Free Universal Healthcare

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.

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.

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.

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 😉

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

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...

EVERYONE needs healthcare, its just a matter of time.

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...

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...

(Unless you're hemophiliac of course.)

Originally posted by §P0oONY
Haha, because you really need healthcare for the nosebleed... 😛

(Unless you're hemophiliac of course.)

It was at that point I learned I had the bite. I thought nothing of it before that point in time.... 😮

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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)

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.