• Free health care
    449 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Noble;36386083]Yeah, tax is money that the government takes by force from individuals (it's called "theft" when it's done at a personal level) and redistributes elsewhere to pay for things without their consent. They do? Well then I want the government to start providing me with healthy food and a gym membership. I think I have a right to these things. I don't know why I have a right to it, but I just do. And I want you to pay for it with your tax dollars, which will be taken from you with threats of imprisonment.[/QUOTE] lol, there's a massive difference between gym membership and not dying from disease. You don't choose to be sick as you don't choose to be injured. Just like you don't choose to have your house caught on fire, or you don't choose to be robbed. If the concept of social services are offensive to you, go to a country without them and see how fucking great it is.
[QUOTE=MalwareOhMy!;36385844]prove that it will work better than what we have now.[/QUOTE] Khrushev's health care system. One of the most universal health care systems. It led to the Soviet people having far higher life expectancies than the US as well as the vast majority of the world population when it was administered. Sadly, it was dismantlement as Khrushev died, and the life expectancy stagnated, until it was surpassed by the US and a great deal of other countries.
This is something I struggle with myself. While I do feel that people can be born into a bad economic condition that's very difficult to get out of, and as such can't pay for such healthcare by themselves no matter how hard they try, I also believe that taxation in general is theft and should be considered completely wrong, even if the ones doing it are the monopoly of force known as the government. Right now I think I'd rather keep it privatized, as less money is being wasted. In general, government institutions are ineffective (compared to private companies) as they don't have competition to keep them in check and employ too many people. I know this both by looking into organizations such as NASA, and as some of my family members have worked in the government and have noted how messed up the system can in fact be. The primary difference between private companies running insurance and the government, is that you can decide if or who you want to pay to give you insurance, and that the private companies won't be wasteful as they want the highest profit margin and the most customers. [editline]18th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;36386222]Because you already spend my money and vice versa? This, uh, isn't a new concept. The US isn't exactly a good healthcare system. [editline]18th June 2012[/editline] [B]If you want, I'll buy you a ticket to Somalia so you can avoid paying a few dollars to keep society from falling apart.[/B][/QUOTE] You're comparing an African country that has been ravaged and destroyed by warfare and constant fighting (along with the other countries in the area, mind you) to a first world country such as America? Of course it's going to appear horrid. I was reading an article on BBC that states that Somalia is actually much higher than other African nations in many areas. "Far from chaos and economic collapse, we found that Somalia is generally doing better than when it had a state," said the institute. "Urban businessmen, international corporations, and rural pastoralists have all functioned in a stateless Somalia, achieving standards of living for the country that are equal or superior to many other African nations." [url][URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17080664[/URL][/url]
[QUOTE=Noble;36385787]Who is going to pay for it though? Does any individual really have any right to receive goods and services provided at other people's expense?[/QUOTE] From taxes. Quite frankly I value peoples lives over others money. [editline]18th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Noble;36386083]Yeah, tax is money that the government takes by force from individuals (it's called "theft" when it's done at a personal level) and redistributes elsewhere to pay for things without their consent. [/QUOTE] Erm no, you live on the Governments land and thus you pay them for the various services that are provided along with that land. It's not "theft" at all, no more than paying your land lord for a rented house/flat.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;36386259]lol, there's a massive difference between gym membership and not dying from disease. You don't choose to be sick as you don't choose to be injured. Just like you don't choose to have your house caught on fire, or you don't choose to be robbed. If the concept of social services are offensive to you, go to a country without them and see how fucking great it is.[/QUOTE] Sure, I just believe private companies could fill all of those needs, and do it more efficiently under free market conditions.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36386355]From taxes. Quite frankly I value peoples lives over others money. [editline]18th June 2012[/editline] Erm no, you live on the Governments land and thus you pay them for the various services that are provided along with that land. It's not "theft" at all, no more than paying your land lord for a rented house/flat.[/QUOTE] You do realize how the government obtained this land, correct? They did it by force. A landlord, you can choose to live under them and pay for them, while a government has the ability to put you in jail or kill you if they don't like what you are doing (some of these crimes victim-less, such as drug use). A landlord can only kick you out.
[QUOTE=Noble;36386402]Sure, I just believe private companies could fill all of those needs, and do it more efficiently under free market conditions.[/QUOTE] If by 'efficiently' you mean 'more profitable' then yeah, just don't complain when anyone who isn't rich as fuck gets shit health care.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36386248]My values don't include not using legal sanctions for tax evasion, or not using proper intervention when necessary, unless there's a justification not to do so. I believe that the action of relocation of wealth from the richer classes to health care systems, education, science and technology is fully justified. If you believe that the state can't collect taxes because the action brings the consequence of coercion which you think is negative, and outweighs the benefits of collective projects, then you can believe so. Your beliefs simply don't coincide with mine, and I will do everything for my values to be enforced rather than yours. That's how social antagonisms work.[/QUOTE] I really fail to see how you can not see something like theft on a national scale as having disvalue. It's one thing to say the benefits outweigh the costs, but saying it has no disvalue whatsoever, that's really strange.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36386452]If by 'efficiently' you mean 'more profitable' then yeah, just don't complain when anyone who isn't rich as fuck gets shit health care.[/QUOTE] I don't think you understand how a business works. A healthcare company can accommodate to only rich people, but they'd be losing out on a potential revenue stemming from the middle/lower classes. This is where new businesses or current businesses can provide a service to them in order to tap from that market and make a profit. Yes, companies only want to make profits, but to do so they have to be able to provide a better or cheaper service than their competitors.
[QUOTE=Zally13;36386441]You do realize how the government obtained this land, correct? They did it by force. A landlord, you can choose to live under them and pay for them, while a government has the ability to put you in jail or kill you if they don't like what you are doing (some of these crimes victim-less, such as drug use). A landlord can only kick you out.[/QUOTE] So essentially you want an anarchic state, since that's exactly what will happen if you don't pay taxes.
[QUOTE=Zally13;36386495]I don't think you understand how a business works. A healthcare company can accommodate to only rich people, but they'd be losing out on a potential revenue stemming from the middle/lower classes. This is where new businesses or current businesses can provide a service to them in order to tap from that market and make a profit. Yes, companies only want to make profits, but to do so they have to be able to provide a better or cheaper service than their competitors.[/QUOTE] Well it doesn't seem to be working all that well in America where people die because they can't afford their $700 medicine every month.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36386496]So essentially you want an anarchic state, since that's exactly what will happen if you don't pay taxes.[/QUOTE] Anarchy is something I toy with every once in a while, but no. I don't want an anarchist state. I do, however, want a very limited government where the only role is to provide military that only defends, police (as putting justice on the market, in my opinion, is wrong), courts, and to ensure that fraud or force does not happen during transactions.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36386452]If by 'efficiently' you mean 'more profitable' then yeah, just don't complain when anyone who isn't rich as fuck gets shit health care.[/QUOTE] Yes that is in fact what I mean, actually. They go hand in hand. There would be incentive to provide better health care at affordable prices for people who aren't rich. If you can offer a better product than your competitor and do it at better prices, then you will attract more business and accumulate profits, which could be used for more capital investment, job creation, expansion, and so on. Your competitor will also be attempting to provide better care at lower prices too, there will be a motive to run businesses as efficiently as possible (profit), which will be passing the savings down to the consumers.
[QUOTE=Zally13;36386534]Anarchy is something I toy with every once in a while, but no. I don't want an anarchist state. I do, however, want a very limited government where the only role is to provide military that only defends, police (as putting justice on the market, in my opinion, is wrong), courts, and to ensure that fraud or force does not happen during transactions.[/QUOTE] What about education? Or do you think it's wrong for the disgusting paupers to get education on your money.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36386452]If by 'efficiently' you mean 'more profitable' then yeah, just don't complain when anyone who isn't rich as fuck gets shit health care.[/QUOTE] In a genuine free market, efficiency and profitability would converge, because in a free market the only thing of value is your labour (including your possession [NOT OWNERSHIP] of resources). You'd only be able to become wealthy if you negotiate mutually beneficial deals. If you're not a useless piece of shit, you'd be able to find a way to trade your labour for healthcare. For cases like disability where someone is genuinely incapable of labouring, there's always charity.
[QUOTE=Noble;36386543]Yes that is in fact what I mean, actually. They go hand in hand. There would be incentive to provide better health care at affordable prices for people who aren't rich. If you can offer a better product than your competitor and do it at better prices, then you will attract more business and accumulate profits, which could be used for more capital investment, job creation, expansion, and so on.[/QUOTE] No they don't go hand in hand, especially with something as essential as health care that people are willing to pay anything to have.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36386496]So essentially you want an anarchic state, since that's exactly what will happen if you don't pay taxes.[/QUOTE] That's exactly what [I]I[/I] want, I don't know about him. I love it when people say "BUT THAT'S ANARCHY!!" when I'm discussing my views, as if that makes it false in itself.
The term "free" healthcare is a bit misleading. If the government pays for it, then the taxpayers are indirectly paying for it.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36386526]Well it doesn't seem to be working all that well in America where people die because they can't afford their $700 medicine every month.[/QUOTE] America doesn't have a genuine free market. I advocate total free markets, but even I'd prefer a full on social state over the US.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36386599]That's exactly what [I]I[/I] want, I don't know about him. I love it when people say "BUT THAT'S ANARCHY!!" when I'm discussing my views, as if that makes it false in itself.[/QUOTE] Yey, then the weak can get stomped on while the strong get more powerful. What a great society that would be.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36386571]What about education? Or do you think it's wrong for the disgusting paupers to get education on your money.[/QUOTE] There's every reason in the world (self interested reason) to sell your services at competitive prices, including education. Apprenticeships, for example. Very mutually beneficial. State education hardly has a track record of excellent value for money.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36386615]America doesn't have a genuine free market. I advocate total free markets, but even I'd prefer a full on social state over the US.[/QUOTE] Oh yes a totally free market, that would be sure great since as we know monopolies sure are fun to have around [editline]18th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Robbobin;36386634]There's every reason in the world (self interested reason) to sell your services at competitive prices, including education. Apprenticeships, for example. Very mutually beneficial. State education hardly has a track record of excellent value for money.[/QUOTE] Education of some kind is pretty much required to get into any section of work thats actually worth it. Privatising education would send us back to the good old days of the class system where the poor stay poor and the rich stay rich with no flexibility
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36386636]Oh yes a totally free market, that would be sure great since as we know monopolies sure are fun to have around[/QUOTE] Monopolies couldn't exist if the resource/product exists in more than one location. Since a GFM could only support cooperatives and businesses like that, all of the product would be owned jointly. Each individual comprising the business is free to sell their product at whatever competitive price they want. Monopolies simply wouldn't occur. State monopolies, however...
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36386636]Education of some kind is pretty much required to get into any section of work thats actually worth it. Privatising education would send us back to the good old days of the class system where the poor stay poor and the rich stay rich with no flexibility[/QUOTE] There are private schools everywhere they often run a hell of a lot better than state schools
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36386636] Education of some kind is pretty much required to get into any section of work thats actually worth it. Privatising education would send us back to the good old days of the class system where the poor stay poor and the rich stay rich with no flexibility[/QUOTE] I swear you didn't even read the post. Let's say there's some uneducated person. He's not very employable because he's uneducated. Some people, including this uneducated person himself, stands to gain from him being educated. Since free markets are all about mutual gains, it's silly to suggest that nobody would bother educating them. Education is good for everyone. Clever people are much better at producing things valuable to everyone else. It's like you read some kind of radical socialist pamphlet cover and that's where all of your ideas about the free market came from. Or you're failing to appreciate that the sort of free market I'm talking about is [I]radically[/I] different to the "free market" talked about in the mainstream media/by libertarians.
[QUOTE=Noble;36386695]There are private schools everywhere they often run a hell of a lot better than state schools[/QUOTE] Yes in conjunction with public schools, having only private however just stands to leave poor families in a real bad state.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36386731]Yes in conjunction with public schools, having only private however just stands to leave poor families in a real bad state.[/QUOTE] [I]No it doesn't.[/I] Who am I going to make the most money in partnership with? An educated person or an uneducated person? Obviously the educated person. So I have self-interested reason to invest in educating potential partners (more or less everyone).
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36386704]I swear you didn't even read the post. Let's say there's some uneducated person. He's not very employable because he's uneducated. Some people, including this uneducated person himself, stands to gain from him being educated. Since free markets are all about mutual gains, it's silly to suggest that nobody would bother educating them. Education is good for everyone. Clever people are much better at producing things valuable to everyone else. It's like you read some kind of radical socialist pamphlet cover and that's where all of your ideas about the free market came from. Or you're failing to appreciate that the sort of free market I'm talking about is [I]radically[/I] different to the "free market" talked about in the mainstream media/by libertarians.[/QUOTE] Yes they'll educate people for lesser jobs, but when a poor person wants to say, become a lawyer, he's not going to stand a chance against those with more privileged private school backgrounds. Public schools are the only way of bring about some form of equal opportunity [editline]18th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Robbobin;36386769][I]No it doesn't.[/I] Who am I going to make the most money in partnership with? An educated person or an uneducated person? Obviously the educated person. So I have self-interested reason to invest in educating potential partners (more or less everyone).[/QUOTE] Exactly, so if an uneducated person and an educated person are vying for a job, who do you think will get the job?
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36386784]Yes they'll educate people for lesser jobs, but when a poor person wants to say, become a lawyer, he's not going to stand a chance against those with more privileged private school backgrounds. Public schools are the only way of bring about some form of equal opportunity [editline]18th June 2012[/editline] Exactly, so if an uneducated person and an educated person are vying for a job, who do you think will get the job?[/QUOTE] Erm. I can't become a lawyer just from my public schooling. I am required to get a college degree as a lawyer because of the [I]requirement[/I] of law school, prohibiting me to go into law if I don't have a degree.
[QUOTE=Zally13;36386835]Erm. I can't become a lawyer just from my public schooling. I am required to get a college degree as a lawyer because of the [I]requirement[/I] of law school, prohibiting me to go into law if I don't have a degree.[/QUOTE] And under a proper free education system you could go to that college and get that degree even if you were poor. Of course America doesn't have a proper free education system which is a problem.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.