Free Universal Healthcare

Marxman

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Did you by chance get the idea for this thread by seeing Sicko? I hate Michael Moore, but I thought it was really good. France has free healthcare and college...a la velga guey! The US should adopt that, it would save me from giving 11,000 a semester to WUSL for my son's college. He put the spotlight on it but I've been interested in this since I got sick back in 2005. The fact of the matter is that if my father's job didn't provide Healthcare insurance I would probably be dead now. Why? Only those who can afford it are allowed to live?

Recently my friend came down with a bad case of strep throat. He didn't have insurance so they gave him one bolus on IV anti-biotics and sent him on his way, even though his throat was still bad enough that he couldn't even talk. They gave him prescriptions for anti-biotics and painkillers. They painkillers were $12 while the anti-biotics were $93! He couldn't afford it and had to spend 2 more days waiting for his grandmother to come and pay for him. He was two shades away from death and yet he couldn't do anything. Why? Because the Pharmaceutical companies have our countries balls in a vice grip.

Storm

This explains it the best.

Belgium: Social security

Everything you have always wanted to know about social security.

RedAlertv2

Pretty biased poll options. But yes, I believe in the idea of universal healthcare

Victor Von Doom

Why should poor people get health care?

Idiots.

2D_MASTER

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Why should poor people get health care?

Idiots.

Because America loves to support lazy bums?

dadudemon

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Why should poor people get health care?

Idiots.

Originally posted by 2D_MASTER
Because America loves to support lazy bums?

So you guys subscribe to the idea that poor people CAN help their situation if they wanted to? (This is not a trap...this is a legitimate question for you two...I just want to know you honest thoughts about it.)

backdoorman

I love the "free" part of the title.

Victor Von Doom

Originally posted by dadudemon
So you guys subscribe to the idea that poor people CAN help their situation if they wanted to? (This is not a trap...this is a legitimate question for you two...I just want to know you honest thoughts about it.)

I'm sure some might be able to help their situation; though, that is a separate issue.

'Free healthcare' is an ideal towards which all countries should aspire.

dadudemon

Originally posted by backdoorman
I love the "free" part of the title.

indeed...it isn't free in france either...it is all paid for by the taxes...and guess who pays the taxes?

There a very few things that are free..death is free...disease is free...natural disasters are free, etc.

Marxman

"Free" refers only to what you would have to pay at the time of your doctor's visit, surgery, or when getting prescriptions filled out.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Why should poor people get health care?

Idiots. Why shouldn't they?

Idiot.

But regardless, healthcare is so expensive that even middle class families can afford it. My family sure as hell isn't rich but we're not poor and yet if I wasn't covered under my father's healthcare plan there would have been no way for us to afford the three surgeries and all the medications I had to take over the past 10 months.

2D_MASTER

Originally posted by Marxman

Why shouldn't they?

Idiot.

Damn, you sure told him...

dadudemon

Originally posted by 2D_MASTER
Damn, you sure told him...

LOL!!! laughing

But how can you mock someone who is mocking someone? That has always confused me? sad

Marxman

Originally posted by 2D_MASTER
Damn, you sure told him... As for your comment. Healthcare would only cover things needed for medical purposes. A drunken homeless man off the street with liver disease won't get a transplant because he fits the profile of one who would only destroy his new liver.

2D_MASTER

Originally posted by Marxman
As for your comment. Healthcare would only cover things needed for medical purposes. A drunken homeless man off the street with liver disease won't get a transplant because he fits the profile of one who would only destroy his new liver.

You don't need to be homeless to be considered a "bum"...

Originally posted by dadudemon
LOL!!! laughing

But how can you mock someone who is mocking someone? That has always confused me? sad

Where's this "mocking" you speak of?

Rogue Jedi

Originally posted by Robtard
You socialist cocksmoker! I'm not going to pay extra taxes so some no-tax paying, drug addicted, homeless, immigrant prostitute can get a free shot of Novocaine and stitches, to patch her up after her latest "John" Donkey-Punched her and then gave her a Cleveland-Steamer while she was out cold! <--- Conservative answer kinda like the public paying for abortions. wink

Marxman

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
kinda like the public paying for abortions. wink

Again, universal healthcare would be used for medical purposes only. Abortions required for the sake of the mother would be covered but if a girl walks in and wants to get rid of the baby she'd have to pay out of her own pocket.

No one has said anything yet that would prove that universal healthcare is a bad thing.

Victor Von Doom

Originally posted by Marxman

Why shouldn't they?

Idiot.

You might like to look for A) irony, and B) my subsequent post.

Check, and...idiot.

Rogue Jedi

Originally posted by Marxman
Again, universal healthcare would be used for medical purposes only. Abortions required for the sake of the mother would be covered but if a girl walks in and wants to get rid of the baby she'd have to pay out of her own pocket.

No one has said anything yet that would prove that universal healthcare is a bad thing. It would be a GREAT thing, but it's not really feasible.

Marxman

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
It would be a GREAT thing, but it's not really feasible. How can you even say that? Most civilized countries have universal healthcare. FFS, our next door neighbors to the north (Canada if you couldn't figure that out) has it! America is supposed to be this great super power in the world. Why can't I get my fcuking temperature taken without having to pay my co-pay first?

WrathfulDwarf

To me UH is practically saying well advance countries are gonna pay for 3rd World countries medical bills.

Can't wait to see how millions of Chinese are going to help pay the medical bills of millions of hindus in India.

...

...and vice versa...

(not been negative it's just and observation)

Victor Von Doom

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
It would be a GREAT thing, but it's not really feasible.

How can you possibly make such a sweeping, yet wrong, statement?

Seems like you just said any old BS.

D-did you?

Marxman

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
To me UH is practically saying well advance countries are gonna pay for 3rd World countries medical bills.

Can't wait to see how millions of Chinese are going to help pay the medical bills of millions of hindus in India.

...

...and vice versa...

(not been negative it's just and observation) I don't understand what you mean. We're talking about within countries. Our tax dollars for universal healthcare isn't going to be supporting Venezuela.

WrathfulDwarf

Originally posted by Marxman
I don't understand what you mean. We're talking about within countries. Our tax dollars for universal healthcare isn't going to be supporting Venezuela.

Oh, Okie-dokie...

Bardock42

So, can someone explain that to me. Why should we pay for the health of others?

Rogue Jedi

Originally posted by Bardock42
So, can someone explain that to me. Why should we pay for the health of others? why should we pay for others abortions?

Bardock42

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
why should we pay for others abortions? W-we shouldn't.

Stop being a moron though, that is not the topic

Rogue Jedi

Originally posted by Bardock42
W-we shouldn't.

Stop being a moron though, that is not the topic free universal healthcare would be great. unfortunately, people would take advantage.

Victor Von Doom

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
free universal healthcare would be great. unfortunately, people would take advantage.

Of being treated for illness?

Lana

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Of being treated for illness?

Well, OBVIOUSLY going to see a doctor when you're ill is taking advantage of the system. Didn't you realize that?

Bardock42

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
free universal healthcare would be great. unfortunately, people would take advantage.

God, it's so hard being against universial health care with all the idiots agreeing...

dadudemon

Originally posted by Bardock42
God, it's so hard being against universial health care with all the idiots agreeing...

Right...I am fine with landing a nice corporate job because of the hard work and experience I put into my resume to land this job...I pay for my medical costs through my group plan...but on the downside...I am also paying for the medical care for everyone that gets medical care under my group plan because I don't use my insurance very often because....I take care of my body!!! mad

Bardock42

Originally posted by dadudemon
Right...I am fine with landing a nice corporate job because of the hard work and experience I put into my resume to land this job...I pay for my medical costs through my group plan...but on the downside...I am also paying for the medical care for everyone that gets medical care under my group plan because I don't use my insurance very often because....I take care of my body!!! mad

All universal health care would do for me is cause me to have to pay more taxes for something I don't use...I am perfectly fine..paying for healthcare for the large company I work for...But that is my opinion! That's kinda the point. You do not have an obligation to pay for the shit of everyone.

Victor Von Doom

All universal health care would do for me is cause me to have to pay more taxes for something I don't use...I am perfectly fine..paying for healthcare for the large company I work for...But that is my opinion!

Having a 'plan' is optional when healthcare is available to all.

Also, there's no real way modern society could function if people only paid specifically for things relating to themselves.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Having a 'plan' is optional when healthcare is available to all.

Also, there's no real way modern society could function if people only paid specifically for things relating to themselves.

OH!!!! I see...so you are saying that I don't have to have a plan at all if health was AVAILABLE to all...in other words...I am not forced into coverage?

Still, even if you opted for no coverage...logic dictates that there would still be a tax increase-with inflation as a calculated variable because the setup of the system would take years to settle-related to the universal health care implementation, relative to the pre-universalized health care system.

Epiphanies are great aren't they? big grin

Edit-This is why government should never have one absolute ruler...different perspectives create a better governing body.

Bardock42

Victor Von Doom

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am not quite sure if that's true. Besides, maybe modern society is not that great then.

Well, taxes are going to feature regardless. Anything else won't function.

Originally posted by dadudemon
OH!!!! I see...so you are saying that I don't have to have a plan at all if health was AVAILABLE to all...in other words...I am not forced into coverage?

Still, even if you opted for no coverage...logic dictates that there would still be a tax increase-with inflation as a calculated variable because the setup of the system would take years to settle-related to the universal health care implementation, relative to the pre-universalized health care system.

Screwed then ain't ya.

Bardock42

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Well, taxes are going to feature regardless. Anything else won't function.

Course, well, probably. Question is whether that should be paired for.

Marxman

Paying taxes for healthcare is no less important than paying taxes for other civic services. How many times have you had to call the police, yet you pay taxes for that. How many of your houses almost burnt down, yet you pay taxes for protection from them. Good health is a basic necessity of all human beings, as is safety from crime and fire, and it should be available to everyone.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Edit-This is why government should never have one absolute ruler...different perspectives create a better governing body. But then you never get anything done wink

dadudemon

Originally posted by Marxman
Paying taxes for healthcare is no less important than paying taxes for other civic services. How many times have you had to call the police, yet you pay taxes for that. How many of your houses almost burnt down, yet you pay taxes for protection from them. Good health is a basic necessity of all human beings, as is safety from crime and fire, and it should be available to everyone.

This is a flawed comparison. I never use health care...ever...but I always use the ambient law protection that I pay taxes for...without law enforcement being around...eventually, my environment would be ruled by criminals and I would not have as much freedom anymore...however...I am not affect in anyway shape or form when I don't pay for health care for myself via taxes...I have been surviving for many years without insurance and now I am just now paying for it?

Analogies are hard to make without some sort of flaw.

Originally posted by Marxman
But then you never get anything done wink

Yeah, that is true...but technically, you really get things done...but it takes forever...

Marxman

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is a flawed comparison. I never use health care...ever...but I always use the ambient law protection that I pay taxes for...without law enforcement being around...eventually, my environment would be ruled by criminals and I would not have as much freedom anymore...however...I am not affect in anyway shape or form when I don't pay for health care for myself via taxes...I have been surviving for many years without insurance and now I am just now paying for it?

Analogies are hard to make without some sort of flaw.

Yeah, that is true...but technically, you really get things done...but it takes forever... You have yet found a need for it. No one is immortal. You will eventually need healthcare. Maybe when you're old, simply for....old people stuff. You would most likely be retired and thus not be under any plan from any job you might have had in the past. Your main source of income would be any pension, if any, you had from your previous job, which will in all likelihood, not be enough to pay for healthcare insurance.

EVERYONE needs healthcare, its just a matter of time.

Creshosk

Its one of those "I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it." sort of things.

Like recently when I got bitten by a brown recluse, got sinusitus and pneumonia at the same time, then got a nosebleed...

�P0oONY

Originally posted by Creshosk
Its one of those "I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it." sort of things.

Like recently when I got bitten by a brown recluse, got sinusitus and pneumonia at the same time, then got a nosebleed... Haha, because you really need healthcare for the nosebleed... stick out tongue

(Unless you're hemophiliac of course.)

Bardock42

Originally posted by Creshosk
Its one of those "I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it." sort of things.

Like recently when I got bitten by a brown recluse, got sinusitus and pneumonia at the same time, then got a nosebleed...

I sure wish someone with your point of view had some way of making it happen then ....

Hey....wait a second...there are insurances. You can actually do it without forcing everyone else to do it too. Wowy.

RedAlertv2

But obviously not everyone can pay for insurance in the first place.

Rogue Jedi

Originally posted by Lana
Well, OBVIOUSLY going to see a doctor when you're ill is taking advantage of the system. Didn't you realize that? Thats not what I meant. Whenever you hand out services for free, the users and abusers come out of the woodwork. Just look at the FEMA situation with hurricane Katrina.

vinz07

when calamities occurred, so many charities gave their donations but look what happened....politicians put in their pockets for personal USE...

Fishy

Originally posted by Bardock42
I sure wish someone with your point of view had some way of making it happen then ....

Hey....wait a second...there are insurances. You can actually do it without forcing everyone else to do it too. Wowy.

The real question here is, do you feel that a government has the responsibility to make sure all of it's citizens receive care when they need it? Or do you think that all citizens should just take care of themselves and the government should do as little as possible with the people.

I personally like Universal Health care, it makes sure people can get treatment if they need it. Of course it's a hugely expensive program that needs a lot of competition in order to keep it up to standards so it's not exactly easy to implement in a good way, but still worth the try if you ask me.

Bardock42

Originally posted by RedAlertv2
But obviously not everyone can pay for insurance in the first place.

But why do they deserve it then?Originally posted by Fishy
The real question here is, do you feel that a government has the responsibility to make sure all of it's citizens receive care when they need it? Or do you think that all citizens should just take care of themselves and the government should do as little as possible with the people.

I personally like Universal Health care, it makes sure people can get treatment if they need it. Of course it's a hugely expensive program that needs a lot of competition in order to keep it up to standards so it's not exactly easy to implement in a good way, but still worth the try if you ask me. I think people should for the most part take care for themselves. Another problem with Universial Health Care is that it of course gives people the right to impose more demands on others. Like "If I pay for you you sure don't smoke them cigarettes. Every cigarette you smoke is like burning my money" or other things along those lines.

inimalist

Bardock et al: You make a wonderful moral point. People should take care of themselves, the state has no right to mandate personal health, and it can be used to guilt or force people to stop smoking or live an otherwise healthier lifestyle.

I totally see that point and on almost all issues would agree with you. However, with something like universal health I don't think the jury is still out. Even the most basic analysis will show overall benefit to the state and to people in general. Do I think the state should have a monopoly on healthcare, of course not, but making sure that poverty is not a direct cause of death is, unless you are absurdly ideologically commited to your POV, is as justifiable as any other government institution. If you are going to make the glib pseudo-anarchist remark, my recommendation is to unplug your computer and live in the woods.

Bardock42

Originally posted by inimalist
Bardock et al: You make a wonderful moral point. People should take care of themselves, the state has no right to mandate personal health, and it can be used to guilt or force people to stop smoking or live an otherwise healthier lifestyle.

I totally see that point and on almost all issues would agree with you. However, with something like universal health I don't think the jury is still out. Even the most basic analysis will show overall benefit to the state and to people in general. Do I think the state should have a monopoly on healthcare, of course not, but making sure that poverty is not a direct cause of death is, unless you are absurdly ideologically commited to your POV, is as justifiable as any other government institution. If you are going to make the glib pseudo-anarchist remark, my recommendation is to unplug your computer and live in the woods. I usually don't make anarchist remarks. Libertarian, that's my thing, for the reason you stated...I like my computer and to live in great societies. What I don't really like that much is paying money for services that I could get better and cheaper just because someone else can't afford them. Now, I am not set on health care, I have my doubts in a way. But there are many arguments against it and really just a few for it and they are on a rather subjective moral basis.

Well, let us try this, people that are for universal health care state how their system would work and what they think the advantages and disadvantages are....also how much they think it would cost and what other legislature would have to come with it, then I have a better chance to explaining why I think that should or should not be the case, because, frankly, though I thought about the subject (probably more than some people that participated in this thread) I did not think of a system that really made me say..."hey...that's good, the good parts maybe even outweigh the bad ones".

Victor Von Doom

To follow that line of thinking though, there could be no taxation. Then everyone would be an individual entity, and it just wouldn't work.

Nice in theory (possibly), but untenable.

inimalist

Originally posted by Bardock42
I usually don't make anarchist remarks. Libertarian, that's my thing, for the reason you stated...I like my computer and to live in great societies. What I don't really like that much is paying money for services that I could get better and cheaper just because someone else can't afford them. Now, I am not set on health care, I have my doubts in a way. But there are many arguments against it and really just a few for it and they are on a rather subjective moral basis.

Well, let us try this, people that are for universal health care state how their system would work and what they think the advantages and disadvantages are....also how much they think it would cost and what other legislature would have to come with it, then I have a better chance to explaining why I think that should or should not be the case, because, frankly, though I thought about the subject (probably more than some people that participated in this thread) I did not think of a system that really made me say..."hey...that's good, the good parts maybe even outweigh the bad ones".

I don't think that last part is necessary, given your feelings on the first.

This is not to critiscize, just to say that if you really have a moral objecion to paying for my health care, I probably wont convince you that it is something you really want to do.

The best I can say is that, to live in one of those great societies everyone has to make sacrifices. A great society cannot rest upon the absolute power of the state or of the individual, but must try to do the most good without doing any harm.

Now, I know that taking money from you at gun point to support me because I got HIV from interveinous drug use is wrong. Its terrible. That is your money. But like, I don't think that morality is or should be applicable to the state. Not to mimic Bentham too much, but the good that comes from the slight invonveniance to your paycheque, imho, far outweighs the negative effect. I also do not see this as THAT immoral of an incursion into the private sphere by government, again, justified because the good to the state outweighs the negative being done to doctors who want to practice without government intervention.

If we want to be really in depth, I don't think the state should be in total control of the medical industry, and people who can afford it should be encoraged to use a private system as opposed to a public one. I think this would have the benefit of opening up high end care that is not as available in a public system as it is in a private one, but still provide the basic needs to people.

Bardock42

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
To follow that line of thinking though, there could be no taxation. Then everyone would be an individual entity, and it just wouldn't work.

Nice in theory (possibly), but untenable.

Not really. The issue of health care is very debated. To force everyone to pay for it seems unfair, especially since there are other possible solutions. Taxes are in a way voluntarily. You should just pay for services you get and the matter of the fact is that you get worse service with universal health care than with private systems and also more expensive.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think that last part is necessary, given your feelings on the first.

This is not to critiscize, just to say that if you really have a moral objecion to paying for my health care, I probably wont convince you that it is something you really want to do.

The best I can say is that, to live in one of those great societies everyone has to make sacrifices. A great society cannot rest upon the absolute power of the state or of the individual, but must try to do the most good without doing any harm.

Now, I know that taking money from you at gun point to support me because I got HIV from interveinous drug use is wrong. Its terrible. That is your money. But like, I don't think that morality is or should be applicable to the state. Not to mimic Bentham too much, but the good that comes from the slight invonveniance to your paycheque, imho, far outweighs the negative effect. I also do not see this as THAT immoral of an incursion into the private sphere by government, again, justified because the good to the state outweighs the negative being done to doctors who want to practice without government intervention.

If we want to be really in depth, I don't think the state should be in total control of the medical industry, and people who can afford it should be encoraged to use a private system as opposed to a public one. I think this would have the benefit of opening up high end care that is not as available in a public system as it is in a private one, but still provide the basic needs to people.

I don't have a moral objection to paying your health care given I benefit from it. Lets be honest, that's what governments are about, we give up freedoms (sometimes in form of rights sometimes in form of money) to get a benefit. We want to get from San Francisco to Los Angeles and we want it fast because we need to do business in Los Angeles so we pay taxes for it...not because I want you to have the advantage, I don't really give a shit about you, I want it. I am in this society for my own benefit (as are you, honestly....).

Health Care now is an issue where some people will benefit incredibly while other will not at all. And that is not fair. I understand that we get conditioned to believe that we are in societies for the common good, but **** that, we aren't. We pay taxes and agree to laws because we are selfish bastards that don't want to be killed....

So, yes, if you have a reasonable system...that is based around the advantage for everyone. Not a few people that can't afford it, I am here to listen. I am not set on issues, in fact I use this board to form many of my opinions....so if I say something incredibly stupid there's a good chance you can convince me.

Now try!

(also, I am all for Bentham, so prove that the good outweighs the bad ... it doesn't seem obvious to me...you seem like an intelligent person, I am sure you considered the downsides...they are manifold...so I figure the ups should be too)

exanda kane

I've never understood the "conservative" argument against free healthcare. Then again, I confess it is probably due to growing up in a country with NHS, that the argument for and against it seems backwards. I pay my taxes and I have no problem knowing that my money is being spent on medical treatment for those in need.

Fishy

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not really. The issue of health care is very debated. To force everyone to pay for it seems unfair, especially since there are other possible solutions. Taxes are in a way voluntarily. You should just pay for services you get and the matter of the fact is that you get worse service with universal health care than with private systems and also more expensive.

I don't have a moral objection to paying your health care given I benefit from it. Lets be honest, that's what governments are about, we give up freedoms (sometimes in form of rights sometimes in form of money) to get a benefit. We want to get from San Francisco to Los Angeles and we want it fast because we need to do business in Los Angeles so we pay taxes for it...not because I want you to have the advantage, I don't really give a shit about you, I want it. I am in this society for my own benefit (as are you, honestly....).

Health Care now is an issue where some people will benefit incredibly while other will not at all. And that is not fair. I understand that we get conditioned to believe that we are in societies for the common good, but **** that, we aren't. We pay taxes and agree to laws because we are selfish bastards that don't want to be killed....

So, yes, if you have a reasonable system...that is based around the advantage for everyone. Not a few people that can't afford it, I am here to listen. I am not set on issues, in fact I use this board to form many of my opinions....so if I say something incredibly stupid there's a good chance you can convince me.

Now try!

(also, I am all for Bentham, so prove that the good outweighs the bad ... it doesn't seem obvious to me...you seem like an intelligent person, I am sure you considered the downsides...they are manifold...so I figure the ups should be too)

Well if you limit universal health care to provide for those that can't provide themselves and those that don't risk their health in excessive ways (like driving while drunk, or addictions to alcohol, drugs and crap like that) you could perhaps argue the economical benefit from it.

Somebody who gets health care with the ability to get healed has the ability to find a job again after that, instead if said person would remain sick and die a long and slow painful dead that person would probably get welfare checks, could resort to crime and would never pay for anything he or she uses again. Poor people are economical disasters.

Victor Von Doom

Bardock42

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
This is one of those where you have started discussing before thinking it right through, isn't it?

It wouldn't work that way- no modern society has, or could work things that way.

In terms of health care only, the US does (badly). The point is though, it's a silly decision to make health care separate from taxes and government when taxes are used for war, and other things of the kind. There would have to be no central government (with any money) in order to properly follow the line of logic through to its conclusion.

Wouldn't work.

You tend to apply ideology to real life situations, without realising that the real life situations evolve naturally from them.

Unless you apply the same dicta to every single issue on which taxes are spent. I disagree in a way. I believe that you can very well be against health care and for wars as they can benefit a country on a whole immensely.

I think that, though of course I might be wrong about the health care thing, to disregard it without giving good reasons seems odd.

Also, logically I don't think that no central government and no taxes follow from my statement. At least I don't see how, would be delighted if you could clarify.

Originally posted by Fishy
Well if you limit universal health care to provide for those that can't provide themselves and those that don't risk their health in excessive ways (like driving while drunk, or addictions to alcohol, drugs and crap like that) you could perhaps argue the economical benefit from it.

Somebody who gets health care with the ability to get healed has the ability to find a job again after that, instead if said person would remain sick and die a long and slow painful dead that person would probably get welfare checks, could resort to crime and would never pay for anything he or she uses again. Poor people are economical disasters.

How are poor people an economic disaster again?

Also, if just healthy living and poor people get the benefits, will just healthy living and poor people pay for it. How does the system you propose work?

The Grey Fox

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I would have to see how it would work. There is a lot of corruption in the world, so how would it work?

Trust me, it does. In England, it is just a principal; it's been around for as long as I can think back, and before that too, it's just part of the way we live.

Bardock42

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
Trust me, it does. In England, it is just a principal; it's been around for as long as I can think back, and before that too, it's just part of the way we live.

Yeah, just that it will collapes the next few days.

We have health care here too, and it is a shit system that just doesn't support itself and also severely damages competition as well as being explouted.

Victor Von Doom

Originally posted by Bardock42
I disagree in a way. I believe that you can very well be against health care and for wars as they can benefit a country on a whole immensely.

Health care benefits a society though, because...well, it's clear.

Originally posted by Bardock42

Also, logically I don't think that no central government and no taxes follow from my statement. At least I don't see how, would be delighted if you could clarify.

Fron arbitrarily deciding the way in which health care is accessed, it follows that the same approach should be applied to all similar issues. Thus everyone should have their own policeman. People's access to protection from attack should be governed by economics. It's just getting into a realm where things get silly.

What about defensive wars? How would you ensure the army is paid for only by the people that can pay, and only protects the people that did?

TheBullDog

I run a yogurt company. I figure that yogurt is better than ice cream. Therefore, I'm helping Americans to be healthier.

Think globally, act locally.

Bardock42

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Health care benefits a society though, because...well, it's clear.

Fron arbitrarily deciding the way in which health care is accessed, it follows that the same approach should be applied to all similar issues. Thus everyone should have their own policeman. People's access to protection from attack should be governed by economics. It's just getting into a realm where things get silly.

What about defensive wars? How would you ensure the army is paid for only by the people that can pay, and only protects the people that did?

No, it isn't. Sorry.

I am not, it is a very different issue though. I mean you do realize the other side of your argument is that if you have health care, why not also give all collected taxes to one person? I mean, the person benefits from it and it doesn't hurt you that much.

Both are slippery slope arguments and I don't agree with either, it should be judged on a case to case basis (which by the way was what I meant, sorry if it came across as ideologically stating that everything has to benefit everybody equally, that I certainly did not mean, but I am sure you agree there must be a line drawn somewhere).

Victor Von Doom

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, it isn't. Sorry.

You remain frsutratingly unpractical at times.

Originally posted by Bardock42

I am not, it is a very different issue though. I mean you do realize the other side of your argument is that if you have health care, why not also give all collected taxes to one person? I mean, the person benefits from it and it doesn't hurt you that much.

That's not the case. By electing a government, you agree to pay taxes towards causes that will benefit the electorate. Why would that be comparable to giving all taxes to a single person? It's a bizarre point.

You don't agree that to pay taxes to benefit *someone* for not much personal inconvenience.

Originally posted by Bardock42

Both are slippery slope arguments and I don't agree with either, it should be judged on a case to case basis (which by the way was what I meant, sorry if it came across as ideologically stating that everything has to benefit everybody equally, that I certainly did not mean, but I am sure you agree there must be a line drawn somewhere).

I do not refer to a slippery slope, though. I refer to following through an arbitrary system so that it applies to all issues, rather than selectively. It's not a slippery slope- it's applying the paradigm evenly.

Bardock42

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
You remain frsutratingly unpractical at times.

I am just not sure how it is clear that health care benefits society more than it hurts it.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
That's not the case. By electing a government, you agree to pay taxes towards causes that will benefit the electorate. Why would that be comparable to giving all taxes to a single person? It's a bizarre point.

You don't agree that to pay taxes to benefit *someone* for not much personal inconvenience.

I agree it is a bizarre point, just like yours.

You say that by following my logic I would have to abolish all taxes that are not used to benefit everyone equally, so you say that I say that taxes should benefit everyone.

I made the point that you saying that is just as flawed as me claiming that by refuting that point you'd have to go as far as to say that taxes can also just benefit one person.

They are both ridiculous statements. And we do not believe either, in fact we stand in the middle somewhere, just a bit apart on the issue of health care.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I do not refer to a slippery slope, though. I refer to following through an arbitrary system so that it applies to all issues, rather than selectively. It's not a slippery slope- it's applying the paradigm evenly.

It's applying an ideology that I do not hold and have not stated to it's full extend. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Victor Von Doom

Originally posted by Bardock42

I agree it is a bizarre point, just like yours.

You say that by following my logic I would have to abolish all taxes that are not used to benefit everyone equally, so you say that I say that taxes should benefit everyone.

No. If taxes are ever used in a disproportionate way, then you must always argue against that. Therefore, there is no point applying that to healthcare, and not to everything.

Originally posted by Bardock42

I made the point that you saying that is just as flawed as me claiming that by refuting that point you'd have to go as far as to say that taxes can also just benefit one person.

I didn't say that, though.

I said by your own logic, if you rail against paying out of proportion, then you must always do so, logically.

Originally posted by Bardock42

They are both ridiculous statements. And we do not believe either, in fact we stand in the middle somewhere, just a bit apart on the issue of health care.

I don't believe either- but the first follows from the position that you take. If you don't want to pay towards healthcare other than your own, follow it through properly, otherwise it's an arbitrary decision.

Originally posted by Bardock42

It's applying an ideology that I do not hold and have not stated to it's full extend. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Though by not holding it, you hold an illogical position. You merely object to paying for other people's health.

To that extent, it is derived from the current issue. Unless you have specific issues with paying for healthcare, then you are not actually speaking about healthcare, you are speaking about paying for things that you do not personally use. Hence, an unworkable system.

Bardock42

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
No. If taxes are ever used in a disproportionate way, then you must always argue against that. Therefore, there is no point applying that to healthcare, and not to everything.

How does that logically follow?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I didn't say that, though.

I said by your own logic, if you rail against paying out of proportion, then you must always do so, logically.

But that is incorrect. I can also draw a line at some point, logically.

Just like you do...you think giving all tax money to one person is out of proportion, I think giving it to a bigger extend to poor people is out of proportion. You apply the same logic I do, but draw the line at a different point.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom

I don't believe either- but the first follows from the position that you take. If you don't want to pay towards healthcare other than your own, follow it through properly, otherwise it's an arbitrary decision.

Not really. What taxes are spend on is always up for debate and whether it is spend on a too small part of the electing people is certainly a valid reason, which you (and everyone would agree with here) if it was about whether the Northern Baptist Church of Ohio gets a tax funding to build their new church while no one else does.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom

Though by not holding it, you hold an illogical position. You merely object to paying for other people's health.

I do not, as I have shown. And as I have said I don't necessarily object to paying for other people's health...if I get something out of it too.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom

To that extent, it is derived from the current issue. Unless you have specific issues with paying for healthcare, then you are not actually speaking about healthcare, you are speaking about paying for things that you do not personally use. Hence, an unworkable system.

Not sure what you are getting at

The Grey Fox

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, just that it will collapes the next few days.

We have health care here too, and it is a shit system that just doesn't support itself and also severely damages competition as well as being explouted.

It won't collapse. It hasn;t done so for over 100 years. How do you feel now?

Victor Von Doom

Originally posted by Bardock42
How does that logically follow?

You make an economical point, therefore you should always apply the reasoning. Why only apply it to healthcare?

If you start from a point of view of money, then all money issues should be dealt with the same way- otherwise, you aren't using money as the reasoning, you are using this particular issue.

Why not apply the precise use of money to only benefit the person whose money it is to every single issue?

The rest is away from the point.

Originally posted by Bardock42

Not sure what you are getting at

An appropriate smiley.

Originally posted by Bardock42

Just like you do...you think giving all tax money to one person is out of proportion, I think giving it to a bigger extend to poor people is out of proportion. You apply the same logic I do, but draw the line at a different point.

That's not correct. It's to benefit the electing body as a whole.

Originally posted by Bardock42

I do not, as I have shown. And as I have said I don't necessarily object to paying for other people's health...if I get something out of it too.

Exactly. Then you must apply this to everything. You can't keep saying it doesn't apply to all issues, and comparing it to giving everything to one person- that's not a proper comparison.

Bardock42

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
You make an economical point, therefore you should always apply the reasoning. Why only apply it to healthcare?

If you start from a point of view of money, then all money issues should be dealt with the same way- otherwise, you aren't using money as the reasoning, you are using this particular issue.

Why not apply the precise use of money to only benefit the person whose money it is to every single issue?

B-but I apply it to all issues...

Fishy

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
It won't collapse. It hasn;t done so for over 100 years. How do you feel now?

There is a reason why most health care advantages are being made in country's where the health care system is not universal. It makes inventing new things worthwhile, while in other country's there is no need to do better because you get paid anyway. Competition creates necessity to advance, thus improving the quality of health care.

Poor people cost the state money instead of bringing in money, meaning bad for business. The less poor people you have, the better the economy the more the country can do financially speaking.

As for the system, it would provide the care people need to the people that can't afford it themselves. It would also force everybody to get insurance if they can afford it. Making sure that everybody gets the health care they need. There are however people out there that can't afford insurance, or haven't paid it long enough to deserve the operations required to make their lives normal again. In some of those cases it would be economically smarter to pay for the medical bill then to pay for welfare checks.

On the other hand doing something like that, would destroy universal health care anyway, as there are few people incapable of paying for insurance who do have jobs.

Victor Von Doom

Originally posted by Bardock42
B-but I apply it to all issues...

Then what the **** are you arguing about?

Time-waster.

Trains ran on time and then this.

The Grey Fox

VVD loves to insult.

Victor Von Doom

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
VVD loves to insult.

Nah, he enjoys them. He's a sub.

Bardock42

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Then what the **** are you arguing about?

Time-waster.

Trains ran on time and then this. About health care. And why I am not sure whether it is necessary. Some might say, the issue at hand.

Originally posted by Fishy

Poor people cost the state money instead of bringing in money, meaning bad for business. The less poor people you have, the better the economy the more the country can do financially speaking.

I agree. So, them dying is a good thing.

Also, poor people are partly (not all) poor because they are just not as capable as others. Even curing them from diseases will not change that they can not provide any worthwhile services.
Originally posted by Fishy

As for the system, it would provide the care people need to the people that can't afford it themselves. It would also force everybody to get insurance if they can afford it. Making sure that everybody gets the health care they need. There are however people out there that can't afford insurance, or haven't paid it long enough to deserve the operations required to make their lives normal again. In some of those cases it would be economically smarter to pay for the medical bill then to pay for welfare checks.

so, why not jsut make private insurance mandatory? Or...well, not **** with people who don't want to be insured. And that might be true, but that doesn't mean that healthcare is a win-win system.

Victor Von Doom

Originally posted by Bardock42
About health care. And why I am not sure whether it is necessary. Some might say, the issue at hand.

Fool.

What is it in Germany?

Fishy

Them dying costs money, them being healthy so they can get a job costs less.

Well making insurance mandatory would also do what is needed. As long as people can afford it.

Bardock42

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Fool.

What is it in Germany?

What "fool" is in Germany.

What?

What?

Originally posted by Fishy
Them dying costs money, them being healthy so they can get a job costs less.

Well making insurance mandatory would also do what is needed. As long as people can afford it.

T-them dying costs less money than paying for them not to die. In fact, it is free.

"needed"? It is not "needed"

Shantie

Healthcare should be provided by the government and peopel should pay for it with taxes. It's not gonna be free. Nothing is free.

Creshosk

Rogue Jedi

Originally posted by Shantie
Healthcare should be provided by the government and peopel should pay for it with taxes. It's not gonna be free. Nothing is free. I agree with the noob.

Bardock42

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I agree with the noob. Including abortions?

Shantie

Originally posted by Bardock42
Including abortions?

If it's for health purposes, rape, or the baby is retarded, yes.

ragesRemorse

I wonder where the people think that the money to fund universal healthcare will come from. I for one think that the goverment has a money tree in the bowels of the Pentagon, and thats where the funding will come from, and defintely not from exteding on already bloated taxes

Bardock42

Originally posted by Shantie
If it's for health purposes, rape, or the baby is retarded, yes.

Rape?

To paraphrase Doug Stanhope :

"So, we are to understand that a fetus is just a human being like you and me........except if the dad was an *******?"

Jesus4Life

The governments should do the right thing and provide for others.

Marxman

Originally posted by Shantie
If it's for health purposes, rape, or the baby is retarded, yes. So now we're getting rid of retards with UH?

But anyways.

Ok, let's put it in terms that we can all understand.

We can all agree that universal healthcare will lead to an overall healthier society. This is obvious. With a healthier society, we have a more efficient society because more people are free to work instead of being confined to a bed because of a cold that just got out of hand. People working means we're producing goods as a country and thus increases our country's income, which benefits the country as a whole.

Of course there are exceptions to the rule. Those in poverty who don't do anything to help their own situations. The "lazy bums", the real burdens on society. Those people, imho, don't deserve to be a part of any society. They're simply parasites.

But disregarding that, the law-abiding, tax-paying citizens are essentially guaranteed good health, which keeps them as law-abiding, tax-paying citizens instead of well.....dead. People dying is never good for a society, even if keeping them alive takes a bit more money.

Now you're concerned about a tax increase. I understand. No one likes hearing the words "tax hike" regardless of what sort of benefits are supposed to come from it. However, this can always be helped in other ways.

Imposing a "rich tax" where the 5% of the overtly wealthy citizens are asked to give back to a society that has helped them reach their prestigious position in the country. This 5% is the rich of the rich and even a couple thousand more a year wouldn't be the slightest bit missed by these oil tycoons, Fortune 500 CEOs, and all around blood sucking capitalists (sorry, I had to do it).

Increasing sales tax by 1 or 2% and/or widening what sales tax is applied to. Its relatively unnoticeable by the general populace yet a great increase to the income of a state. I was working retail in NJ when they increased the sales tax from 6 to 7% and they difference in moderately priced goods was a couple cents, not a big deal at all.

This is a more than feasible idea in which the pros outweigh the cons tremendously.

Fishy

Originally posted by Bardock42
What "fool" is in Germany.

What?

What?

T-them dying costs less money than paying for them not to die. In fact, it is free.

"needed"? It is not "needed"

Depends on how they die, the costs of a medical examination and the funeral could cost more then fixing an illness making them able to get another job. Of course it's kinda cruel to base if you are going to treat them or not on the cost of the curing vs the cost of funeral and stuff. Economically a smart thing to do though.

Not necessarily true, although there always cases where treating is cheaper then not treating in general I do believe Health care costs more then it brings society. Unless of course everybody in society believes that it's worth it. (Or at least the majority when you live in a democracy)

Yet they are usually the one's that can't afford insurance and they are therefor the one's that would benefit most from universal health care, of course there is a change that a group of them doesn't have a job because they are sick and they could get one when cured. It's hard to say for sure though.

I disagree, people dying is necessary in fact most European country's and the US, probably Canada as well are right now facing problems because of the large amount of people that are going to retire soon, the cost of keeping them alive and giving them food by far outweighs the cost of them just dying when they turn 65 and can retire.

Tax the rich? Why is that always the answer. Tax the rich, the rich are eventually going to bleed dry and just leave the country if need be. Not to mention that I seriously doubt all of those people could provide the entire country with a welfare program.

The difference in luxury goods however would be huge, and luxury goods is still a huge source of income for any rich society. Raising sales taxes touches everybody. Although a better system then just taxing the rich it will surely have an effect.

This is really the only part I agree with, the pros outweigh the cons. But that's just because I personally believe that it's important to give everybody good health care. Society in general however I doubt they would really benefit from it at all.

Bardock42

Originally posted by Marxman

Imposing a "rich tax" where the 5% of the overtly wealthy citizens are asked to give back to a society that has helped them reach their prestigious position in the country. This 5% is the rich of the rich and even a couple thousand more a year wouldn't be the slightest bit missed by these oil tycoons, Fortune 500 CEOs, and all around blood sucking capitalists (sorry, I had to do it).

You are a ****ing stupid, egoistical, leeching *******.

The rich don't have to pay for you, they already give you enough with the service they give...you. Rich people deserve their money, they do more good than all the unemployed together, you selfish (in the bad sense) bastard want to steal even more of their hard earned money? By what ****ing right? Because you or the poor people are incapable of achieving it?

Sorry, had to....stupid communist scum.

Marxman

Originally posted by Fishy
Not necessarily true, although there always cases where treating is cheaper then not treating in general I do believe Health care costs more then it brings society. Unless of course everybody in society believes that it's worth it. (Or at least the majority when you live in a democracy) But are we really pitting cost against cost here? This way of thinking is like putting a value on a human life, which I'm not prepared to do. Are you? Do we value some over others? Maybe physical capabilities or metal capacity? Sounds like a slippery slope.
Originally posted by Fishy
Yet they are usually the one's that can't afford insurance and they are therefor the one's that would benefit most from universal health care, of course there is a change that a group of them doesn't have a job because they are sick and they could get one when cured. It's hard to say for sure though.My point is not to focus on that. There will always be those trying to take advantage of a good thing. Yet why should the fear of that make us pass up the opportunity to bring in a program that would only help the greater good of our country.
Originally posted by Fishy
I disagree, people dying is necessary in fact most European country's and the US, probably Canada as well are right now facing problems because of the large amount of people that are going to retire soon, the cost of keeping them alive and giving them food by far outweighs the cost of them just dying when they turn 65 and can retire. ............good point. :P
Originally posted by Fishy
Tax the rich? Why is that always the answer. Tax the rich, the rich are eventually going to bleed dry and just leave the country if need be. Not to mention that I seriously doubt all of those people could provide the entire country with a welfare program.The objective of taxing the rich is not to "level the playing field" but rather have those that can afford it to assist. The tax would be no where near enough to bleed them dry. These are people with networths of $100,000,000+. These are people that have lots of money and make lots more of it everyday. No way will these people even notice a difference in their living. Maybe except the won't be able to buy that $5000 pair of underwear.
Originally posted by Fishy
The difference in luxury goods however would be huge, and luxury goods is still a huge source of income for any rich society. Raising sales taxes touches everybody. Although a better system then just taxing the rich it will surely have an effect.It wouldn't be huge. Its a 1 to 2% increase. Obviously the more it costs the more of an addition it would be but if people are working instead of being sick they've got the money to afford it.
Originally posted by Fishy
This is really the only part I agree with, the pros outweigh the cons. But that's just because I personally believe that it's important to give everybody good health care. Society in general however I doubt they would really benefit from it at all. You think healthcare is a good idea yet you don't think quality of life would increase if it was available to all? I'm sorry but I don't understand.
Originally posted by Bardock42
You are a ****ing stupid, egoistical, leeching *******.

The rich don't have to pay for you, they already give you enough with the service they give...you. Rich people deserve their money, they do more good than all the unemployed together, you selfish (in the bad sense) bastard want to steal even more of their hard earned money? By what ****ing right? Because you or the poor people are incapable of achieving it?

Sorry, had to....stupid communist scum. Ouch. Why we getting so personal? Did you even read the rest?

Victor Von Doom

Originally posted by Bardock42
Rich people deserve their money, they do more good than all the unemployed together

Well...sometimes they do.

ragesRemorse

universal healthcare is a great idea, i ust dont trust my goverment. They are apart of the reason healthcare costs me so much now.

Bardock42

Originally posted by Marxman

Ouch. Why we getting so personal? Did you even read the rest?

Because it is ****ing stupid opinions like yours that make everything in this world shit.

Creshosk

Marxman

Originally posted by Bardock42
Because it is ****ing stupid opinions like yours that make everything in this world shit. Again with the hostility. I'm sorry if I believe in giving back to one's community. If one has the means to help others they should. Yet most people with lots of money think exactly like you do. "I earned my money so I should be able to spend it all on myself." Yes, you have that option but you also have a moral obligation to the greater goodof humanity to give back.

Are you selfish enough to not care about the welfare of others or can you look past your constant struggle to purchase your own iPhone in order to ensure all people can enjoy good health?
Originally posted by Creshosk
You don't understand a thing about how economics work do you?

Blood sucking capitalists? Who are the ones that mooch off of other people and who are the ones that work for what they have? I could have a field day with that statement but I don't want to turn this into a Capitalist Pigs vs Communist Liberators thread. I'd rather it keep on topic.

Creshosk

Marxman

offtopic

Creshosk

Originally posted by Marxman
offtopic Way to reinforce your hypocricy there champ.

Marxman

Originally posted by Creshosk
Way to reinforce your hypocricy there champ. I have yet to directly say anything negative about anyone in this thread while I've been called scum and my intelligence has been insulted. But I'm the hypocrit. Either agree or disagree with me then say why or why not. How about we leave the personal jabs out of it, ok?

I don't even recall you making an opinion. All you added to this conversation is an experience with a bug bite and how much of a Bardock fan you are. So add something constructive or gtfo.

Creshosk

Originally posted by Marxman
I have yet to directly say anything negative about anyone in this thread while I've been called scum and my intelligence has been insulted. But I'm the hypocrit. Either agree or disagree with me then say why or why not. How about we leave the personal jabs out of it, ok?

I don't even recall you making an opinion. All you added to this conversation is an experience with a bug bite and how much of a Bardock fan you are. So add something constructive or gtfo. That was constructive wan't it.. and totally on topic too...

Hypocrite.

Fishy

Originally posted by Marxman
But are we really pitting cost against cost here? This way of thinking is like putting a value on a human life, which I'm not prepared to do. Are you? Do we value some over others? Maybe physical capabilities or metal capacity? Sounds like a slippery slope.

The value of human life is subjective, the cost of human life is not. If you wish to prove that Health care should be done to create a better society, then prove it using economics anything else is quite irrelevant in the big picture.

They will be the largest group though, most people that work can afford insurance, make it mandatory and everybody with a job will have it. Universal health care will then only provide to those that can't afford it. In general those people are also the people that will never get back into a functioning society again, meaning it costs a shit load of money. of course there are exceptions but they are rare.

What else did you expect? :P

That's not the point is it? They worked hard for their money (at least often) and deserve it, taxing them will make them lose that money. Now a normal tax is not bad, it's not even that bad to tax them more then others but to just keep increasing their tax levels will only serve to push them out of the country or to make it less beneficial to be rich. And if they want a 5000 dollar pair of underwear then they should be able to damn well buy it. Either increase taxes everywhere or don't. It's entirely unfair that a few people should pay for the rest of the country.

Point.

I think there is absolutely no economical reason to allow universal health care, it's a decision based on the charity of the majority of the population. If a democracy wants it then it should happen. But no government would ever force a system like this through for economical reasons.

Well we all know Communism can't possibly work, so it would just be a waste of time.

Bardock42

Originally posted by Marxman
Again with the hostility. I'm sorry if I believe in giving back to one's community. If one has the means to help others they should. Yet most people with lots of money think exactly like you do. "I earned my money so I should be able to spend it all on myself." Yes, you have that option but you also have a moral obligation to the greater goodof humanity to give back.

Are you selfish enough to not care about the welfare of others or can you look past your constant struggle to purchase your own iPhone in order to ensure all people can enjoy good health?

Are you so selfish that you want to steal the hard earned money of the people that actually make it possible for you to live as good as you can? You call the very people that popularized cars, computers, electricity, etc. and make them available for most everybody bloodsuckers and pigs. What the **** has socialist scum ever done for a country except for stealing money that isn't theirs to give it to people that didn't deserve it?

Sorry, I don't have any compassion for incapable idiots that are not able to get a job. Socialist ideas are shit when they just come down to "we have to help the poor" ... because we really don't have to. You can't just steal people's money without giving anything back to them. And since almost everyone could get a better and cheaper care privately it's just not fair to let them pay for worse service, because some people are unable to produce anything of any value.

And what annoyed me the most with your statement is, that if you already do something as stupid as your health care plan at least let everyone share an equal load. Rich people are not less healthy, rich people don't even have the need for national health care, why the hell should they pay 5% more? Because they were capable of making money? It's so odd, by making money they already did a great service to the country, in more than one way and now communist pigs want them to give even more? By what ****ing right. You think any of those long term unemployed people could achieve what they have?

Marxman

I said in the beginning those that do nothing for society don't deserve to even be in it. Therefore they shouldn't be getting healthcare.

However I think you're wrong about one thing Fishy. The large majority of people using the universal healthcare would be the people that have jobs that don't pay enough. The people that do the jobs you don't want to do. They keep your lawns and hedges nice and tidy, they serve your food, they clean your cars, they help you find that shirt you really want, they build your houses. Basic level construction workers get paid MAYBE 30 grand per year. 80% of Walmart's employees are part-time workers that get no extra benefits, which leaves them without health care.

And I'm not going to defend my communist ideals. This thread is about universal health care and nothing more.

And who said anything about a 5% increase Bardock? An increase in their tax would be unnoticeable. But regardless I see that not many people here like that idea. That doesn't change anything about universal healthcare.

Fishy

Originally posted by Marxman
I said in the beginning those that do nothing for society don't deserve to even be in it. Therefore they shouldn't be getting healthcare.

However I think you're wrong about one thing Fishy. The large majority of people using the universal healthcare would be the people that have jobs that don't pay enough. The people that do the jobs you don't want to do. They keep your lawns and hedges nice and tidy, they serve your food, they clean your cars, they help you find that shirt you really want, they build your houses. Basic level construction workers get paid MAYBE 30 grand per year. 80% of Walmart's employees are part-time workers that get no extra benefits, which leaves them without health care.

And I'm not going to defend my communist ideals. This thread is about universal health care and nothing more.

And who said anything about a 5% increase Bardock? An increase in their tax would be unnoticeable. But regardless I see that not many people here like that idea. That doesn't change anything about universal healthcare.

Then change the minimal wages. Make health care insurance mandatory, if necessary give government assistance to those who can't afford it. If company's can get away with paying their employees to little money to even make them able to have a life then those company's should be handled and those company's should be forced to pay them extra. Minimum wages are out there to ensure that everybody has the minimal amount of money required to food on the table under a roof and if necessary medical care. And if the government refuses to do anything make the workers go out and have a revolution. Revolutions got us minimum wages in the first place.

And btw you were the one that said a 5% tax increase for the rich.

Marxman

Originally posted by Fishy
Then change the minimal wages. Make health care insurance mandatory, if necessary give government assistance to those who can't afford it. If company's can get away with paying their employees to little money to even make them able to have a life then those company's should be handled and those company's should be forced to pay them extra.I've been saying that about Walmart for years. I'm not in a position to make a difference in that matter yet except for the petition I signed to keep them from building one in my area.
Originally posted by Fishy
Minimum wages are out there to ensure that everybody has the minimal amount of money required to food on the table under a roof and if necessary medical care. One needs much more than simply food and shelter to survive. Running water, electricity, gas - not only for the house but the car used to get to a job(or even bus money if you want to stretch it). Minimum wage is, if I may paraphrase Karl Marx, is the bare necessity of life to keep the worker working.
Originally posted by Fishy
And if the government refuses to do anything make the workers go out and have a revolution. Revolutions got us minimum wages in the first place.Be careful. You're sounding like a communist.
Originally posted by Fishy
And btw you were the one that said a 5% tax increase for the rich. Ummm. I don't think I did.
EDIT: Oh no I had said the 5% of our population that is crazy wealthy.

Bardock42

Originally posted by Marxman

EDIT: Oh no I had said the 5% of our population that is crazy wealthy.

Yes, I misread that too. Still. Why the rich more?

Fishy

Originally posted by Marxman
I've been saying that about Walmart for years. I'm not in a position to make a difference in that matter yet except for the petition I signed to keep them from building one in my area.

It's my understanding that Walmart creates more jobs then it destroys, so why try to keep it out? Besides keeping it out is not really the way to go. It serves no purpose except for destroy the marketing position of your town and the economical gain of everybody with a job.

Well give them that then.

Even communists are bound to get things right every now and then. If workers can't get what they need from a job they need to demand more. Now a company can get more workers easily so they will fire them and leave them on the street, this hurts the economy. If there are to few workers to do jobs that require no real training or education then immigrants are the easiest way to go. Unfortunately that creates a lot of unfortunate downsides and of course economical problems. So raising minimal wages a bit is more beneficial to the country.

My bad

Victor Von Doom

Originally posted by Fishy
Then change the minimal wages. Make health care insurance mandatory, if necessary give government assistance to those who can't afford it.

Like a health tax?

Fishy

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Like a health tax?

I don't see why you would need new taxes for it... But in essence yes, it's a hell of a lot cheaper then Universal Health care, and has some other benefits as well.

Of course religious zealots who don't believe in insurances would still be ****ed, but letting them die is basically proving Darwin right so no biggie.

Victor Von Doom

Originally posted by Fishy
I don't see why you would need new taxes for it... But in essence yes, it's a hell of a lot cheaper then Universal Health care, and has some other benefits as well.

Of course religious zealots who don't believe in insurances would still be ****ed, but letting them die is basically proving Darwin right so no biggie.

Oh.

I can see how a health tax is better than a health...tax.

Bardock42

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Oh.

I can see how a health tax is better than a health...tax. Takes less time to say due to lack of pause.

Victor Von Doom

Hahaha.

Fishy

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Oh.

I can see how a health tax is better than a health...tax.

It's cheaper then universal health care, still allows for competition which makes the health care in the US better then that in most other country's, and you could probably get enough money from the defense department without hurting the US military or weakening it to a level close to that of China...

So no new taxes, just taking money from one place and putting it somewhere else where it can be more useful.

Victor Von Doom

Originally posted by Fishy
It's cheaper then universal health care, still allows for competition which makes the health care in the US better then that in most other country's, and you could probably get enough money from the defense department without hurting the US military or weakening it to a level close to that of China...

So no new taxes, just taking money from one place and putting it somewhere else where it can be more useful.

It's not necessarily cheaper though. If we are going to posit fantasy scenarios then there is no reason to assume that UHC need be inefficient.

Bardock42

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
It's not necessarily cheaper though. If we are going to posit fantasy scenarios then there is no reason to assume that UHC need be inefficient.

Utopian none UHC beats utopian UHC.

Creshosk

Increasing minim wage increases inflation. There's a reason its minimum wage. If you want more money get a better job.

lord xyz

Originally posted by Marxman
Amazingly there is no thread on this already.

Good or bad? Why or why not? Not specifically in the US. If you live in a country that has it tell us about it. They have it in the UK. It's great. Saved my life infact.

chithappens

A good idea but stopping unnecessary wars might allow for such optimistic goals.

That seemed like a double negative LOL

Victor Von Doom

Originally posted by lord xyz
They have it in the UK. It's great. Saved my life infact.

Are you providing value for money since?

Marxman

Originally posted by Creshosk
Increasing minim wage increases inflation. There's a reason its minimum wage. If you want more money get a better job. Oh! Good idea! Except most of the people with minimum wage jobs can't. You obviously don't understand the point of having a minimum wage.

Bardock42

Originally posted by Marxman
Oh! Good idea! Except most of the people with minimum wage jobs can't. You obviously don't understand the point of having a minimum wage.

There is none. Minimum wages are hazardous to every economy. We are better off without it.

Marxman

Originally posted by Fishy
It's my understanding that Walmart creates more jobs then it destroys, so why try to keep it out? Besides keeping it out is not really the way to go. It serves no purpose except for destroy the marketing position of your town and the economical gain of everybody with a job.Yes they create jobs but not jobs one can keep and still have a livelihood. They lack the money to afford everything needed to be able to live well in our society which keeps them from bettering themselves, perpetuating their situation.
Originally posted by Fishy
Well give them that then.Good idea. Except its so hard to raise minimum wage. New Jersey has had $7.25/hour for its minimum wage before the federal minimum wage was raised to the same. Before that? $5.15/hour. Tell me how one is supposed to raise children with wages like that.
Originally posted by Fishy
Even communists are bound to get things right every now and then. If workers can't get what they need from a job they need to demand more. Now a company can get more workers easily so they will fire them and leave them on the street, this hurts the economy. If there are to few workers to do jobs that require no real training or education then immigrants are the easiest way to go. Unfortunately that creates a lot of unfortunate downsides and of course economical problems. So raising minimal wages a bit is more beneficial to the country.Yea man.

Marxman

Originally posted by Bardock42
There is none. Minimum wages are hazardous to every economy. We are better off without it. Oh yea. An even better idea. Maybe we can go back to having slaves, trading people as property.

Bardock42

Originally posted by Marxman
Oh yea. An even better idea. Maybe we can go back to having slaves, trading people as property.

Stupid. Like you.

Marxman

Originally posted by Bardock42
Stupid. Like you. You're not very good at this, are you?

Bardock42

Originally posted by Marxman
You're not very good at this, are you? Better than you will ever be.

inimalist

Originally posted by Marxman
Good idea. Except its so hard to raise minimum wage. New Jersey has had $7.25/hour for its minimum wage before the federal minimum wage was raised to the same. Before that? $5.15/hour. Tell me how one is supposed to raise children with wages like that.

isn't it glaringly irresponsible of a person to have a child that they know they do not have the means to raise?

I know things happen and you can't always prepare for the future, but someone living on minimum wage should not be complaining to the government when they cannot feed their kids, and imho, are committing gross neglect

Creshosk

Originally posted by Marxman
Oh! Good idea! Except most of the people with minimum wage jobs can't. You obviously don't understand the point of having a minimum wage. Oh I understand it. Its you who don't. Its not supposed to be something to live off of. Do you know how they figure out minimum wage?

Do you realize the effects of raising minimum wage such as inflation?

Marxman

Originally posted by Bardock42
Better than you will ever be. wallbash I'm done with you
Originally posted by inimalist
isn't it glaringly irresponsible of a person to have a child that they know they do not have the means to raise?

I know things happen and you can't always prepare for the future, but someone living on minimum wage should not be complaining to the government when they cannot feed their kids, and imho, are committing gross neglect That's a bit naive. In the eternal words of Forrest Gump, shit happens.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Oh I understand it. Its you who don't. Its not supposed to be something to live off of. Do you know how they figure out minimum wage?

Do you realize the effects of raising minimum wage such as inflation? Believe it or not, minimum wage jobs are not all held by high school students working during the summer. Its the people with mouths to feed. Nobody's gonna be able to support more than themselves with $5.15/hour.

Creshosk

Originally posted by Marxman
wallbash I'm done with you
That's a bit naive. In the eternal words of Forrest Gump, shit happens.
Believe it or not, minimum wage jobs are not all held by high school students working during the summer. Its the people with mouths to feed. Nobody's gonna be able to support more than themselves with $5.15/hour. They're not supposed to.

Now this time instead of arguing FOR minimum wage. answer to show knowledge about it:

Do you know how they figure out minimum wage?

Do you realize the effects of raising minimum wage such as inflation?

inimalist

Originally posted by Marxman

That's a bit naive. In the eternal words of Forrest Gump, shit happens.

so your argument is that everyone who has a child on minimum wage was:

1) a) not on minimum wage when they decided to have a child

OR

b) were in a position where they could both live on minumum wage and support a child

2) had no other choices, such as birth control, abortion or adoption

3) had long term financial plans in place that accounted for all the costs of child raising

4) had an event occur in their life, that they could not possibly have forseen, which caused them to lose their financial security

wow man. C'mon, you can really make an argument better than that

inimalist

so, I thought of something the other day...

In a system where the government runs the medical system, is there even such thing as doctor/paitent confidentiality?

Victor Von Doom

Originally posted by inimalist
so, I thought of something the other day...

In a system where the government runs the medical system, is there even such thing as doctor/paitent confidentiality?

Yes.

inimalist

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Yes.

how, the doctor is the government....?

Victor Von Doom

The doctors work for trusts, which are large independent health bodies, which are ultimately regulated (loosely) by the government. It's mostly funding and recommendations from the government's end.

The distance between a doctor and 'the government' is fairly great, and certainly much further than anything that might infringe upon confidentiality.

Creshosk

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
The doctors work for trusts, which are large independent health bodies, which are ultimately regulated (loosely) by the government. It's mostly funding and recommendations from the government's end.

The distance between a doctor and 'the government' is fairly great, and certainly much further than anything that might infringe upon confidentiality. Are you talking about the American government?

Victor Von Doom

Nah, UK system.

chithappens

I'm not understanding the argument v. Universal Healthcare.

It's kind of like saying people who pay more taxes should get better police; yes, that was a punch at the system (since it seems to happen in application).

Bardock42

Originally posted by chithappens
I'm not understanding the argument v. Universal Healthcare.

It's kind of like saying people who pay more taxes should get better police; yes, that was a punch at the system (since it seems to happen in application). Just that it is totally not like that.

Dr. Zaius

If health care was indeed free, I'd be all for it. But single-payer, universal health care run by the government is the complete opposite of free (when the government provides a service, it does so through taxes - in case anyone forgot.) Although our current system is far from perfect, and could certainly use some overhaul, I'll take it in lieu of another government boondoggle that costs more than what we have now, encourages indiscriminate patient spending, disincentivizes private enterprise from developing new drugs and competent, prospective students from going into medicine, fosters long waits for critical surgeries, and straddles the economy with a huge sacrosanct entitlement that we will never be able to change or get rid of.