Is health care a right.

Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Is health care a right.

The US health care system will never be fixed without first answering this question, because the answer will dictate what the next step would be. 

I say yes, without a doubt, it is a right.

Firstly we have Article 25 of the UDHR, which classifies health care as a right.

Secondly I would argue that health care is a public good, on the same grounds that we have a public fire service and a public police service. 

I remember read or hearing centuries ago England used to have a fire insurance, and if you didn't have a plaque placed on your house confirming that you had insurance the fire brigade wouldn't drive right by(!), consequently this lead to fire spreading to the properties of people who DID have fire insurance. (I cannot remember where I heard this, by for some reason Tony Ben comes to mind.) Clearly it is in every ones best interest for fire service to be a public service.

Likewise, it is in everyones best interest to have a public police service. If someone house is being burgled, or someone is being harmed, it is the entire neighborhoods best interest for the police to act without confirming insurance details since the criminal may turn to them or their home.

Similarly, it is in everyones best interest to ensure all people have the ability to get health care, regardless of their financial situation. In addition, those providing insurance should not be acting for-profit, which can (and does) cause them to deny treatment, or even deny insurance altogether. A sick person cannot work, and when we get to the issue of contagious illness/diseases, I think it is quite clear that they should be treated.

I have two questions:

1. Is health care a right?

2. What do the Americans here think about government involvement in health care. Whenever I've discussed this with Americans I either get one of two responses... (a) universal/single-payer/socialised health care is no good (something which is completely refuted by the health care systems in other countries) or (b) they just seem to think the US government is incapable of running anything successfully.

 

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

And in the same age group...

 

 

 

I don't think it matters what conservatives in the US think. Everyone who grows up with access to the internet finds out half the crap they say are just slander.

 

Thankfully, at least the majority under 30 has sense. The most the conservatives can do is try and delay it, but REAL HEALTH CARE, gay rights, and other issues will be resolved with time. I remember looking at the breakdown of voters on prop 8 and noticing the trend that 30-50 was split on the issue, 50+ was STRONGLY against gay rights, and under 30 was EXTREMELY supportive of equal rights.

 

Also, lol at Texas being blue. What is up with the few red states there though?

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat, that was one of

ClockCat, that was one of the most uplifting posts I've seen all year, over the entirety of the internet. Thank you. Smiling

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

No problem! Laughing out loud It's just the truth. It is kind of hard for them to shove propaganda down our throats without...well, censoring the entire internet.

 

 

So yeah. We are more liberal, progressive individuals. We also find religion MUCH less important as a generation according to polls, interestingly enough. I found a lot of speculation on why that is, but most of it has to do with the religious right shoving their religion justified bigotry down everyone's throats. Google-brought explanations say it made people either not go to churches, or re-evaluate things and leave religion entirely. This is not unique to my generation, but it seems to have effected us the most.

 

 

 

The trend only seems to be strengthening too, the generation born after 1995 in the states has even FEWER conservatives. It is already past a 2-1 ratio.

 

 

Also an interesting trend: There is a largely diminishing distinction between racial lines on ideology. It seems to be race and culture are being divorced from each other in this generation, instead homogenizing us as one mixed culture.

 

 

That is bad news for the Klan rallies with diminishing numbers I'm sure :<

 

 

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1477
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Tapey wrote:You

Vastet wrote:
Tapey wrote:

You know Im begining to think people think socialism is like rape or the race card, say the word and win the arguement. There is nothing wrong with socialism, It is just a differant way of doing things, not my prefered but then again capitalism is full of flaws aswell. Tbh both have merits and both have draw backs.

Ironically, EXC is, like most Americans, a victim of theist lies about socialism that sprung up right after WW2 to combat the Soviet's. That's why all his arguments are strawmen or just wrong. He's never bothered to really LOOK at socialism. All this crap is shit I shot down in another thread: http://www.rationalresponders.com:80/forum/17033#new

What people need to get is socialism is differant from communism.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:OK then it's so

EXC wrote:
OK then it's so cheap to provide catastrophic health insurance. I still don't have an answer as to why we don't have non-profits and low cost for-profit insurance then, if your theory is true. Who is stopping a low cost competitor from coming into the US market?

What on earth are you talking about? You DO have low-cost for-profit insurance. It's dehumanizing, embarrassing, and ineffective at taking care of people. You can't get any lower than the private healthcare system in the US. You just can't.

EXC wrote:
Why don't you start an insurance company in the USA if it is so easy for them to make big bucks? Why must the government run it? Why don't we have the government run Wal-Mart if the government can provide low cost products and services better than the private sector?

What? How do you think Wal-Mart runs like that without explicit trade agreements between the US and China? Are you 12? Large groups of people in private corporations act just as inefficiently as large groups of people in government. I've worked in both sectors, and the behaviour nearly identical.

Besides, it depends what you want. If you want to have a more humane medical system for an entire country, then everybody has to chip in. The "common good" does have meaning.

EXC wrote:
The only answer is that you want to have welfare, you want to take money from people that have it and give it those that don't. Government run health care is just a way to get around to a direct cash transfer from the rich to the poor, because too many people wouldn't like this method. Why must we use the health care system to do wealth redistribution? Just have the rich write a check to the poor so they can buy their own medical insurance.

No. Government run health care is just like buying something. You pay your taxes, and in return, you get certain services. Pretending like you're an island doesn't make it true. If the poor become desperate enough, you have a revolution, and the rich people get their wealth redistributed by force. So either way, the wealth will be redistributed -- it's just a matter of how you want to do it.

Oh, that we might be unfair to the rich. Yeah, that one keeps me up at night.

EXC wrote:
Also your argument is completely contradicts Zues' argument. He essentially says companies like CIGNA deny coverage and won't write policies for life threatening conditions. So their customers die every day because of lack of coverage. Therefore we need the government to run health care.

How did those denied coverage become customers in this scenario? I'm confused as to what you're saying. If they were denied coverage, they're not customers.

EXC wrote:
Now you say covering all life-threatening conditions is not that expensive and won't bankrupt the government or lead to higher taxes.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that life-threatening diseases happen all the time, and adults know that. In countries with universal healthcare, ALL the adults know that, and are willing to chip in so that should one of their neighbours get very ill, they're covered.

Yeah, we pay more in taxes. But it's for something that is guaranteed to happen to a certain percentage of the population. That's called "planning" everywhere else.

EXC wrote:
If this is the case, it seems CIGNA would be happy to cover these cheap life threatening conditions rather than get the bad publicity and customer loss that comes when they let their customers die. Why not just pass a law that all insurance policies must cover all life threatening conditions. It should be no big deal to the insurance carriers according to your theory, right?

Now you're entering the land of the imaginary again. I can tell you that in reality, the developed countries of the world get by just fine with slightly higher taxes than in the US, and we don't cry ourselves to sleep over it.

But that's in reality. There may be a whole host of scenarios you can discover hypothetically where we'd all be mentally destroyed by universal health care.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Topher wrote:What are you

Topher wrote:

What are you talking about!?! Charity IS about other peoples money. How can you both support charity AND chastise the principles of socialism, which is inherently about helping and providing for society, i.e. CHARITY!

One is voluntary, one is forced. If a system works great, why does it need to be forced. If Canadians and Scandinavians are so happy with their system, great then you can make participation voluntary, right? Just send everyone a bill they voluntarily pay like cable TV, everyone will pay since their so happy right?

 

Topher wrote:

You sound like an anarchist!

 

Not at all. I'm for what works. Your brand of socialism(i.e. punishing success to reward failure) is what will lead to anarchy.

I'm in favor of what works, what can be proven to be sustainable. Your 'punish success' methods will fail.

Some things in a socialist system can be good. For example I think what Cuba did to train lots of doctors and medical professionals is a good idea. This prevents their from being labor shortages which would lead to rationing and high prices.

But you are proposing a system where government involvement will creates shortages. I'm in favor of government involvement reducing shortages. For instance the government should give tax breaks to companies developing pandemic vaccines. You basically want to kill the profit motive in pharmaceutical companies so they don't take risks. This will create vaccine shortages.

 

Topher wrote:

Where did I say this? Please stop making red herrings and strawmen! NO ONE is forcing you to do anything you don't want to or stopping you from doing what you do want to do.

 

I'm forced to pay high taxes for something I don't want. If you make the system voluntary, I'm fine with it.

Topher wrote:

If you don't want to use public health care, guess what: DON'T FUCKING USE IT! The fact you don't want this does not mean it should not be there for the people that do want it, or who need it.

 

Then DON'T MAKE ME FUCKING PAY HIGH TAXES FOR IT!

 

Topher wrote:

Do you think you should? You already pay tax, do you think this grants you the right to control other people? Please stop making ridiculous responses!

  

I thought we were all supposed to be one big happy family that looks out for each other under socialism? Shouldn't the happy family decide together when to bring a precious new life into the world, especially since they're all our children? But to you the individual right to breed is sacred. Why isn't the individual right to keep what I earn and spend my money as I please sacred to you? This makes no sense, some individual rights are not to be touched. While the government can confiscate all one's individual wealth, it belongs to all our children.

Topher wrote:

No, there is higher staff is due to the vast administration departments. It's little to do with service, after all, millions of Americans not even allowed health care to begin with! 

  

Yes, it's a vast conspiracy to keep people without insurance and to keep insurance companies making obscene profits without new competition in the market. Probably the same people that faked the moon landings.

Topher wrote:

What fraud are you talking about?

   

Why do you think insurance companies spend so much on paperwork and bureaucracy? Because the world is full of thieves. You claim government run health care won't have all this overhead. Since when has gov. programs not had tons of bureaucracy? And if they don't won't their be tons of fraud? Doctors and hospitals getting public money for phony claims. Theives don't go away under socialism, they steal from the government.

 

Topher wrote:

And? Should we just let poor people die in the gutter?

    

If that is their life choice. If they want to make the choice not to work and risk they won't be able to afford medical treatment, then they can't have access to expensive medical treatments. If I skydive, I take a risk that I may be killed or injured. But it's my life, my choice. If I want to spend my money to travel around the world instead of pay high taxes for medical services, it's my life.

Of course there is a public health issue with letting people die in gutter. So there would need to be a cheap place to die.

Under my brand of socialism, a social worker would visit everyone without insurance. The social worker would find out what the problem is. For some it's lack of education or drugs, psychological problems. Get these people into a program that gets them out of these circumstances with education, drug treatment, counseling. So when they are in these programs they could get government medical insurance. When they finish rehabilitation then they can afford to buy insurance.

But of course, some people will tell the social worker to leave them alone. They are happy being poor and not working much. Some will drop out of the programs. For these people, they would have to be cut off from all but the cheapest medical services. If they show up in the emergency room, they would sent to a place with only basic medical services and pain killers, the would not have access to any expensive services at taxpayer expense. This was their choice.

Topher wrote:

The point is malpractice insurance costs far more in the US than other countries. This increased cost is passed onto patients.

     

OK some legal reform is a good idea. But I still want to sue doctors and hospitals when they screw up.

 

Topher wrote:

Your comments make you sound like a complete moron to be honest. I look forward to the day when you insurance company fucks you over. Maybe then you would have a change of heart. Maybe.

I guess you can win with intelligent explanations so you have to resort to personal attacks. You can't explain how to pay for it without raising taxes that will kill jobs and the economy. So just call your opponent a moron. I look forward to they day when you have to wait for rationed health care with extreme shortages of everything makes you wait months for treatment, or they tell you sorry but your treatment to too expensive.

 

Your lack of an explanation of how systems that reward failure while punishing success are sustainable make you sound like a moron to me.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Ironically, EXC

Vastet wrote:
Ironically, EXC is, like most Americans, a victim of theist lies about socialism that sprung up right after WW2 to combat the Soviet's. That's why all his arguments are strawmen or just wrong. He's never bothered to really LOOK at socialism. All this crap is shit I shot down in another thread: http://www.rationalresponders.com:80/forum/17033#new

Well then explain to us ignoramuses how a system that rewards failure and punishes success is sustainable. How will this lead to anything but a dysfunctional economy and society? Has this ever been proven to work?

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Well then explain

EXC wrote:

Well then explain to us ignoramuses how a system that rewards failure and punishes success is sustainable. How will this lead to anything but a dysfunctional economy and society? Has this ever been proven to work?



How many times do I have to write that it works, has worked, and continues to work in every developed country in the world except the US?

 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
A few strawmen EXC continues

A few strawmen EXC continues to use despite being proven as such months earlier:
punishing success to reward failure
high taxes
socialism is somehow involuntary
capitalism somehow isn't
socialism is totalitarianism, or statism, or both

EXC ironically backing socialism while claiming it as his own version, despite it pre-existing before he existed, and despite the fact that this is what socialism is arguing for:
"Under my brand of socialism, a social worker would visit everyone without insurance(critical difference being there is no insurance). The social worker would find out what the problem is. For some it's lack of education or drugs, psychological problems. Get these people into a program that gets them out of these circumstances with education, drug treatment, counseling. So when they are in these programs they could get government medical insurance. When they finish rehabilitation then they can afford to buy insurance(again, socialism removes the middleman, reducing costs and increasing efficiency)."

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"But I still want to sue

"But I still want to sue doctors and hospitals when they screw up."
Why? So you aren't permanently incapable of work as a result, and therefore unable to support yourself. Consequences? Higher insurance premiums, refusal to work, larger bureaucracy, fewer doctors, more fraud.
Great solution. Socialism doesn't bankrupt the system over an error, it provides for the victim, and evaluates fixing the problem as opposed to punishing it. Better solution.

In closing:
"Well then explain to us ignoramuses how a system that rewards failure and punishes success is sustainable. How will this lead to anything but a dysfunctional economy and society? Has this ever been proven to work?"

Yet another strawman.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

I don't feel bad about this because I know EXC will be left with the other crazed minority conservatives in 20 years.

 

So it is okay. Laughing out loud His opinion is going to only be shared by a few other nuts. Everyone else has sense to not want health care to exclude people, since it is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT. It should have never been a for-profit system in this country in the first place. The only way an insurance company makes money, is by being paid for their services and the denying their services when someone submits a claim to actually use it. I've had rejected claims, my mother has, and my stepfather has. They don't even limit rejections to big ticket things.

 

 

 

Making money by withholding medical care just doesn't work for people. And everyone knows this. Well, almost everyone. There are always a few loons out there.

 

 

I finished reading the entire bill proposed last night. I am very impressed with it, it also sets up a grant program for students specifically going into the medical field, as well as creates new regulations on medical care to ensure both coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions, and a level for quality of care provided.

 

 

In addition, it would set up an agency that is designed to negotiate better contracts for small businesses that have to provide for their employees, allowing them to leverage better deals than they currently have.

 

 

The bill in it's entirety is here. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.txt.pdf

 

 

 

I'll be happy when it gets through. It is really needed.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Stosis
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-10-21
User is offlineOffline
EXC, you have written some

EXC, you have written some of the most wrong things I have ever read. How many people with millions of dollars do you think made a lucky investment? won the lottery? inherited it? How have those people worked hard for their money. The truth is that your kind of capitalism does not reward the kind of success that deserves reward. It rewards liars, cheaters, thieves and criminals. It rewards those whose morals have no problem with killing for money. They have no problem causing terrible undue misery to hundreds if not thousands or millions. These are the kind of people who, in a just world, would be in prison for human rights abuses.

 

Tell me, if you don't want to give anyone a "free ride" then why live where you have to pay taxes for anything. Why not just find some place in the wilderness or a deserted island where the IRS won't be able to find you. You can pay for plumbing, electric wires, basic sanitation, your own health care, etc... What you can't afford you don't get. Need a job? You'll have to find some way to do that on your own. Of course, this would be completely made and out right stupid. Just remember that unless you're lucky enough to be so extravagantly rich that you can pay to set up your own infrastructure, then, if you have any sense of morality, you should not except hand-outs from the world's super-rich.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: Everyone

ClockCat wrote:

 Everyone else has sense to not want health care to exclude people, since it is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT.

Well then let's make eternal life in heaven a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT. Let's make being a billionaire a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT. I feel it would be fair if we all went to heaven when we died and we lived like billionaires here on earth. Who cares how the universe actually works or if there is evidence.

Socialism is your religion. So there is no point in arguing with you about the effects of socialized medicine on society. You'll just ignore the evidence, ignore how the universe for the irrational dream of a socialist utopia.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: Everyone


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Change socialism to

Change socialism to capitalism and those pic are accurate. The rest is more strawmen, all EXC is capable of providing.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
    

 

 

 

 


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1477
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Well its gone down to

Well its gone down to picture wars anyway

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
New pics! Sweet.

New pics! Sweet. Sticking out tongue

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

 

Of course the classic.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1477
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)

Oh god dammit >.< you beat me to that pic 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1477
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline

ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

The U.S. fell 3 more places from 2006 to 2008?

 

:I


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
 EXC wrote:One is

 

EXC wrote:
One is voluntary, one is forced. If a system works great, why does it need to be forced. If Canadians and Scandinavians are so happy with their system, great then you can make participation voluntary, right? Just send everyone a bill they voluntarily pay like cable TV, everyone will pay since their so happy right?

It is 'forced' to ensure everyone contributes. Sending bills and awaiting payment wastes money and time (and as a result it will increase the cost and lower efficiency). It is quicker, cheaper and far more efficient to make the process automatic.

Also, another reason for taxes being automatic is that everyone gets access to the resulting services (infrastructure, police and fire service, safety, etc). If taxes were not automatic how can you ensure that everyone benefiting from those services (which is virtually everyone) has contributed to them? You would have to go though more process, which in turn increases the cost further and lowers the efficiency of the service.

Also, if taxes were not automatic not everyone would pay, most likely as a result of ignorance. Such people would want these services, and probably use them, but not realise the importance of taxes. I would contend that anyone fully understanding the reasoning behind taxes, with respects to the common good, morality, a functioning society, economics, practicality, etc, would agree that taxes are appropriate.

 

EXC wrote:
Not at all. I'm for what works. Your brand of socialism(i.e. punishing success to reward failure)

Oh yes, here we have the underbelly of the capitalist argument... that having resources and money automatically means you are hard working, successful and deserving of your wealth. Conversely, not having much and have to turn to society for help mean you're a complete failure, are lazy, and deserve your pathetic nothing of a life.

This (the punishing success/rewarding failure argument) is based on fundamentally flawed assumptions. Let me explain why this argument fails.

The problem with this line of thought is that many people are born into wealth and are left large inheritances, conversely, others are born into poverty. Maybe in each case the parents deserve their status; maybe the rich parents work extremely hard to get where they are at; and maybe the poor parents were lazy drug addicts who have no one to blame but themselves for having nothing. Maybe. (I suspect not, for reason we shall see below.) But none of this mean their children deserve their status. The children of the wealthy parents do no inherently deserve their wealth, likewise the children of the poor parents do no inherently deserve their poverty. They land in this situation by an accident of birth.

This leads to the next problem: as a result of this accident of birth, each have grossly unfair starting point in life, with the wealthy children getting a top class education and access to what they want, and the poverty stricken children have a mountain to climb before they get anywhere far, meaning the wealthy children have a good chance of succeeding in life and the poor children having a greater chance of failing and may never even get the education that came so easily to the wealthy child. There is good reason that their parents were in the same boat. Maybe each of their parents do deserve their wealth and poverty respectively, but then maybe they started out just as their children did, born into wealth and poverty respectively, and since a wealthy child is likely to do well and a poor child is likely to have trouble and not do so well, this gives us good reason to hold that this is how their parents ended up with their wealthy/poverty situation too. So we have a constant cycle.

I'm not saying we should therefore just take the inheritance of the wealthy child away, after all, the wealthy parents should be able to determine what happens to their money, however the fact the wealthy child doesn't necessarily deserve what they got, and the fact that the poor child doesn't necessarily deserve their situation, this gives us a good argument for financial redistribution (via the wealthy paying slightly more in tax) in order to try and limit the cycle (explained above) and reduce the social and economic disparity.

The problem with your argument is that it assumes/depends on people being born equal, but unfortunately this is not how reality is. Given two people having the same starting point in life and having the same opportunities, if one becomes wealthy through hard work, and the other doesn't care, does nothing, has a minimal wage job, or worse, lives off state welfare, then I would be in complete agreement: each would be deserving of their situation, and therefore aside from contributing to the common good (such as safety and health care, where it benefits everyone when all people are covered), anything else could be said to be rewarding failure. Unfortunately however real life isn't like this.

I agree that some people are lazy and rely too much on state welfare. I strongly dislike people that simply don't bother to try and just live of welfare (and I think people who knowingly commit fraud against the government should be in prison), however it doesn't mean that people on welfare or who rely on others for help some other way have not tried to improve their situation. It's easy to talk about choices and being successful but it's far harder in practice, especially given the social inequalities discusses in the previous paragraphs.

To sum up, whist I agree with much of the capitalist/libretarian argument in theory and occasionally in practice, the realities of the world simply invalidate much of the ideas and continuing to enforce them simply leads to an unjustifiable system, socially and economically.

That was longer that I though it would be, but it leads me to this:

You cannot use the punishing success/rewarding failure argument on what I've said because people in question do not inherently or necessarily deserve their wealthy or poverty!

 

EXC wrote:
This prevents their from being labor shortages which would lead to rationing and high prices.

Health care is rational everywhere, even in the US. It is rationed via cost.

 

EXC wrote:
Some things in a socialist system can be good. For example I think what Cuba did to train lots of doctors and medical professionals is a good idea. This prevents their from being labor shortages which would lead to rationing and high prices.

But you are proposing a system where government involvement will creates shortages.

Utterly false. I can tell you're parroting ideology rather than actually researching the issue and educating yourself.

The system I am proposing--universal health care, which can take various forms--already exists in various countries and has various mechanisms for avoiding shortages.

Ironically your own example of avoiding shortages (Cuba) is from a country that runs precisely the type of system you are claiming will lead to shortages!! LMAO! Clearly, by your own citation(!) such a system CAN avoid shortages! Clearly, there isn't such a problem with shortages that you think there will be.

 

EXC wrote:
You basically want to kill the profit motive in pharmaceutical companies so they don't take risks. This will create vaccine shortages.

I want to kill the profit motive in health care because it is immoral to play the profit game with peoples health. I'm particularly talking about insurance companies. I'm not talking about killing profit in the pharmaceutical industry. Besides, do pharmaceutical companies make vaccines with high profit margins in mind? Or even basic drugs like aspirin? I suspect their profits derive from the non-essential drugs market, the fads and so-called 'quick fix' drugs.

Your claim that it will lead to shortages is utterly false, because it already happens and does not lead to shortages.

 

EXC wrote:
I'm forced to pay high taxes for something I don't want.

1. You don't get to determine how or where you taxes are spent. For all your know your taxes may not even touch a particular area of government spending.

2. If you don't want it, opt out and pay private. Many countries allow people to opt out of the government run health care system and go private. I suspect the US government would certainly have something similar to that to appease the anti-government folk.

Alternately it could be like Britain, where although you cannot stop contributing to the NHS (since A&E services are only provided by the NHS) you can ask the NHS to fund part of the cost of treatment at a private clinic. (e.g. whatever it costs the NHS to perform the same treatment, with the patient making up the rest.)

 

EXC wrote:
I thought we were all supposed to be one big happy family that looks out for each other under socialism? Shouldn't the happy family decide together when to bring a precious new life into the world, especially since they're all our children? But to you the individual right to breed is sacred. Why isn't the individual right to keep what I earn and spend my money as I please sacred to you? This makes no sense, some individual rights are not to be touched. While the government can confiscate all one's individual wealth, it belongs to all our children.

This doesn't answer the question: do you think paying taxes grants YOU permission to control the lives of others?

As for the right to individuals wealth, who is taking this away? The fact is some things are better (cheaper and more efficient) provided and run collectively, moreover doing it this way will actually benefit you.

It benefits you to contribute towards the police force if want the rampaging killer in your neighbours house to be immediately arrested. If the police only attend on proof of insurance and your neighbour is not police-insured then you and your family are at risk. Likewise, it benefits you to contribute towards the fire department if want the fire in your neighbours property to be immediately distinguished. If the the firefighters only attend on proof of insurance and your neighbour is not fire-insured then you and your family and your property are at risk.

Health care is no different here. If your neighbour has a contagious disease and they are not insured you and your family are at risk. If someone with heart problems is not covered, resulting in them putting off seeking medical advice, but then they have a heart attack whilst driving, crashing into your car and injuring/kill you, well, it would have been better if they were covered to begin with. It can benefit you to ensure everyone has access to medical treatment.

 

EXC wrote:
Why do you think insurance companies spend so much on paperwork and bureaucracy? Because the world is full of thieves. You claim government run health care won't have all this overhead. Since when has gov. programs not had tons of bureaucracy? And if they don't won't their be tons of fraud? Doctors and hospitals getting public money for phony claims. Theives don't go away under socialism, they steal from the government.

How can you steal health care? You either need it or you don't. It's not like you can pretend to need chemotherapy or pretend you have a broken leg!

The reason insurance companies have so much bureaucracy is in order to find way to avoid impacting their profit margins. This means denying care, care which is often needed.

Government run health care has its own mechanism, and it isn't based on denying care to save money: a doctor actually examines you, then determines if you need further treatment; if you do then how quick you get treated depends on the seriousness of your situation. Fraud (whatever you mean by this) is weeded out via the doctor, since treatment is provided based on the medical advice of your doctor who actually examines you, rather that how it is in the US where the insurance companies make decisions via post!

 

EXC wrote:
Topher wrote:
And? Should we just let poor people die in the gutter?

If that is their life choice. If they want to make the choice not to work and risk they won't be able to afford medical treatment, then they can't have access to expensive medical treatments. If I skydive, I take a risk that I may be killed or injured. But it's my life, my choice. If I want to spend my money to travel around the world instead of pay high taxes for medical services, it's my life.

You're STILL making the fallacious assumptions that someone who is uninsured or underinsured is so due to their choice. HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS? What is this based on?

You are assuming they have no job (how do you know this?)

Even if they don't have a job you are assuming they have not tried to get one (how do you know this?)

Even if they have a job you are assuming that they will have adequate medical coverage or even medical coverage at all (how do you know this?)

 

EXC wrote:
Under my brand of socialism, a social worker would visit everyone without insurance. The social worker would find out what the problem is. For some it's lack of education or drugs, psychological problems. Get these people into a program that gets them out of these circumstances with education, drug treatment, counseling. So when they are in these programs they could get government medical insurance. When they finish rehabilitation then they can afford to buy insurance.

This ignores the people who can afford to buy medical insurance but are either denied care (if they have insurance) or refused insurance altogether! I posted links and videos on this. Then there are those have a job but whose employer does not provide adequate coverage or does not provide coverage at all. You will probably say they should just get a new job at has coverage or offer better coverage, well, it easy to just tell people to find a new job, but when you have bills to pay and children to look after, and are in the midst of a recession no less, it isn't as easy and simple as quitting and getting a new job.

EXC wrote:
I guess you can win with intelligent explanations so you have to resort to personal attacks. You can't explain how to pay for it without raising taxes that will kill jobs and the economy. So just call your opponent a moron. I look forward to they day when you have to wait for rationed health care with extreme shortages of everything makes you wait months for treatment, or they tell you sorry but your treatment to too expensive.

Your lack of an explanation of how systems that reward failure while punishing success are sustainable make you sound like a moron to me.

People within this thread HAVE explained and are continuing to explain and I have provides linkes to further detailed explanations, and yet you STILL continue to make caricatures of government run health care systems, you STILL make assumption not based on reality.

If you think universal health care systems with government involvement are unsustainable and riddled with shortages then you clearly are not basing your opinion on observation. Observation of the worlds health care reveals that it is only the US healthcare system which has fundamental problems, meanwhile, the universal systems around the world which you think will leads to mayhem, albeit not perfect, are doing rather well.

I called you a moron (which I conceded was harsh and I apologies for) because I just cannot imagine someone so incompassionate as you are sounding. You just don't care about anyone in trouble and assume that anyone in such a place must be to blame and are there as a result of their own choice or laziness.

 

EXC wrote:
Well then explain to us ignoramuses how a system that rewards failure and punishes success is sustainable.

Your premise is fundamentally flawed, as I (and it sounds like others in a previous thread) have explained. You are assuming there is inherent failure and success which is being punished and rewarded. 

 

EXC wrote:
How will this lead to anything but a dysfunctional economy and society? Has this ever been proven to work?

Yes, just look outside of the United States at the universal health care systems around the world. If your arguments again these systems were true and therefore valid, they should be in near collapse and in complete disarray, but this is not what you find. Clearly there is something wrong with your opinion and arguments of such systems.

 

 

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Vastet

EXC wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Ironically, EXC is, like most Americans, a victim of theist lies about socialism that sprung up right after WW2 to combat the Soviet's. That's why all his arguments are strawmen or just wrong. He's never bothered to really LOOK at socialism. All this crap is shit I shot down in another thread: http://www.rationalresponders.com:80/forum/17033#new

Well then explain to us ignoramuses how a system that rewards failure and punishes success is sustainable.

Nobody has to explain anything of the sort, EXC, as Vastet said, this is a strawman argument, a social services system neither punishes success nor rewards failure. Assurance of a basic and dignified standard of wellbeing is not a "reward" its the least we can do for each other and ourselves to maintain the kind of environment we need to thrive as a civilisation. Equivalently healthy, well educated and content copatriots are hardly a punishment to live with. Seriously, EXC, how is it a bad thing. A sick person properly treated in a hopsital, whether they can afford it or not, isn't out at work coughing around your lunch or on public transport with you, right?

Desperate people do desperate things, like work in direct contact with others while they are sick, jack up drugs in the street and leave the needle for you to step on, appeal to the laws of greater force to solve problems. Frankly, it would be so much easier to punish the so called "successful" simply by letting them just have it their way, go right ahead let your environment go to shambles so you can keep a few "hard-earned" pennies, the inevitable consequence of dirty, desperate and dingy societies becoming the norm would punish sufficiently.

 

EXC wrote:

How will this lead to anything but a dysfunctional economy and society?

You've got it backwards, EXC. We all live together, the way to not be dysfunctional is to be good to each other, not desert each other. The dysfunctional economy and society is the direct consequence of the denial of basic dignity to the people you have to live with. History attests to this much.

EXC wrote:

Has this ever been proven to work?

Yes!! For pete's sake, EXC. See every second post in this thread, it has been said before.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
The price of living in a

The price of living in a civilzed country is as much about what you must do (responsibilities) as is it was about what you would like to do (freedoms).

No responsibilities no freedoms simple as that, ever freedom has a cost both financially (taxes) and in responsibilities (obeying the law).

A democracy is also about obeying laws you disagree with and accepting that while the people may get the society they want you personally may get one you hate but you still have the option to try to change it

 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Change

Vastet wrote:
Change socialism to capitalism and those pic are accurate. The rest is more strawmen, all EXC is capable of providing.

 

Great copout Vastet. You don't want to explain the logic of why making everyone a billionaire as a human right won't work yet unlimited unconditional health care would work.

It's only a straw man fallacy if the analogy doesn't hold. Where does the analogy break down then?

The argument is that something can be made human rights regardless of whether it can be paid for. So why doesn't this apply to everything?

If health care is a right, it must be conditional upon society being able to pay for it, right? You are not capable of explaining your logic.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Great copout

EXC wrote:
Great copout Vastet. You don't want to explain the logic of why making everyone a billionaire as a human right won't work yet unlimited unconditional health care would work.

But nowhere does unlimited unconditional health care exist. You're not referring to anything that anyone is suggesting. Universal health care isn't about turning people into superbeings, EXC, it's about basic treatment.

Read the post by ragdish, whose main concern is the people he'd like to treat. Physicians I know have the exact same attitude towards medical systems as he does, not surprisingly. The greatest frustrations I've heard come from the move in Canada towards privatization, which hinders their ability to do their job well, if at all.

So you've given us arguments for private health care based on nothing. The rest of the developed world provides health care for its citizens without flailing into anarchy or bankruptcy. Yes, there are occasionally longer wait times, and yes, we pay higher taxes. But we get a system where physicians at least have the opportunity to do their jobs -- even if the person they're treating is poor.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Absolutely amazingly

Absolutely amazingly ridiculous.

AT LEAST 10 PEOPLE HAVE CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN THAT SOCIALISED HEALTHCARE IS CHEAPER THAN CAPITALISED HEALTHCARE. YOUR EVIDENENCE TO THE CONTRARY: 000000000000000000000000000000

YOU FUCKING IDIOT.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: YOU FUCKING

Vastet wrote:
YOU FUCKING IDIOT.

Watch your blood pressure. I'm paying for that shit.

...

Hehe.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Absolutely

Vastet wrote:
Absolutely amazingly ridiculous. AT LEAST 10 PEOPLE HAVE CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN THAT SOCIALISED HEALTHCARE IS CHEAPER THAN CAPITALISED HEALTHCARE. YOUR EVIDENENCE TO THE CONTRARY: 000000000000000000000000000000 YOU FUCKING IDIOT.

 

If you work or own a business your costs go way up(taxes), if you don't work the cost goes way down(free). The service would be way inferior, so how can we compare apples and oranges, anyways? All you have is some Canadians that think because their government chops down their forests to pay for their 'free' rationed health care, that health care should be a universal human right.

Here's evidence to the contrary from the CBO:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/16/cbo-health-reform-bills-wont-reduce-costs/

Because our government is borrowing trillions to finance the national debt, adding on more cost with universal health care would require more borrowing, this money would have to be paid back with interest, so socialized medicine would require  paying trillions in interest.

So if 10 socialists agree on anything is must be true. What a rational response.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:All you have is

EXC wrote:
All you have is some Canadians that think because their government chops down their forests to pay for their 'free' rationed health care, that health care should be a universal human right.


That, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Oh, and the rest of the developed world. But other than that, yeah, not much.

Our forests? You know we sell oil, right?

 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Vastet

HisWillness wrote:

Vastet wrote:
YOU FUCKING IDIOT.

Watch your blood pressure. I'm paying for that shit.

...

Hehe.


No worries, I'm not actually pissed off. I just thought I'd try something I haven't tried before. Logic and reason aren't working. Can't say I'm too surprised that it didn't work, but it was worth a shot. I guess EXC's brainwashing is complete. Either that or he's trolling us in regards to socialism. It can be hard to tell the deluded from the satire.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Stosis
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-10-21
User is offlineOffline
Alright, EXC, you didn't

Alright, EXC, you didn't respond to my post so I'll ask you again straight out. How come you don't want to pay others medical bills but you have no problem paying for their police, fire fighters, anything else that subsidized (you know like food...)? Also, how can you morally use these services yourself, effectively "stealing", as you would put it, from those richer than you? Lastly, why do you continue to live in such a society when I have provided you with what appears to be a very to be exactly what you want? think about it, no taxes ever!

 

You know what, fuck it, you're basically just a n00by troll.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Logic and

Vastet wrote:
Logic and reason aren't working.

 

I used arguement by analogy. Vastet claims this argument is strawman. But he does not explain why the analogy fails. So I'll ask it again. WHY CAN'T BEING FILTHY RICH BE MADE A HUMAN RIGHT JUST AS HEALTH CARE IS A HUMAN RIGHT?

You wanted evidence that we can't pay for socialized medicine, I gave it to you.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Stosis wrote:How come you

Stosis wrote:

How come you don't want to pay others medical bills but you have no problem paying for their police, fire fighters, anything else that subsidized (you know like food...)?

 

I never said I did want to pay for these services. I think in large part with new technologies they can be made privatized and made to be paid on a pay as you go system.

For instance fire protection, we are locked into a 19th century mode of operation with firemen that mostly sit around all day waiting for a fire call with expensive fire truck that are rarely needed. Technology should enable us to eliminate most of these jobs with more efficient use of sprinklers and fire sensors. Also the police and fire unions essentially blackmail and bankrupt our government with their ponzi scheme pension system, where you pay for services you use today 30 years from now. Kicking the problem down the road.

Stosis wrote:

Also, how can you morally use these services yourself, effectively "stealing", as you would put it, from those richer than you?

  

I've never called the police in my life. I only called the fire department once when the motel next door was burning. I used to a garden hose to try and put the fire out while the fire house only 2 blocks away took half an hour to get there. There was articles in the newspaper the next day about the slow response of the fire department. But, no one got fired over the slow response.

If the service was privatized, they company would have to pay for failure to provide service and perhaps be put out of business. There is no reason why you can't have competing fire protection and security services. Very little of our income needs to go to government.

How are they morally justified to force me to pay for something I don't want or need?

Stosis wrote:

Lastly, why do you continue to live in such a society when I have provided you with what appears to be a very to be exactly what you want? think about it, no taxes ever!

  

I'm fine with paying for what I use. I want a social system that get people out of poverty so they can pay for what they use. Nothing more than that. I don't want a system that rewards failure. That's all I want. If that makes me an illogical troll, then that's your call.

Stosis wrote:

You know what, fuck it, you're basically just a n00by troll.

Such a rational response.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

It's okay guys, you don't have prove anything to EXC. It really isn't worth it.

 

His opinion isn't going to be valid anyways with the rest of the population here. If nothing else, waiting will fix the problem.

 

Extremists aren't worth the time or effort. No matter what you prove to him, he is going to remain determined that taxes are terrible and the money goes into an abyss that he never gets anything from, while ignoring the benefits he uses daily from that very thing.

 

 

It is like how McCain spoke against social security while filing separately from his wife so he could go collect it. EXC is probably never going to look at the roads, mail, education, food, fire department, police, military, emergency services and care, disaster relief, welfare, or ANYTHING ELSE our government provides through our taxes as benefitting anyone.

 

He obviously wants to be apart from society in his own little bubble. Let him.

 

 

Meanwhile, I am able to go to a nice university thanks to government grants and loans, which I will happily pay taxes for that other people can benefit from them the same way I can. I will also happily pay taxes for people to have a standard of health care that allows them to NOT DIE FROM EASILY TREATABLE CONDITIONS. Why? Because it is benefitial not only to others, but to me to pool resources in a community. It isn't by any means providing a utopia, but it is doing the least possible to ensure people aren't dieing in the streets, and piling into emergency rooms pleading for treatment of conditions allowed to fester for years as they are not covered under their insurance plans and no new ones will take them with pre-existing conditions.

 

EXC can be a douche and want people to die without treatment. It won't make it happen though. The worst that can happen is people like him delay this and cause more unneeded deaths and suffering for a few years.

 

But in the future, even Texas will be blue. So things aren't that bad to look forward to Smiling

 

 

 

<3~

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:WHY CAN'T BEING

EXC wrote:
WHY CAN'T BEING FILTHY RICH BE MADE A HUMAN RIGHT JUST AS HEALTH CARE IS A HUMAN RIGHT?

Because a functioning society requires healthy people. A functioning society does not require people to be rich.

You can't just make up things to be natural rights. There is a reason why something are rights and other things are not.

Quote:
You wanted evidence that we can't pay for socialized medicine, I gave it to you.

I must have missed this evidence. Can you point to the post where you revealed this evidence.

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:I don't want a

EXC wrote:
I don't want a system that rewards failure.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:So I'll ask it

EXC wrote:

So I'll ask it again. WHY CAN'T BEING FILTHY RICH BE MADE A HUMAN RIGHT JUST AS HEALTH CARE IS A HUMAN RIGHT?

Being filthy rich can be made a human right, it's not a matter of can or can't at all, anything can be declared a right of all humans even being ludicrously wealthy and indulged. Doing so might degrade the credibility of protecting human rights as a societal good, though, by reducing the question of dignities to petty bickering over the dimensions of TV sets. Still, we could waste our time doing it and finding it a meaningless and unproductive pursuit.. sure.

The point of course, is that providing health and well being assurances as a basic human right makes an actual difference to the quality of the community, it's intrinsically meaningful. There's no intrinsic value to seven figure bank accounts, their value is derived from disparity, remove the disparity and they may as well not exist.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Extremists

ClockCat wrote:

Extremists aren't worth the time or effort. No matter what you prove to him, he is going to remain determined that taxes are terrible and the money goes into an abyss that he never gets anything from, while ignoring the benefits he uses daily from that very thing.

How can I be an extremist if over 50% of the US population still does not want socialized medicine. The burden is on you to prove it won't bankrupt society.

I never said I never receive any benefits. But the benefits are way out of proportion to taxes paid. Income tax is a highly irrational method of collecting taxes, it will eventually bankrupt society. But this is precisely how socialized medicine will need to be paid for. We don't have vast acres of virgin forests as Canada does that we can destroy to be overcharged by doctors. Look at all the fraud in Medicare.

 

 

ClockCat wrote:

It is like how McCain spoke against social security while filing separately from his wife so he could go collect it. EXC is probably never going to look at the roads, mail, education, food, fire department, police, military, emergency services and care, disaster relief, welfare, or ANYTHING ELSE our government provides through our taxes as benefiting anyone.

Well then charge me a fee when I use them. If I don't use them, leave me alone. Why do you have a problem with that?

 

ClockCat wrote:

He obviously wants to be apart from society in his own little bubble. Let him.

Quite to the contrary. You are creating class warfare. You say you want to create a harmonious society, but you still need the taxman to carry a gun to get them to pay income taxes. 

 

 

ClockCat wrote:

Meanwhile, I am able to go to a nice university thanks to government grants and loans, which I will happily pay taxes for that other people can benefit from them the same way I can. I will also happily pay taxes for people to have a standard of health care that allows them to NOT DIE FROM EASILY TREATABLE CONDITIONS.

When the economy collapse from irrational socialism, lots of people will die for all kinds of conditions. 

 

 

ClockCat wrote:

Why? Because it is benefitial not only to others, but to me to pool resources in a community. It isn't by any means providing a utopia, but it is doing the least possible to ensure people aren't dieing in the streets, and piling into emergency rooms pleading for treatment of conditions allowed to fester for years as they are not covered under their insurance plans and no new ones will take them with pre-existing conditions.

What's wrong with having the socialists start a charity to do these things? Because you're only generous with other people's money.

 

 

ClockCat wrote:

EXC can be a douche and want people to die without treatment. It won't make it happen though. The worst that can happen is people like him delay this and cause more unneeded deaths and suffering for a few years.

 

Well that's a good strawman. I want people to die? I proposed a system I believe could work without bankrupting the government. No one would die without treatment, they just would not have access to anything expensive if they decide they don't want to live a life that requires them to work their ass off to pay for expensive doctors, drugs and hospitals. It's thier choice to live without insurance.

Well then, you want people to die from the anarchy when society goes bankrupt. You want people to not get a decent education because all government resources are paying for whatever expensive medical treatments science can invent.

 

ClockCat wrote:

But in the future, even Texas will be blue. So things aren't that bad to look forward to Smiling

We'll all be Red once the Chinese own our ass. The Chinese learned if you grant someone a right you must take away another. That's why they had to go with the one child policy. If you grant health care as a right, you must take away something else like the right to breed and the right to refuse to work in a difficult job.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

EXC, I wasn't talking to you dear.

 

 

I was talking to sensible people.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Topher wrote:Because a

Topher wrote:

Because a functioning society requires healthy people.

The vast majority of people are healthy without any expensive medical treatments. And if society is functioning correctly, everyone would have a good job. And if the government didn't take too much in taxes they could pay for their own medical services and insurance.

Topher wrote:

A functioning society does not require people to be rich.

Yes, but if all we got to do is make it a Human right and it will be, so why not do it? It works kind of like prayer, just wish really hard for it and it will magically happen. Who cares about the mechanics and details of how it all is paid for and the secondary effects of the high taxes. Just like health care, we don't need to make it conditional on being able to pay for it according to your logic.

Topher wrote:

I must have missed this evidence. Can you point to the post where you revealed this evidence.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/16/cbo-health-reform-bills-wont-reduce-costs/

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

 

 

Poor little GOP. They just can't garner enough support. Things aren't like they used to be! There just aren't enough bigots and religious nuts (and I do mean nuts. The people that protest funerals with GOD HATES YOU kind of signs) out there to form a conservative base Sad

 

Laughing out loud

 

I also love how the 18-29 age range is almost entirely made of progressive liberals. This is why your opinion does not matter EXC. All I have to do is wait, and you become more and more a minority as everyone else develops society and...progresses.

 

 

 

Universal Health Care will happen. If it doesn't happen now, it will happen later. You can't stop it no matter how much pointless raging you do, or ignoring of the world around you.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1477
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Marginal Tax Rate[1] Single
Marginal Tax Rate[1] Single Married Filing Jointly or Qualified Widow(er) Married Filing Separately Head of Household 10% 15% 25% 28% 33% 35%
$0 – $8,350 $0 – $16,700 $0 – $8,350 $0 – $11,950
$8,351– $33,950 $16,701 – $67,900 $8,351 – $33,950 $11,951 – $45,500
$33,951 – $82,250 $67,901 – $137,050 $33,951 – $68,525 $45,501 – $117,450
$82,251 – $171,550 $137,051 – $208,850 $68,525 – $104,425 $117,451 – $190,200
$171,551 – $372,950 $208,851 – $372,950 $104,426 – $186,475 $190,201 - $372,950
$372,951+ $372,951+ $186,476+ $372,951

American tax brackets. They are lower than they are in south africa

 

 

EXC wrote:
The vast majority of people are healthy without any expensive medical treatments. And if society is functioning correctly, everyone would have a good job. And if the government didn't take too much in taxes they could pay for their own medical services and insurance.

 

When there are Rich people there have to be poor people, its just not possible for everyone to have good jobs, think about how many poor people are needed to stock the supermarket shelves, puting gas in your car, making sure the streets are litter free, a society cannot function without people in these low paying jobs and there is no way to pay more because well there are so many of them...

 


 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._minimum_wages wrote:

Federal Level Notes
Federal $7.25 The Fair Labor Standards Act sets the federal minimum wage at $7.25 per hour. The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, signed into law on May 25, 2007,[4] increased the minimum wage over two years.

 

ok so an 8 hour day at minimum wage you will get for a 5 day week (per month) is $1798. lets face it not all minimum wage jobs are even 5 days a week or even 8 hours a day. So this is a well off minimum wage family

 

so that is $21576 per year. before tax. lets double that for a family so to people working is $43152 a year before tax.

im not sure how it works in america if families can pay tax as one tax braket, but let me assume they can as it works out as less.

They fall into the 15% tax braket so unless im mistaken that leaves $36679

lets assume they have two kids, whatever they had better paying jobs when they had them. not totally unreasonable.

Ok i cannot find how much full health insurance costs per person for a year so yeah, deducte that off there anual salary. can that be afforded i don't know as i dunno how much it is so il let you be the judge.

 

but i did find this

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance wrote:
The Commonwealth Fund, in its annual survey, "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall", compares the performance of the health care systems in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada and the U.S. Its 2007 study found that, although the U.S. system is the most expensive, it consistently under-performs compared to the other countries.[24] One difference between the U.S. and the other countries in the study is that the U.S. is the only country without universal health insurance coverage.
Quote:

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.