• Free health care
    449 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36397315]I don't think the fact the state prints money has any relevance to the argument whatsoever... The state creating artificial inflation by printing more money is one of the most destructive things it does. Nobody argues that we shouldn't pay taxes because we don't use all the services. We argue it because we're being forced into this deal that we didn't consent to.[/QUOTE] Well then go move to Somalia if you don't like paying taxes. We vote in the governments, if we didn't want to be taxed we'd vote in a government that didn't tax us. Also governments inflate the money because if they don't we would go into economic collapse [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Noble;36397288] There never was any capitalism with no rules, especially not within the last century. There has been constant government intervention in the market [/QUOTE] Yeah because it's a terrible idea, which Britain realised during the Gladstone era.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36397055]Who prints your money? Oh yeah it's the fucking state, so it's only realistic that they'll demand some in return for the various services they provide you. Just because you don't make use of all those services doesn't mean you have the right not to pay money to the state.[/QUOTE] You are missing the point and you missed my latest post. I HAVE no problem paying taxes, but I do a problem paying taxes on UHC. Plus, your argument is fruitless and begs the question to the whole UHC debate.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36397416]Well then go move to Somalia if you don't like paying taxes. We vote in the governments, if we didn't want to be taxed we'd vote in a government that didn't tax us. Also governments inflate the money because if they don't we would go into economic collapse[/QUOTE] it's a good thing they're doing it then, otherwise you know, we might be in an economic collapse or sometihng. can you imagine how terrible that would be? We shouldn't have to abandon everything we value just because we don't want to have our labour coercively taken from us. They don't own the soil, or the people, or have the legitimacy to control who I associate with peacefully.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36397552]it's a good thing they're doing it then, otherwise you know, we might be in an economic collapse or sometihng. can you imagine how terrible that would be? We shouldn't have to abandon everything we value just because we don't want to have our labour coercively taken from us. They don't own the soil, or the people, or have the legitimacy to control who I associate with peacefully.[/QUOTE] Yeah and guess why we're in that collapse, oh yeah it's because of a lack of regulation on the banks so they ended up gambling away everyones money. The inflation is there to soften the blow. [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=QuikKill;36397550]You are missing the point and you missed my latest post. I HAVE no problem paying taxes, but I do a problem paying taxes on UHC. Plus, your argument is fruitless and begs the question to the whole UHC debate.[/QUOTE] Because only the rich deserve good health right!
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36397416]Also governments inflate the money because if they don't we would go into economic collapse[/QUOTE] I don't want to bring this too far off topic, but we're in this problem because we're living beyond our means (as a result of artificially low interest rates by central banks encouraging too much borrowing and not enough saving). If you keep these interest rates too low and encouraging all this spending, and keep printing the money and blowing up these bubbles even bigger (like they did in the 90s with the dot com bubble and with the housing bubble in the last decade) you're just going to have a bigger and more painful collapse later. It's better to do it early and deal with short term pain than deal with the much bigger disaster that would come later.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36397575]Because only the rich deserve good health right![/QUOTE] You have nothing good to say, so you spew out lies? Your credibility is fading by the second. Where did I say I only want healthcare for rich people? Like stated in the previous pages of this debate, US's healthcare system right now isn't the best, but UHC is not the option. My father's company is more than generous with insurance, they pay about half of it, for every hard working employee. I will not pay for criminals and slackers while they get free healthcare.
[QUOTE=QuikKill;36397678]You have nothing good to say, so you spew out lies? Your credibility is fading by the second. Where did I say I only want healthcare for rich people? Like stated in the previous pages of this debate, US's healthcare system right now isn't the best, but UHC is not the option. My father's company is more than generous with insurance, they pay about half of it, for every hard working employee. I will not pay for criminals and slackers while they get free healthcare.[/QUOTE] How isn't UHC an option? Plenty of countries use it effectively and most people in those countries agree it is a good thing. It's far better than forcing people on the minimum wage to have to pay thousands for a life saving operation. [QUOTE=QuikKill;36397678] My father's company is more than generous with insurance, they pay about half of it, for every hard working employee. I will not pay for criminals and slackers while they get free healthcare.[/QUOTE] I assume you can afford healthcare then considering you're probably middle class. How do you think poorer people are supposed to afford the thousands it costs to get surgery or needed drugs? Should we just leave them to die?
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36397701]How isn't UHC an option? Plenty of countries use it effectively and most people in those countries agree it is a good thing. It's far better than forcing people on the minimum wage to have to pay thousands for a life saving operation.[/QUOTE] I meant to put best option.
[QUOTE=QuikKill;36397717]I meant to put best option.[/QUOTE] What is the best option for the poor then?
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36397728]What is the best option for the poor then?[/QUOTE] And that's where this discussion has been. You want everyone have healthcare, but I don't want to pay for it. Some sort of modified private healthcare system with incentives and initiatives for the poor; while still being paid for.
[QUOTE=QuikKill;36397776]And that's where this discussion has been. You want everyone have healthcare, but I don't want to pay for it. Some sort of modified private healthcare system with incentives and initiatives for the poor; while still being paid for.[/QUOTE] Who else, other than the government, is going to pay for that?
It works really well in sweden. People having to raise money to get important surgery is just wrong.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;36397788]Who else, other than the government, is going to pay for that?[/QUOTE] Potentially anyone who manages to find innovative ways to provide the service effectively and efficiently and still make a living doing it. As long as people are capable of providing labour somebody wants, and there are effective ways of sharing the cost with [I]voluntary[/I] transactions (for example insurance, voluntary taxes, etc) and receiving the healthcare and other services they need, without having to threaten people with valuable skills with theft or violence.
Most swedes are content with paying high taxes because we get a lot back from it. Free education, free health care, free school meals (That aren't shit) and free dental service for people under 19.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36397867]Potentially anyone who manages to find innovative ways to provide the service effectively and efficiently and still make a living doing it. As long as people are capable of providing labour somebody wants, and there are effective ways of sharing the cost with [I]voluntary[/I] transactions (for example insurance, voluntary taxes, etc) and receiving the healthcare and other services they need, without having to threaten people with valuable skills with theft or violence.[/QUOTE] I would never want to entrust my life with insurance companies, they do everything they can to wiggle their way out of paying for your medical bills. Voluntary taxes would never work, ever, not enough people would opt into paying taxes for it to amount to anything. Taxes are required for society to function.
[QUOTE=Eric95;36397873]Most swedes are content with paying high taxes because we get a lot back from it. Free education, free health care, free school meals (That aren't shit) and free dental service for people under 19.[/QUOTE] But none of those are free though, and it isn't just a semantics issue. There's a huge difference between something that's paid for by taxes and something that is actually free. [QUOTE=carcarcargo;36397897]I would never want to entrust my life with insurance companies, they do everything they can to wiggle their way out of paying for your medical bills. Voluntary taxes would never work, ever, not enough people would opt into paying taxes for it to amount to anything. Taxes are required for society to function.[/QUOTE] Taxes are required for government services to function, not society
Imagine how popular an insurance company that [I]doesn't[/I] try to wiggle out of their commitments would be. I imagine there'd be a lot of business in something like that. Probably enough for it to be a profitable endeavour... Why wouldn't voluntary taxes work? If people don't exchange their labour as part of a voluntary tax, they don't get cancer treatment, and they only have themselves to blame. Unless you're so useless that you can't produce anything worth trading with, you have nothing to worry about.
[QUOTE=Noble;36397908] Taxes are required for government services to function, not society[/QUOTE] Government serviced provide the baseline for society and keep it running smoothly, so yeah I'm kind of right.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36397922]Imagine how popular an insurance company that [I]doesn't[/I] try to wiggle out of their commitments would be. I imagine there'd be a lot of business in something like that. Probably enough for it to be a profitable endeavour... Why wouldn't voluntary taxes work? If people don't exchange their labour as part of a voluntary tax, they don't get cancer treatment, and they only have themselves to blame. Unless you're so useless that you can't produce anything worth trading with, you have nothing to worry about.[/QUOTE] But what if someone is "useless" as you've put it? What if someone is disabled and can't work in an efficient enough manner to pay for one's health care? And what if one made poor financial decisions which resulted in bankruptcy, and needs immediate health care due to life-threatening health problems?
[QUOTE=GenPol;36397960]But what if someone is "useless" as you've put it? What if someone is disabled and can't work in an efficient enough manner to pay for one's health care? And what if one made poor financial decisions which resulted in bankruptcy, and needs immediate health care due to life-threatening health problems?[/QUOTE] Then we can rely on the compassion of others to voluntary give up their labour to help them receive healthcare. Better that than people like GenPol paying off a violent organisation like the police to go shake down somebody who provides a valuable service, in the name of compassion or "the greater good". [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] Why should somebody be forced to work for someone else's unrelated misfortune? Altruism is a virtue, [I]maybe,[/I] but it isn't an obligation.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36397960]But what if someone is "useless" as you've put it? What if someone is disabled and can't work in an efficient enough manner to pay for one's health care? And what if one made poor financial decisions which resulted in bankruptcy, and needs immediate health care due to life-threatening health problems?[/QUOTE] Poor financial decisions should not result in free healthcare, ever.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36397987]Then we can rely on the compassion of others to voluntary give up their labour to help them receive healthcare. Better that than people like GenPol paying off a violent organisation like the police to go shake down somebody who provides a valuable service, in the name of compassion or "the greater good". [editline]19th June 2012[/editline] Why should somebody be forced to work for someone else's unrelated misfortune? Altruism is a virtue, [I]maybe,[/I] but it isn't an obligation.[/QUOTE] "Then we can rely on the compassion of others to voluntary give up their labour to help them receive healthcare." What if the voluntary collected labor wouldn't even save 5% of those people? Should they be let to die?
[QUOTE=GenPol;36398093]"Then we can rely on the compassion of others to voluntary give up their labour to help them receive healthcare." What if the voluntary collected labor wouldn't even save 5% of those people? Should they be let to die?[/QUOTE] Perhaps not. If people aren't compassionate, you can't force them to be. I, however, feel quite strongly that most people value each other a great deal. Threatening people all the time is one way to coax any compassion people are feeling out of them.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36398252]Perhaps not. If people aren't compassionate, you can't force them to be. I, however, feel quite strongly that most people value each other a great deal. Threatening people all the time is one way to coax any compassion people are feeling out of them.[/QUOTE] "Perhaps not. If people aren't compassionate, you can't force them to be." So people who can't afford immediate health care for a life-threatening condition due to the lack of 'voluntary' funds should die, right? Because involuntary taxation is theft and is worse than saving someone's life, right?
I don't think it's necessarily worse, I just think people are encouraged to be happier, more fulfilled, more virtuous, when they're given the chance to be autonomous. You've got this idea that I think theft has "infinite moral disvalue" or something, saying that my arguments are circular, but I don't give any intrinsic moral value to any particular action. Homicide, theft, whatever. It doesn't matter. What I think matters is human beings realising virtues for themselves, rather than being forced to labour in spite of their values.
[QUOTE=QuikKill;36386002]Why? Why do you have the right to spend my money?[/QUOTE] Yea how DARE the government take our money to make roads, pay for schools and services like firefighters and the police.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;36398449]I don't think it's necessarily worse, I just think people are encouraged to be happier, more fulfilled, more virtuous, when they're given the chance to be autonomous. You've got this idea that I think theft has "infinite moral disvalue" or something, saying that my arguments are circular, but I don't give any intrinsic moral value to any particular action. Homicide, theft, whatever. It doesn't matter. What I think matters is human beings realising virtues for themselves, rather than being forced to labour in spite of their values.[/QUOTE] "So people who can't afford immediate health care for a life-threatening condition due to the lack of 'voluntary' funds should die, right?" Please answer. Don't avoid this question.
In a genuine free market with no large coercive bodies, unfortunately, if nobody is willing to voluntarily fund their healthcare, we cannot legitimately make them. So I guess 'yes' is the answer you're after. However we're a long way off the genuine free market, and there's too much irrationality in the negotiations people make in society right now, so as a result money isn't good enough a reflection of a human being's value and hence carries no weight in the discussion. I am talking about a very particular kind of money which isn't even comparable to the sort of exchanges that are made today.
[QUOTE=Levithan;36398533]Yea how DARE the government take our money to make roads, pay for schools and services like firefighters and the police.[/QUOTE] Try to keep up with the debate and stop bringing up old posts or leave. I already explained this.
[QUOTE=Levithan;36398533]Yea how DARE the government take our money to make roads, pay for schools and services like firefighters and the police.[/QUOTE] A free market society could easily provide all those services, but the service in question here is health care and whether anyone actually has a right to it any more than they have a right to, for example, have the government provide them with healthy food at other people's expense.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.