|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted June 12, 2013 08:42 PM |
|
|
JJ:
As Elodin pointed out, there's no "right to life" in the Constitution. But as for the "right to life" in itself, it's not the right to be provided with whatever you need to stay alive, it's the right to not have your life taken away from you against your will.
It's obviously bad to not have means to live, but that doesn't imply that the poor are entitled to other people's means. The purpose of society (to the extent that such a thing exists) is social cooperation - and it's not cooperation to take from other people by force.
Xerox:
And the US leads the world in medical innovation. Also, even though health insurance in the US is largely private, it would be a mistake to consider it free-market health care, as there is a myriad of government interventions.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 12, 2013 08:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The purpose of society (to the extent that such a thing exists) is social cooperation - and it's not cooperation to take from other people by force.
As long as there is a government that takes taxes, there is a government that is taking your money, by force if necessary. What kind of services should be provided with tax payers' money and what kind of services shouldn't is a matter of interpretation. Since you're from the US, you're used to the policy of private health care and it seems natural to you, however public hospitals are as natural as public funded police force or water pipes to many people around the world. I'd say health is basic and fundamental enough to be covered with taxes to a level. Private hospitals with better service are okay, but you shouldn't be totally on your own if you're without money and in need of simple, basic healthcare.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 12, 2013 09:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What kind of services should be provided with tax payers' money and what kind of services shouldn't is a matter of interpretation.
Why should anyone support a service they don't benefit from? If it's a service that benefits everyone who is taxed, there's good reason to support its existence. But if it takes from some and gives to others, it's no different from robbery.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted June 12, 2013 09:36 PM |
|
|
Just look at that map above. Just stare at it for at least 60 seconds. Take a look at the patterns. See the trends.
The citizens of the planet Earth who belong to the most successful, richest, safest cultures have ALL decided that Universal Healthcare is the most rational, intelligent solution for a country to look after it's citizens.
Every industrialised country has this, and it works very, very well for every industrialized country. Now, the way it can be applied in the U.S. may be subject to discussions and tweaks, but just look on map with which sort of backward countries you pair right now, not much to be proud of.
My two cents about.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 12, 2013 09:44 PM |
|
|
That's such a flawed argument. First, correlation does not imply causation. Just because governments tend to establish health care programs as the people in its territory become wealthier does not mean that the programs are making people better off. Second, a "country looking out for its citizens" means no more than taxpayers being forced to provide something to other people. You might as well say that in the most of the wealthy countries, governments have decided to steal from some and give to others for their health care. Third, you say it's "working very well", but it's no praise to say that something bad is working well.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted June 12, 2013 09:50 PM |
|
|
Then don't vote Obama and remain on private. Now that mommy and dad pay your bills it is easy to philosopher on the world, but just hope you remain 100% safe later. As for me, without universal health care I would certainly be dead now or at least disabled. That's why I have no problems financing the others, is a fair return.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
dhoney
Tavern Dweller
for the tavern wenches
|
|
posted June 12, 2013 09:53 PM |
|
|
Free healthcare for all is, in my opinion, a perfect way for adults to be irresponsible with their lives. I would understand free healthcare for people under the age of 18. I would even understand free healthcare for people under the age of 25, maybe even as old as 30. However, to allow a 50 year-old free healthcare is crossing the line. If you haven't figured out a way to contribute to society and make money by the age 50 or so, then you don't deserve to take from those who have. It's absurd to think that there are eighteen year-olds having to fork over money to the government to take care of people who have had twice (or even three times) as long to figure snow out in their lives. Not to mention, government controlling the way citizens can get coverage for their treatment is crazy. What if I don't want to get medical treatment the way the government thinks I should. What if I want alternative medicine that the government doesn't cover? What if I spend my own extra time and money to stay healthy in my own manner that doesn't require government assistance. If there is one group of people I don't want controlling my health, it's the government. http://www.monitor.net/monitor/free/codexthreat.html
I'm not sure how legit that article is, but it's absolutely insane for a government to put limitations on something that you can't overdose on (vitamin c).
All this being said, even the private healthcare in america is garbage so I don't really know what the solution is. Doctors over-prescribe drugs with negative (often fatal) side-effects when there are safe alternatives(last I checked this would be considered manslaughter, if not murder) and are not punished. Just check the label of a prozac or statin drug prescription if you don't believe me... Something about that drug having a possibility to increase suicidal and homicidal (wtf!) behavior (on the prozac label). Haven't these md's ever heard of niacin, st. john's wort, 5-htp, etc.
____________
The Crystal Silence Cries
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 12, 2013 09:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Why should anyone support a service they don't benefit from?
We've talked about that. Same question can be asked about phone lines if you don't use a phone or police force if you don't call them and depend on your own gun etc etc. If it's considered a basic service, it won't be evaluated in the scale of this or that individual using it. That is practically impossible. Every central state provides some basic services to the general public and ignores the thiny minority who doesn't choose to or doesn't need to use those services when taking it out of taxes.
Btw, Turkey should be green on the map above too. There are public hospitals here and if you don't have insurance or money, you apply to something called a green card and get your treatment for free.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 12, 2013 09:58 PM |
|
|
|
You should study some social history. Until then it makes no sense to discuss things. It really doesn't. A society isn't a corporation, and humans are no "goods" or "machines".
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 12, 2013 10:23 PM |
|
|
Sal:
It doesn't matter if I vote for Obama as long as the majority does. I voted for Gary Johnson, but I didn't get the president I voted for.
artu:
As far as phone lines go, if you don't have a phone, then you don't have to pay for phone service. So that's already done that way. As for police protection, it benefits you regardless of whether you own a gun or not, because the police catch criminals (and discourage even more of them), which benefits you because you have fewer enemies from whom to defend yourself.
JJ:
No, society is not like a corporation, because corporations are owned by shareholders and a society isn't owned by anyone. Society is more like a bazaar.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 12, 2013 11:02 PM |
|
|
Mvass, I can't know the exact regulations in your country, phone lines are just an example of infrastructure, basic services that are provided by the government. If in US, phone lines (not for mobile phones, but local phones) are provided by private companies too, take roads as an example. I'm sure your government provides some basic service, and just like any other service not every single individual benefits from them (put aside benefiting from them equally), so your logic is still flawed even if the example isn't right on the spot.
And to make the analogy of society=bazaar only proves how right JJ is when he suggests you to read social history. People in a bazaar are a circumstantial crowd, a temporary crowd, a society is an entity. It is not an homogeneous entity of course, but it is something more than the sum of its parts added up. It is something people relate their identities to.
|
|
dhoney
Tavern Dweller
for the tavern wenches
|
|
posted June 12, 2013 11:07 PM |
|
|
He said society is more like a a bazaar, not society=bazaar. HUGE difference in this context
____________
The Crystal Silence Cries
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 12, 2013 11:14 PM |
|
|
artu:
Quote:
I'm sure your government provides some basic service, and just like any other service not every single individual benefits from them (put aside benefiting from them equally), so your logic is still flawed
How is my logic flawed? Yes, there are plenty of tax-funded services that don't benefit every taxpayer. I'm not saying that they don't exist, I'm saying that they shouldn't exist.
As for what a society is, it's a society - it's not exactly like anything else. But it's more like a bazaar than anything, because it's people interacting with each other for mutual benefit.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 12, 2013 11:31 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 23:32, 12 Jun 2013.
|
@dhoney
If it is more like one of the selected two, society is more like a corporation than a bazaar because the people in it are not a random, temporary crowd. They have ties to it.
@mvass
Well, what you want would be as insufficient as not having a government at all then. Your logic is flawed because in populations of millions, the kind of precision you demand on tax=benefit is impossible. The central state didn't evolve for no reason out of the blue, it evolved dealing with masses of people belonging in the same society. That's why in tribes people don't pay taxes but in nations they do. That's why there are public schools for example, because everybody needs to learn to read and write in a modern society to even do some very basic stuff. In a tribe they don't, they can live just fine even if they're illiterate, because the conditions don't demand 99.9999 percent literacy. I'm sure if you dig enough you can find a few who will do just fine even if they are illiterate but you can not modify the system according to such an insignificant demand. So when calculating the budget for schools you can't ask every one if they want to learn to read and write.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 12, 2013 11:38 PM |
|
|
artu:
That's why you have people pay for themselves (or voluntarily pay for others) - if they think it benefits them, they should be the ones who pay for it. Then no central planner would have to determine whether something benefits everyone who's paying for it for every little thing. This works well for goods the benefits of which are received solely by the person who pays for them, which is the case for most goods/services, and in particular for most forms of health care. But there are some goods with distributed benefits - for example, if you pay for the police, everyone benefits from it. For goods/services like that, the optimal level of provision (at which it benefits everyone involved) may require taxation.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
dhoney
Tavern Dweller
for the tavern wenches
|
|
posted June 12, 2013 11:50 PM |
|
|
A) I was not specifying either way, merely pointing out what someone else was saying.
B) A society doesn't have to be anything in particular (just compare countries like 1930s Germany to modern-day USA to 1950s Soviet Union). It is decided by the people who hold the majority of power which in a civil society, is based purely upon number, in an uncivil society, on military might.
C) You can have to ties to something, and still have a random relation to it.
D) Death, weather, and many other things that affect societies, are oftentimes very random.
E) Not to mention there is almost nothing random at all about a bazaar.
F) Thank god society is not actually like a corporation like you say, where everyone is "tied" to it, and that I can come and go as I please. I think Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson (as well as many other free-thinking individuals) are glad that society and how you function in it is completely optional and for one's own mutual benefit.
____________
The Crystal Silence Cries
|
|
dhoney
Tavern Dweller
for the tavern wenches
|
|
posted June 12, 2013 11:53 PM |
|
|
I meant to say on "F" that I thank god I don't live in a society...
____________
The Crystal Silence Cries
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 13, 2013 12:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
That's such a flawed argument. First, correlation does not imply causation. Just because governments tend to establish health care programs as the people in its territory become wealthier does not mean that the programs are making people better off. Second, a "country looking out for its citizens" means no more than taxpayers being forced to provide something to other people. You might as well say that in the most of the wealthy countries, governments have decided to steal from some and give to others for their health care. Third, you say it's "working very well", but it's no praise to say that something bad is working well.
10,000% agreed.
Besides which, I'm not even sure what "universal healthcare" even means in the context of that figure. It's just propaganda at this point.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 13, 2013 12:09 AM |
|
|
|
I on the other hand don't see evidence why Universal Healthcare is such a poor system, considering that most of them are ranked above the US system.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 13, 2013 12:13 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 00:15, 13 Jun 2013.
|
I agree. I'm ideologically leaning towards libertarianism but it can't be denied that many universal healthcare systems in the world outclass the American system in efficiency, quality and cost. According to the World Health Organizations ranking, there are several countries with universal healthcare that perform better and at a lower cost than the US.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
