital to profit. And, of course, people who accumulate capital are highly unlikely to volunteer giving some of it, but who cares? Their voluntarism is worth shit compared to large amounts of unmet need, which they ironically need to exist. As i said, we enable their profiting and tolerate their socialized losses, we deserve something in return. Having universal healthcare is another way for the wider society to benefit from its collective wealth, rather than find the most creative way to use wealth and need to simply create more capital to 'trickle down' after concentrating it.[/QUOTE] Health care is a commodity, it's not a right. It is arguably a need, just like food, shelter, and clothing are needs, but none of those things are rights. You probably don't see too many people arguing for "universal clothing". I really don't see what rational basis there is for saying any individual has a right to receive goods and services provided at someone else's expense simply because they need them. I'm also totally against socialized losses. They shouldn't be tolerated at all. Capitalism is about private gains and private losses, not private gains and socialized losses. [QUOTE=carcarcargo;36428042]Do you think the health companies will care?[/QUOTE] Sure they will. They'll offer packages that economically make sense for both parties. That will probably involve them having to pay higher premiums. You can't force companies to cover customers with monstrously expensive pre-existing conditions and/or terrible diet and lifestyle choices, and to also charge them the same premiums as everyone else (this is called mandatory guaranteed issue, it's already required across the U.S. for small group insurance plans of 2-50 people, and Obama's health care plan will have this implemented at the individual level by 2014). That's completely ridiculous, and is analogous to someone rolling into the car insurance company's parking lot with a totaled, uninsured car, and feeling that they are entitled to have the company pay for a new car upon signing up. It sounds great for the customer, but that isn't how insurance works. Such health insurance policies involving mandatory guaranteed issue and other forced "universal" policies have already been tried in some U.S. states, which resulted in insurance companies leaving those states in droves to do business elsewhere. [QUOTE=Conscript;36428179] Some commodities in the market, like healthcare, have costs so high the average person can't afford it with his own money. So it ends up being covered by everyone else one way or another, either through insurance companies or collective funds like those managed by governments.[/QUOTE] If the government would stop distorting the health care market by intervening and forcing doctors, insurers and hospitals to do things that make no economic sense, and rather let the free market run it's course instead, you'd start giving people more incentive to take care of their own health in the first place, and you'd see more sensible insurance packages being offered, such as lower-cost, low-probability "catastrophic" care that save a lot of money for everyone, prevent waste, and keep people covered in the event of an emergency. There would be a lot less incentive to go uninsured if that were the case.
The problem I'm seeing with a lot of the arguments you make for a unregulated environment, is that you assume there will be enough people who aren't massively greedy, or obnoxiously needy. You systems require that humans are a generous species, that wants to see the entire species survive. Which is not the case for a lot of people, we care too much about our selves, even the most charitable person cares more about their own well being. But in a system where people aren't required to donate money to health care, you can expect to see the healthcare stop, people who cannot afford it would just be left for dead. I did see an argument earlier in the thread where someone mentioned that we only have universal healthcare because people requested it. But that was different, we already had taxes in place, and it was the majority that cannot afford full health insurance that would have requested it, not the minority with all the money. You also assume that businesses won't cheap out at all. If they are looking for max profit, of course they will. If they merge and form monopolies we would have no choice but to use these products. You systems assume that businesses will be truthful, caring and fair. This won't be the case if there is a lack of regulation. Basically what I'm getting at is that your ideas for how shit should be run would require a damn utopia, because there is no way in hell humanity as it is now, gives enough of a shit about fellow man to keep that kind of system safe, and running.
[QUOTE=Noble;36430397] Sure they will. They'll offer packages that economically make sense for both parties. That will probably involve them having to pay higher premiums. You can't force companies to cover customers with monstrously expensive pre-existing conditions and/or terrible diet and lifestyle choices, and to also charge them the same premiums as everyone else (this is called mandatory guaranteed issue, it's already required across the U.S. for small group insurance plans of 2-50 people, and Obama's health care plan will have this implemented at the individual level by 2014). That's completely ridiculous, and is analogous to someone rolling into the car insurance company's parking lot with a totaled, uninsured car, and feeling that they are entitled to have the company pay for a new car upon signing up. It sounds great for the customer, but that isn't how insurance works. Such health insurance policies involving mandatory guaranteed issue and other forced "universal" policies have already been tried in some U.S. states, which resulted in insurance companies leaving those states in droves to do business elsewhere. [/QUOTE] Healthcare will always cos ta fortune. Not only does the company have to pay the surgeons (who in your unregulated environment can demand as much as they want) they also have to purchase tools, drugs and machines that also cost a hell of a lot. It's not totally greed that makes health care cost so much (although I'm sure it plays a part) but more the fact that the stuff required to perform healthcare costs a lot, which is why it's expensive. I can also guarantee that insurance companies will do everything they can to wiggle out of paying your medical bills as well, meaning a lot of people with rare diseases will not be able to get healthcare and die. In the end a little bit of "theft" is far better than thousands dying every year because they can't afford treatment, I'm no liberal when an individuals rights mean someone dying. [editline]21st June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Noble;36430397] Health care is a commodity, it's not a right. It is arguably a need, just like food, shelter, and clothing are needs, but none of those things are rights. You probably don't see too many people arguing for "universal clothing". I really don't see what rational basis there is for saying any individual has a right to receive goods and services provided at someone else's expense simply because they need them. I'm also totally against socialized losses. They shouldn't be tolerated at all. Capitalism is about private gains and private losses, not private gains and socialized losses. [/QUOTE] Noi we don't have universal food or clothes because we have the benefits system to deal with that. If a person can't afford that stuff due to lack of a job then the government should grant them money and not leave them to die.
[QUOTE=Noble;36430397]You can't put together individual transactions and call it "society's" labor. They're individual transactions where each party benefits (otherwise they wouldn't make the transactions). You sell your labor, you get something in return (usually money). The business doesn't owe you anything more than that.[/quote] Why not? These transactions don't take place in a bubble, and they are just another form of commodity distribution. The same people who produce the commodities consume them, allowing business to hire more from their community and perpetuate the process. Capitalism is just a very socialized form of production, that leads to being more relying on each other than any time before. For example, in feudal times, the mere concept of getting a good from a far away place was a sign of large amounts of wealth. Where now, the market has linked together peoples to the point where whole nations export almost all of their goods for consumption in others. This kind of methodological individualism is useless for anything else but political posturing. [quote]Health care is a commodity, it's not a right. It is arguably a need, just like food, shelter, and clothing are needs, but none of those things are rights.[/quote] None of those things require the kind of specialized labor healthcare does, which is why there's such a price difference. [quote]You probably don't see too many people arguing for "universal clothing".[/quote] They're called 'communists' But it's not like you have to be one to oppose the commodification of a specific item/service for conditional reasons, like the cost. Which is why you get plenty in the political center arguing for universal healthcare but not universal x commodity, it's a tense issue that, if implemented, can relieve dissent. I would argue it's in the interest of capital to have universal healthcare for that reason. [quote]I really don't see what rational basis there is for saying any individual has a right to receive goods and services provided at someone else's expense simply because they need them.[/quote] What? Nobody's arguing the labor should be done for free, only that its costs should be subsidized through universal healthcare rather than private insurance. [quote]I'm also totally against socialized losses. They shouldn't be tolerated at all. Capitalism is about private gains and private losses, not private gains and socialized losses.[/quote] I can't say I agree. There's nothing private about the loss of capital, unless it's not socially produced and instead accumulated by one person and their labor only. The gains can be to an extent, since this is private property we're talking about here. [quote]If the government would stop distorting the health care market by intervening and forcing doctors, insurers and hospitals to do things that make no economic sense, and rather let the free market run it's course instead, you'd start giving people more incentive to take care of their own health in the first place, and you'd see more sensible insurance packages being offered, such as lower-cost, low-probability "catastrophic" care that save a lot of money for everyone, prevent waste, and keep people covered in the event of an emergency. There would be a lot less incentive to go uninsured if that were the case.[/QUOTE] You can't really get more incentivizing to take care of your own health than by having high healthcare costs. I don't know if government distorts the market, it doesn't really matter. Would laissez faire policies lower prices? Maybe. But the important question is, would it somehow streamline or simplify the specialized labor involved in healthcare to the point an individual or a family of them could pay for the costs? I don't think it's possible. Like rectifying the damage from natural disasters, healthcare will stay a high-cost, labor-intensive process that needs to be socially subsidized. The best way to manage this (the satisfying of healthcare needs) is by establishing a right to healthcare, which guarantees the meeting of all healthcare needs, unlike markets who require unmet need to keep a steady rate of profit appealing to investors. Unless your goal is accumulate capital, making healthcare not a commodity left to the market is in your interest.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/FwUxr.jpg[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/V79KY.jpg[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/vKY3v.jpg[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/cfstM.jpg[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/YMVFv.jpg[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/OY7vW.jpg[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/IBVfo.jpg[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/y706o.jpg[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/fwNgZ.jpg[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/kkBn5.jpg[/img] [img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MTUV9qlaqY4/Tt623HisCkI/AAAAAAAADfY/8P6gcpzVMpg/s1600/original.gif[/img] + 50 euro again
[img]http://i.imgur.com/FwUxr.jpg[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/V79KY.jpg[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/vKY3v.jpg[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/cfstM.jpg[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/YMVFv.jpg[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/OY7vW.jpg[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/IBVfo.jpg[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/y706o.jpg[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/fwNgZ.jpg[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/kkBn5.jpg[/img] [img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MTUV9qlaqY4/Tt623HisCkI/AAAAAAAADfY/8P6gcpzVMpg/s1600/original.gif[/img] 23123123 scat
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36410912]So sadly appealing to statistics - certainly any belonging to a society like the US - isn't the right way to attack anarchism. If you want to attack it, attack the game theoretic arguments that are trying to show peaceful cooperation is the dominant strategy in a game of rational agents. Because I think if its findings genuinely can be correlated to real social life on a large scale, anarchy simply wins.[/QUOTE] I wasn't attacking anarchism
PUBLIC. PUBLIC healthcare. Not free The welfare of people should never be a private, profit-driven industry.
Yes it bloody well should be. Why should someone be denied life-saving preventative care because they can't afford it out of pocket and their insurance won't cover it? It makes no sense. [QUOTE=Robbi;36369823]Why do you think that? What do you mean by [B]free [/B]healthcare? What is virtually free healthcare? How is it free? Who will fund it if it is free?[/QUOTE] By free he means he can walk into a doctor's office, get something done, and walk out again with a wallet that isn't empty. Most developed nations have this, and it's funded through taxes.
[QUOTE=TestECull;36436627]Yes it bloody well should be. Why should someone be denied life-saving preventative care because they can't afford it out of pocket and their insurance won't cover it? It makes no sense. By free he means he can walk into a doctor's office, get something done, and walk out again with a wallet that isn't empty. Most developed nations have this, and it's funded through taxes.[/QUOTE] If you were keeping up, all of this was covered, read further than the first page. The debate is why should we have to pay for healthcare for everyone else.
The notion that you are paying for the health-care of everyone else is self-centered and actively causing the deaths of thousands who are stuck without health-care due in part to an ideology which requires the simultaneous deconstruction of all other restrictions on the market and the government itself to be viable in it's own theoretical sense. Perceive taxation as violence all you want, but realise in part you are merely continuing an ideological persecution complex.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;36440837]The notion that you are paying for the health-care of everyone else is self-centered and actively causing the deaths of thousands who are stuck without health-care due in part to an ideology which requires the simultaneous deconstruction of all other restrictions on the market and the government itself to be viable in it's own theoretical sense. Perceive taxation as violence all you want, but realise in part you are merely continuing an ideological persecution complex.[/QUOTE] I don't see taxes as violence like that nutjob GenPol, but It's hard for me to grasp paying for lazy people and criminals while me and my dad bust our ass paying for it.
[QUOTE=QuikKill;36441039]I don't see taxes as violence like that nutjob GenPol, but It's hard for me to grasp paying for lazy people and criminals while me and my dad bust our ass paying for it.[/QUOTE] Wait what, GenPol is for taxation isn't he? Taxes are undeniably coercive. If you don't pay your taxes you get forcibly detained.
[QUOTE=QuikKill;36441039]I don't see taxes as violence like that nutjob GenPol, but It's hard for me to grasp paying for lazy people and criminals while me and my dad bust our ass paying for it.[/QUOTE] Yeah because anyone with a wage lower than $40,000 must be lazy. [editline]22nd June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Robbobin;36441555]Wait what, GenPol is for taxation isn't he? Taxes are undeniably coercive. If you don't pay your taxes you get forcibly detained.[/QUOTE] Coercive or not, as long as it is done in a controlled manner by an elected government, I see no problem. You only make money because society exists for you to make that money, I think it's only fair you give a bit back.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.