Universal Healthcare, why it should not be brought upon Americans

Originally posted by FeceMan
Query: Why is it wrong when someone disallows one to abort a fetus but right when someone forces one to pay for another's health insurance through increased taxes?

Don't conflate your moral issues with abortion, with the matter of socialized medicine. Again, if we are talking about the "moral" thing to do, then why would there even be a question about universal healthcare?

Originally posted by Devil King
if we are talking about the "moral" thing to do, then why would there even be a question about universal healthcare?

s-some people don't think the state is a moral entity?

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's awesome...but, why don't you just organize yourself with others willing to pay for health care and do that....while those that don't want to don't.

And if you feel charitable why don't you pay for those that can't afford it as well.

Well I must admit that sounds a bit petulant and childish.

My taxes will be going towards schooling for people who can't afford to send the kids to expensive private schools, cheaper public transport for those who don't use a car (or can't afford a car+fuel), welfare for those people who are unable to work, can't find a job, have an injury or disability and so on and so on.

So do we have a good reason why health care is such a horrible, such an outrageous, such a gut churning destination for taxes? Or is it merely that knee jerk reaction whenever taxes are mentioned (the good old scare tactic of "my opponents policies will raise taxes! Fear for they will make you live in a card board box to pay for things that will never benefit you!)

The whole point of taxes is everybody pays (by rights not more then they can afford), and the taxes should mostly be being spent, by way of the Budget, on things beneficial to the nation and its citizens. Once you get into the what you are suggesting it breaks down. Why then couldn't people say "we don't support the military, I don't want my taxes going there" or "my kid is in a private school, why should my taxes go to public schools?" It doesn't work. So unless there is some pressing reason why health care should be separate from such such things "if you feel charitable why don't you pay for those that can't afford it as well" really is a pointless contribution. You either have health care and everyone contributes or you don't. I have no problem contributing (despite the fact I have private healthcare), and it seems most people in Australia don't. Nor New Zealand.

As such my point stands that I have np problem with some of the tax I would be paying [/i]anyway[/i] going towards public health care. And to be honest it would seem that the people who want to pay for everyones health care are largely doing so. Otherwise we wouldn't vote for those political parties who want to improve the system and make it even fairer, as well as putting even more money into it. Crazy thing democracy eh? Judging the policies of political parties such as their plans for health care?

Because maybe it is a cultural thing, but in terms of Australia it seems to be accepted as a useful, necessary part of government care for its voting public, plenty of who, strangely enough, don't plan to get sick, have accidents or develop illnesses that need treatments outside their price range but often do.

Originally posted by inimalist
s-some people don't think the state is a moral entity?

I'm guessing you're pointing out what a slippery slope the "moral" argument is. But, I don't understand why people can bring their morals into the argument, while totally ignoring that people in the United States are dying from infected cavities.

It just doesn't make any sense.

(to me, that's another level of this argument. why is dental care considered a luxury and not included in general health care.)

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
So do we have a good reason why health care is such a horrible, such an outrageous, such a gut churning destination for taxes? Or is it merely that knee jerk reaction whenever taxes are mentioned

no, it's that conservative mentality that "someone is getting something they didn't earn!". It's the classic tactic of turning the have's against the have-nots.

As Roosevelt said: "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."

Originally posted by Devil King
I'm guessing you're pointing out what a slippery slope the "moral" argument is. But, I don't understand why people can bring their morals into the argument, while totally ignoring that people in the United States are dying from infected cavities.

It just doesn't make any sense.

(to me, that's another level of this argument. why is dental care considered a luxury and not included in general health care.)

I think we agree in application, however, to me personally, it is more morally incorrect for the state to tell me I have to give them money than for someone to, of their own actions, be unable to afford their treatment.

I do agree with universal health (and dental if we are on the topic) but not for moral reasons. Morally, I don't see someone else's health as my responsibilty, however, pragmatically, the marginal cost to me to have that person get care benefits not just that person, but myself, because there isnt another poverty case medical bill bankruptcy family.

EDIT: not necessarily a slippery slope, I don't think public health or socialism itself lead directly to despotism, but I, for some strange reason, cannot justify governmental authority morally in any way that I find intellectually satisfactory.

Originally posted by Devil King
no, it's that conservative mentality that "someone is getting something they didn't earn!". It's the classic tactic of turning the have's against the have-nots.

Of course that sounds harsh so people come up with interesting theories like Universal health care leading to fascist states and so on. Then they can say "oh, we are actually protecting your rights and freedoms by not making health care a government concern." They should just be honest and stop chucking up things like "oh if you are happy for your taxes to go to it why don't you just pay for it all."

As Roosevelt said: "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."

It is sad to see that wise words can apparently be so ignored in this modern age.

I do agree with universal health (and dental if we are on the topic) but not for moral reasons. Morally, I don't see someone else's health as my responsibilty, however, pragmatically, the marginal cost to me to have that person get care benefits not just that person, but myself, because there isnt another poverty case medical bill bankruptcy family.

Exactly. Morality can enter into, but it doesn't need to. There are perfectly good, practical reasons why such a system is beneficial both on an individual level and on a national level. On the most basic level the government having a duty of care of its citizens. If people get sick and don't have the ability to access what they need to get better then the government it failing its number one charge - its own people.

For my view in Australia the chief use of tax should be for the betterment and well-being of nation and thus people with the aim of further improvement and productivity. Hence public schools, apprenticieships, HECS, healthcare etc - allowing people to get the medical care they need when they need it thus allowing them to continue to be healthy, productive members of society, allowing people to get the educxation they need thus allowing them to be educated, productive members of soceity.

Originally posted by inimalist
I think we agree in application, however, to me personally, it is more morally incorrect for the state to tell me I have to give them money than for someone to, of their own actions, be unable to afford their treatment.

I do agree with universal health (and dental if we are on the topic) but not for moral reasons. Morally, I don't see someone else's health as my responsibilty, however, pragmatically, the marginal cost to me to have that person get care benefits not just that person, but myself, because there isnt another poverty case medical bill bankruptcy family.

EDIT: not necessarily a slippery slope, I don't think public health or socialism itself lead directly to despotism, but I, for some strange reason, cannot justify governmental authority morally in any way that I find intellectually satisfactory.

I'm afraid I don't understand how we agree in application, but not intent. The state does not need to be a moral institution. I guess Robtard and I took the conversation off topic a bit. Morals really have little to do with it, in my opinion. It's a matter of a government of, by and for the people, not being interested in the people. In their health or their standard of living.

It comes down to that, not this red herring crap about people getting something they don't deserve. People who consider the policies and procedures of this government need to realize we're all in this country together. The "getting something for nothing" argument is simply social stratification.

It isn't really a matter of providing the basics for people. I wish it were that simple. It's more a matter of everyone agreeing on what the "basics" are to begin with.

Originally posted by Devil King
I'm afraid I don't understand how we agree in application, but not intent. The state does not need to be a moral institution. I guess Robtard and I took the conversation off topic a bit. Morals really have little to do with it, in my opinion. It's a matter of a government of, by and for the people, not being interested in the people. In their health or their standard of living.

It comes down to that, not this red herring crap about people getting something they don't deserve. People who consider the policies and procedures of this government need to realize we're all in this country together. The "getting something for nothing" argument is simply social stratification.

It isn't really a matter of providing the basics for people. I wish it were that simple. It's more a matter of everyone agreeing on what the "basics" are to begin with.

I misunderstood the way you were making the argument, my bad 🙂 I thought you were saying that we should give people free medicine because it is the "right" thing to do, which imho is as convincing as saying that they shouldn't have it because it's the "wrong" thing to do. Imho, "right" or "wrong" are words that should never be used in politics, because it assumes an immesurable dimension on which something is being assessed.

I agree with the red herring stuff. Regardless of how I feel personally and morally, I'd rather live in a productive collective arrangement than in the despotism of my own personal labour.

I must question if there are even these "basics". That seems to assume that people are owed something by just having been born, which again is a moral argument and not very politically salient. However, since context and wording are so much fun to argue about, lets call them "benefits" of living in a nation productive enough that it can start worrying about the more humanistic and social issues within it's own borders. That is really splitting hairs, but might help tell you where I am comming from.

I think a country's citizens should have access to medical treatment, regardless of their income or lack there, but one of my concerns with un-privatizing the system and handing over medical-power to the government is "specialist".

If the medical field is run by the government and doctors are given a flat salary, say $175k (just a number) a year, what is to encourage some doctors to go back to school and further their education, thereby becoming neural surgeons, heart specialist, eye surgeons etc. etc. etc.?

Originally posted by Robtard

If the medical field is run by the government and doctors are given a flat salary, say $175k (just a number) a year, what is to encourage some doctors to go back to school and further their education, thereby becoming neural surgeons, heart specialist, eye surgeons etc. etc. etc.?

the same thing that stops all of our great Canadian doctors from moving south and becoming rich...

which is to say, nothing

Originally posted by inimalist
That seems to assume that people are owed something by just having been born,

No, no, no. They aren't owed something because they're born. They're owed something by their government, which need not exist unless to benefit those who agree to live under it.

Originally posted by Robtard
I think a country's citizens should have access to medical treatment, regardless of their income or lack there, but one of my concerns with un-privatizing the system and handing over medical-power to the government is "specialist".

If the medical field is run by the government and doctors are given a flat salary, say $175k (just a number) a year, what is to encourage some doctors to go back to school and further their education, thereby becoming neural surgeons, heart specialist, eye surgeons etc. etc. etc.?

what kept them from doing it before doctors started earning a ridiculous amount of money?

Why do they feel entitled to a huge sallary? Because they spent a huge amount of money on becoming doctors.

Make education free...and we'll eliminate these peoblems all together.

Originally posted by OnslaughtKILLS
Universal Healthcare is something all the Democrats running for president want.

By having universal health care, it would lead to a large portion of our country run by the government. The health of the citizens are no longer given to private companies who are trying to save lives for perhaps moral reasons, competition, the fact it pays well, or perhaps a combination or other reasons that I did not list. It will be given to the government. Now, of course I am not suggesting an inane idea that government are run by robots or such nonsense, of course it is run by people but it is no longer in the free market. Isn't it a great freedom that we can choose to have our medical records in private, to freely alternate from doctor to doctor, to discuss things regarding health or perhaps problems that you may be having elsewhere without knowing there is someone that will be looking at this? All this is a freedom that this country offers, a freedom more and more countries are taking away. Also, what about the doctor? The doctor is also an American citizen who has the right to decide how expensive a medical related issue will be to care for or for an inspection, to freely make organizations or companies that can benefit the amount of worth you get. They can decide where they can live or how they can live, based on needs, wants, and how hard they decided to work in their job. By having socialized health care you eliminate this freedom and divert it to the government. The government will dictate how the people will act and the doctors.

Now lets fast forward to the future and see how the government will handle universal health care. They will dictate what doctors do. In what way am I predicting? Well, for everyone to be equal, the American people will be divided among doctors and doctors across the nation. In essence, they are having forced patients brought upon them, and a limited or to great of a number. Like professions that operate under the free market, many choose how much they want to or like to work. Now, being in a country which is pretty large and have different economic standings, population, and related things does change by geographical location. This means that in some locations, they need more doctors and others they have to much. Soon, they will not be hiring doctors in that location and you are NOT allowed to work there, even if you try. Then like teachers and many other government paid job there probably will be a pay check, at least a much lower pay then many successful doctors get. Then the government will need doctors and start placing them accordingly to what fits which. All these rights taken away alone can discourage people from pursing the medicine field.

While personal freedom being lost, which is an important thing in this country, competition. Competition occurs in the free market. Now, what competition happens in the medicare department? Well, there is actually quite a lot. Lets talk about the performance of doctors. Doctors must excel in what they do for word to get out on how well they are, their active participation, willingness, care, etc. Thats how some doctors receive more money than others. Of course it becomes more complicated than this but this is just the gist of doctor competition. Then there is medicine. New medicine is being created and researched every single day. Why? A large part is competition. How often do you turn on your radio, tv, or perhaps see internet commercials that feature medicine ads or commercial? As a person experience I witness them possibly more than any other type of commercial I encounter. This competition gives researchers and scientists the extra incentive to try and find new medicine that ranges from cancer to the common acne infection.

The truth is, this country was founded on principles and ideas. Those ideas and principles were formulated after undergoing a tyrannical reign under the British government. These principles? Freedom. These principles are being broken by the liberals. They are trying to induce socialism into our nation, and God help us let us hope this doesn't happen to this nation which I can gladly say I love.

But of course, having free national health service surely leads to dictatorship. The worst thing about hitler has always been his policy on free health care.

Sponsoring wars around the globe and using tax money to build weapons cannot and is not dictatorship. What really leads to dictatorship is healthcare.

N

We have that in Norway and both sides (the left and the right) are in favour of keeping it this way, more or less. We don't have to worry about paying any hospital bills and everyone gets the treatment they're intitled to have. I can't see anything wrong with that. We all help each other and everyone gets their treatment. Even the rich in our country wants it to be like this. Few people are poor here, probably because they don't have to worry about hospital or school bills. And I'm willing to pay for that. It's cheaper for me to have them treated, than having them sick and not capeable of working.

Regards, Yvonne

Originally posted by yvonnekarate
We have that in Norway and both sides (the left and the right) are in favour of keeping it this way, more or less. We don't have to worry about paying any hospital bills and everyone gets the treatment they're intitled to have. I can't see anything wrong with that. We all help each other and everyone gets their treatment. Even the rich in our country wants it to be like this. Few people are poor here, probably because they don't have to worry about hospital or school bills. And I'm willing to pay for that. It's cheaper for me to have them treated, than having them sick and not capeable of working.

Regards, Yvonne

Go back to your side of the godless iron curtain, COMMIE!

😉

than having them sick and not capeable of working.

A very good point! Those lazy welfare bums might be able to work if they weren't dying in the gutters because they have no healthcare.

Originally posted by inimalist
the same thing that stops all of our great Canadian doctors from moving south and becoming rich...

which is to say, nothing

That form of system is already in place in Canada, people are more likely to flow with a preexisting system. In the U.S., it would be a BIG change.

Originally posted by Devil King

what kept them from doing it before doctors started earning a ridiculous amount of money?

Why do they feel entitled to a huge sallary? Because they spent a huge amount of money on becoming doctors.

Make education free...and we'll eliminate these peoblems all together.

We're talking about the present; how the system is set up now, as noted above, BIG change is difficult.

Free education opens the door to other problems, who's going to pay for the "free education" as nothing is really free. You know this government, things happen at a snails pace, nothing will change if you try and open the flood gates all at once.

Originally posted by Devil King
Don't conflate your moral issues with abortion, with the matter of socialized medicine. Again, if we are talking about the "moral" thing to do, then why would there even be a question about universal healthcare?

Originally posted by Devil King
[B]Go back to your side of the godless iron curtain, COMMIE!

😉

Good one. Especially since I'm not a communist. I never was. And I believe what I believe. My religious views are private, but I can say this: I do infact believe in God. Just so you know. Actually, Norway has a state church, unlike the US. I don't believe it's right though, to have a state church, but in the name, Norway's a Christan country.

😉

Regards, Yvonne

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Because I didn't shake with fury at the idea of legal abortions while the evil government takes my money through taxes and, of all things, spends some of it the health and well-being of my countrymen?

If I was the type to be against women having the right to abort then I don't see how it matters what the government spends my money on - be it health-care, being it military, be it cultural or trade. I could say:

Query: Why is it wrong when someone disallows one to abort a fetus but right when someone forces one to pay for anther's education through increased taxes?

Or:

Query: Why is it wrong when someone disallows one to abort a fetus but right when someone forces one to pay for anther's training as a solider through increased taxes?

Corollary: Taxes are used to fund those organizations.

And so on. The answer then as I see it is "there is something wrong with disallowing abortions as they are a women's rights, and unless you have a problem with your tax being spent on anything at all it is not an infringement of rights for some of it to be spent on health care."

Statement: Similarly, healthcare is becoming a "right," although FeceMan cannot fathom why.

Clarification: FeceMan can fathom why healthcare is becoming a "right," but FeceMan cannot fathom why it ought to be made into a right.

As far as I know you pay taxes anyway, with or without it. And seeing as how I, and the people in Australia and other government supplied health care countries aren't living in poverty due to "increased taxes to pay for other peoples health insurance" then I can only imagine that scare tactic is slightly exaggerated.

That is a non-answer. If the article was linking universal health care as the cause for that discrepancy/improvement then it would be relevant. As it is all it is revealing is, you know, Europe has some damn good health care, and some poorer quality health care - you know, comparing former East European bloc countries to Sweden or Germany. And that some countries are improving while others aren't doing as good as they should be, especially considering the amount they spend on health.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: This is a non-answer.

It's a non-answer to a non-issue.