Universal Health Care

soulsinging · February 2007

know1 wrote:

The problem is health insurance itself. It is a monopoly whose sole interest is to make costs as high as possible so that everyone is FORCED to have insurance. It dictates to health providers what they must charge.

I guarantee that if health insurance were banned and people had to pay directly out of pocket for their care and medications , healthcare costs would come down due to competition.

i think there's a lot of truth to this. i dont know how it happened either. it seems like it's only been in the last decade or two that all of a sudden you can't take a piss without someone checking to make sure you've got insurance for it before they let you.

ThumbingMyWay32 · February 2007

Universal healthcare and "paying out of pocket" are kind of redundant aren't they? Except with Universal healthcare you're paying out of pocket whether you need care or not. Those who are uninsured, and lucky, are the only real winners .

soulsinging · February 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

It is no more your "duty" to pay taxes than it is your "duty" to let me steal into your home at night, tie you up, and collect whatever belongings you have that I may like. And this is not the only way for a government to raise revenue. Governments should raise revenue the way all people raise revenue: through the exchange of services for value.

you know, i find it pretty funny and ridiculous that you consistently deny up and down that you advocate anarchy, when that is exactly what we would have if you had your way. your ideals make for great self-aggrandizing talking points and your slavish devotion to ayn rand is as touching as an evangelical christian's worship of his lord and savior jesus christ.

but you seem to lack any remote grasp of or connection with reality. in a system like you propose here nothing would EVER be funded. EVER. basic human psychology shows that people would not contribute to any such government becos they would count on other people contributing for them for things like police protection and courts. you'd live in a society without any laws or protection. it would be survival of the fittest. anarchy. or at best, you'd have a government for sale that is no different from a private business... protection only to the rich and tyranny of the majority. you would have LESS freedom than you do now thanks to government "stealing" your money becos you would be subject to the whims of whatever majority decides to impose its will on the area. you would be killed for your hordes of saved tax money by the poor people you spit on as you walk past them with the security you could afford to hire from the government.

your schtick is so very tired. maybe you should read a book by karl marx sometime, or nietsche, just to shake things up. your thinking must be getting pretty stale. i mean, it's got to get boring spewing the same old bullshit day in and day out, right?

dunkman · February 2007

i've just read through this whole thread.. wow!!!

i'm so glad i live here... having lost a grandparent to cancer, i can see that she would have had little or no treatment if she were in the US... whereas here she got everything that was going... for free

ok i paid taxes to make that process 'free' but based on my salary if i moved to the states tomorrow i'd be paying the same tax anyway... so what does the US do with the tax money it receives?

it has little 'free' healthcare?
it has a poor social care structure?

ohhh ... i forgot.. it buys bombs :cool: cos thats whats important!!!

angelica · February 2007

soulsinging wrote:

you know, i find it pretty funny and ridiculous that you consistently deny up and down that you advocate anarchy, when that is exactly what we would have if you had your way. ...you'd live in a society without any laws or protection. it would be survival of the fittest. anarchy. ...

I thought farfromglorified was quite open in his advocation of anarchy.

farfromglorified · February 2007

Kann wrote:

Both of those points are pure logic. But not really human, it's hard to deny treatment on a sickness like cancer (wich is extremely painful) because of money when the patient lives in a society where money is everywhere.

It is certainly hard to deny treatment to a sickness like cancer. However, money is not "everywhere". If it were "everywhere", it would have no value and would be irrelevant in the face of cancer.

Anyway, I'm not suggesting that this man should be denied treatment. Any doctor that wishes to treat him should be fully able to. Any person that wishes to help him should be fully able to. But they should certainly be able to do so on their terms, not yours or anyone else's.

And no a doctor on his own can't act out of charity to cure that patient because it takes more than the will of just one doctor to cure such a sickness.

So charity cannot involve more than "just one doctor"??? Odd since doctors and others throughout this country fight cancer everyday based on their own chosen sacrifices.

I understand the logic behind your points and letting people die and/or suffer may seem logical but it is not human.

It certainly can be human, but that's a tangental argument. I'm not talking about "letting people die". I'm talking about letting people own their choices.

Those who favor Universal Health Care are off-loading this "human" responsibility on others. They're suggesting that it's a crime to let another human die, but forcing someone else to serve the time for it.

If you believe you have a responsibility to help all people, regardless of character or merit or benefit to you, then become a doctor and give away your services. Personally, I do not believe in that responsibility. My position on this issue allows us both to make our own moral choices. The position of a UHC advocate does not -- it forces me to shoulder the burden of his moral responsibility.

If your country were to have a referendum on universal healthcare stating at a majority your fellow citizens wish to have that would you still feel ripped off?

Certainly. A "referendum" has no moral authority. If my fellow citizens voted, as a majority, to reinstate slavery, I would not believe that slavery had instantly become a moral act.

farfromglorified · February 2007

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Putting value of one's possessions first before the needs of fellow human beings has been the leading cause of dehumanization of our species.

Ok. Then I guess medicine has no value, since it is a possession. And I guess any cancer medicine invented because of the perceived value attached with it might as well be dumped in the Hudson river.

I don't like being told what to do with my money...true enough. But I hate much worse to see a sick or needy person go without.

You just answered your own question here. If you hate to see a sick or needy person go without, then you know what to do with your own money, don't you? There is no need for the "but" in your statement above.

farfromglorified · February 2007

soulsinging wrote:

you know, i find it pretty funny and ridiculous that you consistently deny up and down that you advocate anarchy, when that is exactly what we would have if you had your way.

Hehe...when have I denied "up and down" that I advocate anarchy????

I find it pretty "funny and ridiculous" that you see my world as one wherein people will simply fight each other with fists and guns for the most possessions when proposals like this prove how much your world is the one wherein people hold force and violance as moral authorities.

your ideals make for great self-aggrandizing talking points and your slavish devotion to ayn rand is as touching as an evangelical christian's worship of his lord and savior jesus christ.

I don't "worship" Ayn Rand, nor do I believe in a Lord or a Savior. If you knew anything about Ayn Rand, you'd realize that much of what I believe is not Randian at all. You accuse me of being an "anarchist", yet you also accuse me of "worshiping Ayn Rand". Why don't you go research Rand's views on anarchy?

but you seem to lack any remote grasp of or connection with reality. in a system like you propose here nothing would EVER be funded. EVER.

Sigh....

So the only way to fund something is by forcing someone to give you money. Gotcha.

I'm curious, how did my business turn a profit last year without forcing anyone to buy our products?

basic human psychology shows that people would not contribute to any such government becos they would count on other people contributing for them for things like police protection and courts.

Then that government would collapse.

Baisc human psychology shows that people will not pay a cost for something greater than the benefit they receive. If you wish to charge people $500 for police to protect you from $50 worth of looting, then perhaps you shouldn't be surprised that you have to forcibly coerce those payments from people.

you'd live in a society without any laws or protection. it would be survival of the fittest. anarchy. or at best, you'd have a government for sale that is no different from a private business... protection only to the rich and tyranny of the majority. you would have LESS freedom than you do now thanks to government "stealing" your money becos you would be subject to the whims of whatever majority decides to impose its will on the area. you would be killed for your hordes of saved tax money by the poor people you spit on as you walk past them with the security you could afford to hire from the government.

If you are so afraid of a world without your precious government, I would never try to take it from you. You may sign up with any government you wish, and I will not question your right to do so nor that government's right to exist. I will only question your right to sign me up too.

your schtick is so very tired.

Thanks. Nice to know someone has been listening.

maybe you should read a book by karl marx sometime, or nietsche, just to shake things up.

I've read lots of Marx and Nietzsche, but thanks for the recommendations.

your thinking must be getting pretty stale.

No more stale than the people who give me the same responses here everyday, or the people who advocate the same government force to get their way everyday.

i mean, it's got to get boring spewing the same old bullshit day in and day out, right?

Not really no. It's obviously not that boring reading it either, huh?

hippiemom · February 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

Those who favor Universal Health Care are off-loading this "human" responsibility on others. They're suggesting that it's a crime to let another human die, but forcing someone else to serve the time for it.

We simply decided that it's an imperfect world, and when forced to choose between imperfect options, we'd prefer to steal your money rather than let the guy die.

Kann · February 2007

We both have a very strong opinion on the subject so trying to convince is pretty useless. We obviously disagree on the role given to the society that surrounds us. If people are free to choose to help their neighbours I still believe that our governments owe us services because we are the government. You pay taxes so the nation can uphold the values of your country, say for example take a plane and defend your cause to the wto (wich they did recently), or keep a certain level of order in the country. Or have the citizens of the country live through sickness in a human way. It will end up happening as you say in one of your post and you maybe will be ripped off but at least your government keeps on upholding (some of) your rights.

farfromglorified wrote:

So charity cannot involve more than "just one doctor"??? Odd since doctors and others throughout this country fight cancer everyday based on their own chosen sacrifices.

This is a useless argument. A cancer patient needs doctors, nurses, surgeons, drugs and time. It's possible to give that for free but it takes a whole lot of charity.

farfromglorified wrote:

If you believe you have a responsibility to help all people, regardless of character or merit or benefit to you, then become a doctor and give away your services. Personally, I do not believe in that responsibility. My position on this issue allows us both to make our own moral choices. The position of a UHC advocate does not -- it forces me to shoulder the burden of his moral responsibility.

That's true, and may be unfair. But what you loose on UHC to a cancer patient you're bound to win on another public issue to some unlucky person.

farfromglorified wrote:

Certainly. A "referendum" has no moral authority. If my fellow citizens voted, as a majority, to reinstate slavery, I would not believe that slavery had instantly become a moral act.

This is why we disagree. Curing patients is a moral issue (take the Hippocratic Corpus), reinstating slavery isn't. I pay my duties to my country so it can act on moral grounds. I don't believe slavery and UHC are comparable.

farfromglorified · February 2007

Kann wrote:

We both have a very strong opinion on the subject so trying to convince is pretty useless. We obviously disagree on the role given to the society that surrounds us. If people are free to choose to help their neighbours I still believe that our governments owe us services because we are the government. You pay taxes so the nation can uphold the values of your country, say for example take a plane and defend your cause to the wto (wich they did recently), or keep a certain level of order in the country. Or have the citizens of the country live through sickness in a human way. It will end up happening as you say in one of your post and you maybe will be ripped off but at least your government keeps on upholding (some of) your rights.

I do not pay taxes so the nation can "uphold the values of my country". I pay taxes because I'm forced to by a nation that values violence and coersion, two values I thoroughly reject.

You say that "our governments owe us services because we are the government". That is a very dangerous viewpoint that somehow implies that you're simply paying yourself for these services. You are not. These services, in most cases, are now paid for and received by divergent sectors of society. They are little more than bribes used to protect the property of one in the face of the other, and such a gamble cannot hold up over time. If the government in fact "owed" you services, you would have done something earn that service and the service you receive would be commensurate with the price you paid. This is not the case, particularly in a discussion of Universal Health Care.

In your final sentence, you seem to suggest that I should find happiness in the fact that the government still upholds some of my rights. I do. And that is why I completely and vociferiously reject any actions by that very same government that then seeks to sacrifice those rights, as would Universal Health Care.

This is a useless argument. A cancer patient needs doctors, nurses, surgeons, drugs and time. It's possible to give that for free but it takes a whole lot of charity.

Yes it does. Now, why is that "useless"??? Organizations like the American Cancer Society, in part, take on that challenge, along with other organizations like them and the thousands of people who donate their skills, abilities, time, money and other resources to that chosen fight. They should be applauded for their efforts, not treated as if they're simply paying a price they "owed" to someone.

That's true, and may be unfair. But what you loose on UHC to a cancer patient you're bound to win on another public issue to some unlucky person.

See, this is what you don't understand. I don't want to "win" by public issue. I find no victory in forcing my friends and neighbors and countrymen to serve me. It's a disgusting trade you're proposing here.

This is why we disagree. Curing patients is a moral issue (take the Hippocratic Corpus), reinstating slavery isn't. I pay my duties to my country so it can act on moral grounds. I don't believe slavery and UHC are comparable.

If you don't believe slavery and UHC are comparable, then let me ask you a basic question:

What do you need me for?

farfromglorified · February 2007

hippiemom wrote:

We simply decided that it's an imperfect world, and when forced to choose between imperfect options, we'd prefer to steal your money rather than let the guy die.

You did decide it's an imperfect world with imperfect options. Thankfully, you're wrong.

Sometime in the near future, as has been done time and time again throughout human history, someone will use their mind to free you of your "imperfect options" in the face of this cancerous "imperfect world" by showing you the perfect one. And, for a short period of time, you might see this world for the perfect thing it is. But you'll probably never ask yourself why you didn't see his or her actions on your list of "imperfect options" in the first place. You'll probably just see the pricetag attached to the value he or she has given you and complain, yet again, about "imperfect options" in this "imperfect world".

soulsinging · February 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

Sigh....

So the only way to fund something is by forcing someone to give you money. Gotcha.

I'm curious, how did my business turn a profit last year without forcing anyone to buy our products?

Then that government would collapse.

Baisc human psychology shows that people will not pay a cost for something greater than the benefit they receive. If you wish to charge people $500 for police to protect you from $50 worth of looting, then perhaps you shouldn't be surprised that you have to forcibly coerce those payments from people.

yes, the only way to secure funding for necessary social institutions is to force people to distribute that cost evenly. your business is not providing basic necessities to people, it is providing luxuries. roads, running water, electricity, defense, these are things that people cannot provide for themselves without some collective effort. humans are social animals, as much as you'd like to believe you are above the needs of the peasants. you cannot see beyond your own petty concerns and pocketbook. sure, you can hire a security guard for cheaper than government can fund its operations... but everyone uses the services government offer at some point or other. defraying the cost is a net benefit. rather than 50 people paying $50 for a security, 50 people pay $10 and fund a police force... there is a huge net SOCIAL benefit that increases disposable income so that people can afford to buy the crap you sell, which hopefully is more useful than your nonsense rhetoric.

farfromglorified wrote:

If you are so afraid of a world without your precious government, I would never try to take it from you. You may sign up with any government you wish, and I will not question your right to do so nor that government's right to exist. I will only question your right to sign me up too.

i didnt sign you up, you've signed yourself up by living here. do us all a favor and move the fuck out if it's so horribly immoral that the us government is robbing you of your hard earned dollars.

soulsinging · February 2007

hippiemom wrote:

We simply decided that it's an imperfect world, and when forced to choose between imperfect options, we'd prefer to steal your money rather than let the guy die.

but hippiemom, havent you been reading? his money is FAR more important than that guy's life... and the moral shock of taxation is SO much more appalling than turning your back on a man dying of cancer, which is just life.

farfromglorified · February 2007

soulsinging wrote:

but hippiemom, havent you been reading? his money is FAR more important than that guy's life... and the moral shock of taxation is SO much more appalling than turning your back on a man dying of cancer, which is just life.

Then tell me, how much money have you given to this man?

lukin2006 · February 2007

prism wrote:

what makes you think that wait times are so much less in the US? fact is they're just as long except when it comes to a very few non-emergent services.
it's the same deal if you move to another city inthe US, there are many areas of the US where it's impossible to get a family physican, especially in rural areas. these doctor shortages are fueled by the insurance companys that are stripping the DR.s ability to run a practice after paying the outrageous malpratice insurance premiums.

In Canada its far to complicated to discuss on a message board.

soulsinging · February 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

Then tell me, how much money have you given to this man?

i suppose you plan to dodge my point about the net social benefit of defraying costs for necessary publicly shared goods? fair enough.

i dont know how much of my tax money has gone to this man, but i dont begrudge a single cent. beyond that, not a dime. i have no disposable income. im living on the government too at the moment. perhaps in 10 years i would be able to do more.

farfromglorified · February 2007

soulsinging wrote:

yes, the only way to secure funding for necessary social institutions is to force people to distribute that cost evenly.

First, my buisiness is a "social institution". Without society, it would not exist as an institution. And yet I force no one to pay its costs. Again, how do I do this? Is it magic?

Secondly, evenly??? You must be joking. Ten percent of this nation is now paying for half of Federal services. Three corporations alone now pay as much in taxes as the bottom half of the US population. There is no "even" about it, and you know it. If it were "even", the system would collapse overnight.

your business is not providing basic necessities to people, it is providing luxuries. roads, running water, electricity, defense, these are things that people cannot provide for themselves without some collective effort.

Hehe...nothing you mentioned above, be it necessity or luxury, can be provided without some "collective effort". Now, how does the need for "collective effort" give you the right to simply dictate that effort or its direction to me? My business is a "collective effort". Does that give me the right to force you to work for me or serve my needs, whatever they may be?

humans are social animals, as much as you'd like to believe you are above the needs of the peasants.

Humans are social animals, me included. Now, how does that fact give you the right to force me to do anything?

you cannot see beyond your own petty concerns and pocketbook.

I can see far beyond my "petty concerns" and "pocketbook". Meanwhile, you'll sell your rights for some medicine, or a road, or some cash. You'll hand your rights and responsibilities off to a distant institution and then complain when they're misused on wars or corporate welfare or whatever. Now, tell me who's short-sighted?

sure, you can hire a security guard for cheaper than government can fund its operations...

I could. I wouldn't, but I could.

but everyone uses the services government offer at some point or other.

Sure! Not everyone pays for them, however.

defraying the cost is a net benefit. rather than 50 people paying $50 for a security, 50 people pay $10 and fund a police force...

Great idea. Now, why would you have to force a great idea with a significant financial benefit on someone?

there is a huge net SOCIAL benefit that increases disposable income so that people can afford to buy the crap you sell, which hopefully is more useful than your nonsense rhetoric.

I'll call your bluff here. If you think my products sell better because of taxation and the "SOCIAL benefit" that comes from it, feel free to remove it and let my business die.

sign you up, you've signed yourself up by living here.

It's that easy? Cool. I just signed you up for the Klan and Morehouse College. You know, because you live here.

do us all a favor and move the fuck out if it's so horribly immoral that the us government is robbing you of your hard earned dollars.

I'm not sure how that would be a favor to you. I can make these posts from anywhere.

farfromglorified · February 2007

soulsinging wrote:

i suppose you plan to dodge my point about the net social benefit of defraying costs for necessary publicly shared goods? fair enough.

Not at all. The fact that you have to force this wonderful benefit upon people shows how silly the point is.

i dont know how much of my tax money has gone to this man, but i dont begrudge a single cent. beyond that, not a dime. i have no disposable income. im living on the government too at the moment. perhaps in 10 years i would be able to do more.

Shame on you for "letting this man die", huh?

soulsinging · February 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

Secondly, evenly??? You must be joking. Ten percent of this nation is now paying for half of Federal services. Three corporations alone now pay as much in taxes as the bottom half of the US population. There is no "even" about it, and you know it. If it were "even", the system would collapse overnight.

im in favor of a flat tax, but that's still a tax.

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe...nothing you mentioned above, be it necessity or luxury, can be provided without some "collective effort". Now, how does the need for "collective effort" give you the right to simply dictate that effort or its direction to me? My business is a "collective effort". Does that give me the right to force you to work for me or serve my needs, whatever they may be?

your business is not running the country. you live in a democracy. we hired the government to manage certain collective resources for us. we did not hire your business to do shit for us. you agreed to the hiring by living here. if it's so unjust living here, you're free to get the fuck out, like i said.

farfromglorified wrote:

Great idea. Now, why would you have to force a great idea with a significant financial benefit on someone?

i dont know, why do we have to force you to add money for police and road construction?

farfromglorified wrote:

I'll call your bluff here. If you think my products sell better because of taxation and the "SOCIAL benefit" that comes from it, feel free to remove it and let my business die.

you've got it backwards, ive got my way. i call YOUR bluff. let's end taxation and let government disappear. we'll see how long you feel free when you're holed up in an armored compound afraid to step outside your house.

farfromglorified wrote:

It's that easy? Cool. I just signed you up for the Klan and Morehouse College. You know, because you live here.

uh... where? this is the weakest point i've ever seen you make. i dont even know what morehouse college is. everyone in the united state lives by united states rules. not everyone in the united states lives by klan rules. why dont you quit your whining about the horrible oppression of taxation and deal with reality. arguing with you is like arguing with a kindergartener... you both live in your own happy little fantasy world that has nothing to do with how the real world operates. it's easy to bitch about taxes when you know you'll never actually get what you want and have to live without a government.

Universal Health Care

Comments

Categories