[QUOTE=Robbobin;36453619]There's some lousy debaters on here.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I know they're not even talking about what this thread is about anymore what is up with that?
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;36454001]Yeah I know they're not even talking about what this thread is about anymore what is up with that?[/QUOTE]
I don't see off-topicness being a huuge issue, the main problem is people failing to recognise valid argumentative techniques, like reductio ad absurdum.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36455081]I don't see off-topicness being a huuge issue, the main problem is people failing to recognise valid argumentative techniques, like reductio ad absurdum.[/QUOTE]
Reductio ad absurdum isn't valid, that's why it's called a logical [B]fallacy
[/B]At least in regards to a strawn man type argument, which is what we've seen here plenty of times.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36468901]Reductio ad absurdum isn't valid, that's why it's called a logical [B]fallacy
[/B]At least in regards to a strawn man type argument, which is what we've seen here plenty of times.[/QUOTE]
Erm... it's not a logical fallacy... A straw man argument is basically reductio ad absurdum gone wrong. However reductio is a logically valid argument form.
[url]http://www.iep.utm.edu/reductio/[/url]
It's valid.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36469006]Erm... it's not a logical fallacy... A straw man argument is basically reductio ad absurdum gone wrong. However reductio is a logically valid argument form.
[url]http://www.iep.utm.edu/reductio/[/url]
It's valid.[/QUOTE]
Yes yes I found out shortly after posting it, my mistake.
It gives more reason to maintain a healthy population rather than just saying "not my problem" as society collapses.
[QUOTE=Robbi;36450472]So what? Maybe I want to hoard all my money to my self and only support my self. Why should I not be able to do that? Does it matter if its sociopathic?[/QUOTE]
not if your selfishness results in the deaths of others.
[QUOTE=Bobie;36473500]not if your selfishness results in the deaths of others.[/QUOTE]
You living on more than bare necessities results in the deaths of others because you could theoretically give it all to starving African people.
[QUOTE=sgman91;36475620]You living on more than bare necessities results in the deaths of others because you could theoretically give it all to starving African people.[/QUOTE]
there's a difference there, choice and environment. with such a logic, simply being [I]born[/I] in a western nation results in the deaths of starving africans. i can't stop global manufacturing procedures and change the global economy as an individual, but i can give as much money to charity as i can and i can pay taxes towards the NHS to aid the free healthcare system we have over here.
i'm not rich - i don't have much money at all - i was born in a pretty shitty area as well, but it boils down to how much of a materialist you are, and how much you value things that give you no sense of accomplishment, achievement, pride or sense of being. i'd rather be 'poor' and know everyone (including myself) were happy than be incredibly rich and effect the well being of others for a false sense of power.
[QUOTE=sgman91;36475620]You living on more than bare necessities results in the deaths of others because you could theoretically give it all to starving African people.[/QUOTE]
So you feel that because in the current system some people die, it's A-okay to let even more people die?
Here in Sweden we've got universal healthcare, and it works just fine. Honestly I don't see why so many Americans have problems with it. Are you really that greedy that you can't give something back to the less fortunate that don't have the money to, let's say, afford an important surgery?
As for the rich paying more, that's debatable. I personally believe that if someone has worked long and hard to get a decent education in order to get a good job with a good salary, he is entitled to his money. However then there are those people that are born into wealthy families and haven't done any work to get to where they are now.
In either way, I still believe universal healthcare could work in the US even if everyone paid the same amount of money for the tax. It's a matter of helping the less fortunate, and giving something back to the society that has shaped you into who you are today.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36483151]So you feel that because in the current system some people die, it's A-okay to let even more people die?[/QUOTE]
No; the implication is that if preventing deaths is more important than everything else, why shouldn't you be living off the bare necessities and spending every other penny on saving lives? As a statist you have to explain why you draw the line where you do (if you draw it at all).
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36483151]So you feel that because in the current system some people die, it's A-okay to let even more people die?[/QUOTE]
No, I'm showing that either his logic is inconsistent or he is being hypocritical. If one is held responsible for the death of another person because they didn't save that person even though their death wasn't a result of any direct action than it would only make sense that 1) if there are people with less than the bare necessities, 2) one has more than the bare necessities and the ability give to the people from point 1, then 3) the person from point 2 should be held responsible for the death of the person from point 1's death.
Obviously everyone posting here has both more than the bare necessities and has the ability to give it away. Since this is the case there needs to be a logically based line drawn somewhere in between watching someone choke without attempting to help them and giving all one's money away to charity.
[QUOTE=Jocken300;36484343]Here in Sweden we've got universal healthcare, and it works just fine. Honestly I don't see why so many Americans have problems with it. Are you really that greedy that you can't give something back to the less fortunate that don't have the money to, let's say, afford an important surgery?
As for the rich paying more, that's debatable. I personally believe that if someone has worked long and hard to get a decent education in order to get a good job with a good salary, he is entitled to his money. However then there are those people that are born into wealthy families and haven't done any work to get to where they are now.
In either way, I still believe universal healthcare could work in the US even if everyone paid the same amount of money for the tax. It's a matter of helping the less fortunate, and giving something back to the society that has shaped you into who you are today.[/QUOTE]
its not about greedyness
perhaps its because people find welfare immoral and that generally, socialized healthcare means longer waiting lists, less quality over time, more expenisve privatized healthcare et cetera.
yes of course sometimes its greedyness but how is socialized healthcare not? people vote for other people to spend money on healthcare for them?
[QUOTE=Kentz;36485206]its not about greedyness
perhaps its because people find welfare immoral and that generally, socialized healthcare means longer waiting lists, less quality over time, more expenisve privatized healthcare et cetera.
yes of course sometimes its greedyness but how is socialized healthcare not? people vote for other people to spend money on healthcare for them?[/QUOTE]
How is welfare immoral? Helping those less fortunate than you is immoral?
There may be longer waiting lists, but I doubt the quality would sink much. Sweden has had universal healthcare for years, and our quality has still remained good. And isn't it worth it to have a little longer waiting lists, as long as everyone are getting the help they deserve?
[QUOTE=Kentz;36485206]its not about greedyness
perhaps its because people find welfare immoral and that generally, socialized healthcare means longer waiting lists, less quality over time, more expenisve privatized healthcare et cetera.
yes of course sometimes its greedyness but how is socialized healthcare not? people vote for other people to spend money on healthcare for them?[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html[/url]
Anyway, I can see where this debate is even coming. It's about the mindset. You were teached, for all your life, a myth: the loner.
"I can be better than anyone, and the mean to do it is money."
So this concept of everyone for themselves is the direct consequence of your history, the american dream and yadda yadda yadda. What you fail to see is how villain-like you appear to everyone else.
I'm not being rhetoric here: you really value a bit of your money over the life of people. That's the product of a culture that puts more value into cash, appearance, material possessions that real, important things. This is not one of those USA-themed rants. But I'm right on this one: you have a culture entirely based on money. And even if you try to make up excuses (It's expensive, less quality, even though american health care is 37 in WHO graduatory and every developed country precedes you) but in the end, you can see the real reason: "I don't want spend my money for the sake of other people" "Why should I paid for someone I don't even know". You know, I was teached that human life is more important than everything else in the world, and being selfless, helping others for no personal gain it's a quality, not a demerit.
Ultimately I think people should help each other out with healthcare within federalised voluntary organisations/communities - they should have a choice. This wouldn't work in today's society though because of the hierarchical structure of society - it is always someone elses job to care and fosters the attitude that "why should I help that person out? My taxes are already being used for that so screw them". Self-interest has become "fuck my community and the people around me, I have money therefore I don't give a shit" as opposed to maintaining both the self part and the social part of individualism. The sense of community and mutual social gain has become a barren wasteland to which state coercion has become the shoehorned in solution.
[QUOTE=Jocken300;36491090]How is welfare immoral? Helping those less fortunate than you is immoral?
There may be longer waiting lists, but I doubt the quality would sink much. Sweden has had universal healthcare for years, and our quality has still remained good. And isn't it worth it to have a little longer waiting lists, as long as everyone are getting the help they deserve?[/QUOTE]
welfare is immoral because the way welfare works is, you need to steal money from other people to make the system work.
you are assuming that people without welfare would be egocentric assholes, that is not the case. people would be able to spend their money how they wanted and that includes charity, something which i would happily spend my money on if it wasn't for the already huge income tax.
not if the waiting lists for a hospital means somebody with a life threating condition has to wait several months
[url]http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA555_Sweden_Health_Care.html[/url]
[editline]26th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE='[IT] Zodiac;36495075'][url]http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html[/url]
Anyway, I can see where this debate is even coming. It's about the mindset. You were teached, for all your life, a myth: the loner.
"I can be better than anyone, and the mean to do it is money."
So this concept of everyone for themselves is the direct consequence of your history, the american dream and yadda yadda yadda. What you fail to see is how villain-like you appear to everyone else.
I'm not being rhetoric here: you really value a bit of your money over the life of people. That's the product of a culture that puts more value into cash, appearance, material possessions that real, important things. This is not one of those USA-themed rants. But I'm right on this one: you have a culture entirely based on money. And even if you try to make up excuses (It's expensive, less quality, even though american health care is 37 in WHO graduatory and every developed country precedes you) but in the end, you can see the real reason: "I don't want spend my money for the sake of other people" "Why should I paid for someone I don't even know". You know, I was teached that human life is more important than everything else in the world, and being selfless, helping others for no personal gain it's a quality, not a demerit.[/QUOTE]
i am swedish, not american. i was raised in a left-wing home.
i was taught that stealing is wrong, perhaps you weren't.
[QUOTE='[IT] Zodiac;36495075'][url]http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html[/url]
Anyway, I can see where this debate is even coming. It's about the mindset. You were teached, for all your life, a myth: the loner.
"I can be better than anyone, and the mean to do it is money."
So this concept of everyone for themselves is the direct consequence of your history, the american dream and yadda yadda yadda. What you fail to see is how villain-like you appear to everyone else.
I'm not being rhetoric here: you really value a bit of your money over the life of people. That's the product of a culture that puts more value into cash, appearance, material possessions that real, important things. This is not one of those USA-themed rants. But I'm right on this one: you have a culture entirely based on money. And even if you try to make up excuses (It's expensive, less quality, even though american health care is 37 in WHO graduatory and every developed country precedes you) but in the end, you can see the real reason: "I don't want spend my money for the sake of other people" "Why should I paid for someone I don't even know". You know, I was teached that human life is more important than everything else in the world, and being selfless, helping others for no personal gain it's a quality, not a demerit.[/QUOTE]
That's just one long appeal to emotion
Our health care sucks because government intervention distorted the market i.e. the tax breaks for employer-provided health insurance, government preferential treatment for blue cross/blue shield, this all goes back to the Great Depression and FDR's policies. If we had a free market , affordable health care packages could be provided, right now they can't compete as a result of the high costs of government regulation, and obama's health care law will further distort the market by forcing things like mandatory guaranteed issue for individuals. That means insurance companies will be forced to cover some morbidly obese man who smokes 3 packs a day at the same cost of a person who takes care of their health and is in good shape. Thats bad for business, but the government is going to force them to run their business the way the government wants it, since apparently private property means nothing to our gov. Government regulations drive costs up and quality of care down. Health care is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the country, that's why we're in this mess.
[QUOTE=Noble;36497079]That's just one long appeal to emotion
Our health care sucks because government intervention distorted the market i.e. the tax breaks for employer-provided health insurance, government preferential treatment for blue cross/blue shield, this all goes back to the Great Depression and FDR's policies. If we had a free market , affordable health care packages could be provided, right now they can't compete as a result of the high costs of government regulation, and obama's health care law will further distort the market by forcing things like mandatory guaranteed issue for individuals. That means insurance companies will be forced to cover some morbidly obese man who smokes 3 packs a day at the same cost of a person who takes care of their health and is in good shape. Thats bad for business, but the government is going to force them to run their business the way the government wants it, since apparently private property means nothing to our gov. Government regulations drive costs up and quality of care down. Health care is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the country, that's why we're in this mess.[/QUOTE]
Without government regulation quality would also suffer horrifically, all kinds of unethical practices would be allowed with the public having little say in the matter.
[QUOTE=Kentz;36496432]
i am swedish, not american. i was raised in a left-wing home.
i was taught that stealing is wrong, perhaps you weren't.[/QUOTE]
WHERE IS THE THEFT. You all keep talking about stealing, theft and so on. But no one is keeping you to go to the South Pole and live off fish.
No, you have to say: "There's no choice! I don't want to pay taxes but still retain all the things I'm entitled to because I pay them, free of charge! Or I want a valid alternative". Well you don't get one, you know why? Because the 99,999999999% is happy paying taxes to get services. So we can't reform the entire tributary sistem of the Western World just because some kid read "Libertarianism" on Wikipedia and thinks it's gonna be the best way to run a country.
For the USA situation, true enough, this may not be the best time to enforce a universal health care sistem. That doesn't change the fact that:
A) You're the only western, developed country that doesn't have a universal health care. There are country with WAY more population than the USA that have UHC.
B) In the energetic market, in the water market, in the sanitary market, free market is not beneficial to the consumer: costs go up, because things done by the government that were not profitable now have to be run by private companies. They cheapen the service to cut expenses, and most important thing of all, they are not morally obliged to cure you, or provide you service. The State has to cure you, give you education and so on because they have to, a company can just say "fuck this shit" because it's not profitable anymore and leave you lying in the street. Furthermore, there are a LOT of sectors in the sanitary department that are not lucrative at all: like hospitals in isolated zones.
[QUOTE=Kentz;36496432]welfare is immoral because the way welfare works is, you need to steal money from other people to make the system work.
you are assuming that people without welfare would be egocentric assholes, that is not the case. people would be able to spend their money how they wanted and that includes charity, something which i would happily spend my money on if it wasn't for the already huge income tax.
not if the waiting lists for a hospital means somebody with a life threating condition has to wait several months
[url]http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA555_Sweden_Health_Care.html[/url]
[/QUOTE]
And that's why you have a hybrid system, in which those who want private healthcare can have it and those who don't or can't afford it can at least have a chance at getting healthcare, unlike in America were they have to rely on shitty charity hospitals.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36497947]Without government regulation quality would also suffer horrifically, all kinds of unethical practices would be allowed with the public having little say in the matter.[/QUOTE]
Unethical practices would be bad for business. If local companies were offering poor service and poor medical practices, someone could start their own business offering better care at competitive prices and profit heavily. This would drive the competitor to improve their service or be driven out of business. Tis system benefits both the consumers and the businesses.
[QUOTE='[IT] Zodiac;36498276']WHERE IS THE THEFT. You all keep talking about stealing, theft and so on. But no one is keeping you to go to the South Pole and live off fish.
No, you have to say: "There's no choice! I don't want to pay taxes but still retain all the things I'm entitled to because I pay them, free of charge! Or I want a valid alternative". Well you don't get one, you know why? Because the 99,999999999% is happy paying taxes to get services. So we can't reform the entire tributary sistem of the Western World just because some kid read "Libertarianism" on Wikipedia and thinks it's gonna be the best way to run a country.
For the USA situation, true enough, this may not be the best time to enforce a universal health care sistem. That doesn't change the fact that:
A) You're the only western, developed country that doesn't have a universal health care. There are country with WAY more population than the USA that have UHC.
B) In the energetic market, in the water market, in the sanitary market, free market is not beneficial to the consumer: costs go up, because things done by the government that were not profitable now have to be run by private companies. They cheapen the service to cut expenses, and most important thing of all, they are not morally obliged to cure you, or provide you service. The State has to cure you, give you education and so on because they have to, a company can just say "fuck this shit" because it's not profitable anymore and leave you lying in the street. Furthermore, there are a LOT of sectors in the sanitary department that are not lucrative at all: like hospitals in isolated zones.[/QUOTE]
the theft is the fact that 33% of my property is being stolen by the government which they spend on whatever they want.
"hello my name is state, recently we had an election where i am entitled to take 33% of your income. and if you do not like it, you can just leave!"
it doesnt matter if i leave or not, what the government is doing is still theft. your argument is so stupid, telling people who have different desires to move. i suppose according to you, every marginalized minority in the world should not strive toward a more peaceful society but they should just move instead. and i suppose if most americans do not want universal healthcare, you can leave as well.
if 99% of people are happy paying taxes then why do we need to put people who do not wish to pay their taxes in jail? why cant we allow people not to pay their taxes?
[editline]26th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36498459]And that's why you have a hybrid system, in which those who want private healthcare can have it and those who don't or can't afford it can at least have a chance at getting healthcare, unlike in America were they have to rely on shitty charity hospitals.[/QUOTE]
too bad nobody attends the privatized healthcare because you can't compete with free, nor can anybody afford it for that matter
[QUOTE=Kentz;36498772]
too bad nobody attends the privatized healthcare because you can't compete with free, nor can anybody afford it for that matter[/QUOTE]
Exactly! So why the fuck would anyone want to live in a libertarian society? People like the socialist route, that's why most countries use it.
[editline]26th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kentz;36498772]the theft is the fact that 33% of my property is being stolen by the government which they spend on whatever they want.
"hello my name is state, recently we had an election where i am entitled to take 33% of your income. and if you do not like it, you can just leave!"
it doesnt matter if i leave or not, what the government is doing is still theft. your argument is so stupid, telling people who have different desires to move. i suppose according to you, every marginalized minority in the world should not strive toward a more peaceful society but they should just move instead. and i suppose if most americans do not want universal healthcare, you can leave as well.
if 99% of people are happy paying taxes then why do we need to put people who do not wish to pay their taxes in jail? why cant we allow people not to pay their taxes?
[/QUOTE]
Because the people not paying their taxes are still using state systems like the police, roads, fire brigade and healthcare if your country provides it. If you don't like it then get out of the country.
[editline]26th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Noble;36498571]Unethical practices would be bad for business. If local companies were offering poor service and poor medical practices, someone could start their own business offering better care at competitive prices and profit heavily. This would drive the competitor to improve their service or be driven out of business. Tis system benefits both the consumers and the businesses.[/QUOTE]
When it's either you take the chance with the service or die then people don't have much choice. Healthcare cannot be competitive at a level for the poor, it costs too god damn much to perform, they'd be making loses if they did.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36504130]Exactly! So why the fuck would anyone want to live in a libertarian society? People like the socialist route, that's why most countries use it.[/quote]
People who would like maximized individual liberties. Socialism is popular because people prefer to avoid risk in general, which socialism allows for. It is riddled with problems, not the least of which are the violations of individual liberties and inefficiency caused by the absence of the profit motive. Of course people like it, getting "free" shit with other people's money sounds awesome..until its your own hard earned profits that are taken at ridiculous tax rates, if not entirely.
[quote]Because the people not paying their taxes are still using state systems like the police, roads, fire brigade and healthcare if your country provides it. If you don't like it then get out of the country.[/quote]
Taxation forces you to pay for things you don't want. Naturally some people disagree with the concept. Saying anyone should get out of the country or be forced into a cage because they disagree with having their money stolen and redistributed is absurd. Someone providing those services which they might not even want does not obligate them to a debt just because it coincidentally happens to benefit them. As for the whole "this is government land get out if you don't like it" thing, let's not forget how the US acquired this land..
[quote]When it's either you take the chance with the service or die then people don't have much choice. Healthcare cannot be competitive at a level for the poor, it costs too god damn much to perform, they'd be making loses if they did.[/QUOTE]
Sure they can, they can offer low cost, low probability "catastrophic" plans to cover people in the event of an emergency.
Why should I have to pay for someone who makes poor lifestyle choices and is obese, a frequent smoker, and has an extensive history of causing automobile accidents? The free market system would encourage more personal responsibility and better lifestyle choices, with individual liberties remaining intact. It would encourage much greater efficiency and more capital investment (because the profits aren't taxed away and so can be reinvested) which means more technological progress and falling costs of production, which would be passed down to the consumers.
[QUOTE=Noble;36505635]
Sure they can, they can offer low cost, low probability "catastrophic" plans to cover people in the event of an emergency.
Why should I have to pay for someone who makes poor lifestyle choices and is obese, a frequent smoker, and has an extensive history of causing automobile accidents? The free market system would encourage more personal responsibility and better lifestyle choices, with individual liberties remaining intact. It would encourage much greater efficiency and more capital investment (because the profits aren't taxed away and so can be reinvested) which means more technological progress and falling costs of production, which would be passed down to the consumers.[/QUOTE]
Here we go with the Just World Fallacy again. Just because someone can't afford healthcare doesn't mean it's their fault. A person could get sacked and then get ill and be unable to work, thus unable to raise money for treatment and die.
[editline]27th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Noble;36505635]People who would like maximized individual liberties. Socialism is popular because people prefer to avoid risk in general, which socialism allows for. It is riddled with problems, not the least of which are the violations of individual liberties and inefficiency caused by the absence of the profit motive. Of course people like it, getting "free" shit with other people's money sounds awesome..until its your own hard earned profits that are taken at ridiculous tax rates, if not entirely.
[/QUOTE]
As long as the taxation is fair and doesn't cripple a person I don't see the problem, especially considering the people who make the majority of the money do virtually no more work than many on lower salaries. In the end as long as they have plenty of money to spend, who cares if a bit of it gets taken and is given to a good cause, and don't give me that liberty bullshit, as I see it liberty is only good when it improved people lives, when people start dying due to greed that's where I draw the line with liberties.
Saying "as long as a taxation is fair" totally begs the question in your favour. We argue it's never fair, because it's never voluntary.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36506786]Saying "as long as a taxation is fair" totally begs the question in your favour. We argue it's never fair, because it's never voluntary.[/QUOTE]
I argue it is fair, because it stops people from dying and allows for order to be kept in society.
That's not fair though. You can argue it's nice, but that's not fair. Unless you have some cooky notion of fairness. I say fairness is something along the lines of free from coercion, all consented to, etc. The only way you can really argue for taxes imo is by saying that the ends somehow justify the means (I don't personally think they do but I respect that argument).
I think there'd be plenty of order in a system of anarchy; still developing that argument because it's more or less the thing I intend to solve in my dissertation.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.