Free Universal Healthcare

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.

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.

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.

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 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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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...

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.

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?

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.

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.

VVD loves to insult.

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
VVD loves to insult.

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

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

Time-waster.

Trains ran on time and then this.

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.