Do you consider healthcare a basic human right? (Sanders, war, socialist)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That sounds very poetic, NxtGen, though entirely unoriginal. You know how to play the role -- online, at least.
So, when are you going to become an independent frontiersman? When are you going to move into the wilderness to make it on your own? When are you going to build your own home, entirely protect your own property from predators, raise your own livestock, hunt and prepare your own meat, grow your own fruit and vegetables, etc? When is this happening?
One question: can you run a block?
Oh blah blah blah, /derp /derp /derp duh duh duh.
Sorry, but if your message is going to be a condescending blither of insult and mocking, you can run along.
Did US government forced that company to raise their EpiPen price from $50 (for 2 shot) to $600 overnight?
Anyway, can you you point out any country on the globe without regulated healthcare and still affordable costs?
No, but US government forces companies to numerous standards of regulations which make true competition limited. Often what happens is big business colludes with big government to create more regulations that make smaller companies impossible to compete. There are tons of examples all through our industry of this and the medical industry is a big one.
Again, not affordable because you are not accounting for the enormous amount of tax burden these systems lay on the people. The problem in this discussion is that people ignorantly claim "look, it is working!" then ignore the numerous issues with, excusing each problem away because they need to cling to their bias.
All those countries have issues with their health care. If you look closely, the costs are picked up heavily by the people and there are MANY issues that arise such as wait lists and government controlled health decisions.
Though, people do not look at those issues, JUST like they refuse to look at the problems I presented with regulations and the increased hardships and costs it puts on the markets. If one can not understand the damage of heavy regulation, then one has no clue of the damage these health care systems provide.
Then this all becomes one cheer leader going on about their special cause and it is a pointless discussion.
Name one third world country that has universal healthcare, and the state of that healthcare, economy and the living conditions of the citizens.
As for the first world countries, you mean every metric except for income tax, of which they pay heavily.
Why should I compare a first world country (United States) to the a third world country? Wouldn't a more apt comparison be first world to first world?
Yes, they do pay more taxes than we do but that doesn't mean they pay more actual money than we do. Its more in the administration of the service rather than real money that we should be looking at. As I've said, US citizens pay up to 4 times as much for healthcare services than their counterparts in countries with UHC.
I'm not defending any "crony capitalist stuff". The point is, it can be done correctly. However as I said, free market for healthcare cannot work, since most people are averse to dying. Shiny new smart phone is a "want", cancer treatment is a "need"
What does that have to do with a free market? You are completely ignoring the systems that make up a health care market. There are numerous issues of regulation that burden the system and greatly increase costs.
If the market wasn't heavily regulated (ie back door owned by government already), then prices would drop dramatically.
Food is a need, yet... competition works quite well with it? There are many "needs" out there that are provided through competitive markets and due to such the consumer benefits.
Your argument is invalidated by the plethora of examples of "need" markets that thrive due to competition.
Who is volunteering? Healthcare isn't charity work. Or have you not noticed.
What you provide for yourself is your right.
You are dealing with kid communist arguments. They don't have any form of logical premise to work from, most of them haven't even "studied" this concept, they merely read one sided arguments from a bunch of communists and then got on board pushing talking points. They have no concept of what a right is, what a free market is, or what individual responsibility is.
Frankly, the communist arguments of people today are like a bunch of free loading kids who don't have jobs going on about how they deserve something because they are too lazy to obtain it themselves.
That is why they loved Bernie, the guy didn't have a job until he was 40 which was then in government and is what made him a millionaire (talk about being stupid following this guy) and he is so lazy and inept he was kicked out of his own communist commune because he was THAT LAZY!
This is the infuriating thing about all this, it isn't just an argument about a failed ideology, but it is an argument made with pure ignorance and incompetence.
What does that have to do with a free market? You are completely ignoring the systems that make up a health care market. There are numerous issues of regulation that burden the system and greatly increase costs.
If the market wasn't heavily regulated (ie back door owned by government already), then prices would drop dramatically.
Food is a need, yet... competition works quite well with it? There are many "needs" out there that are provided through competitive markets and due to such the consumer benefits.
Your argument is invalidated by the plethora of examples of "need" markets that thrive due to competition.
Scandinavia (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland), Australia, Singapore, New Zealand, Canada, Estonia and Chile all have very healthy free market economies AND national healthcare.
The idea that one cancels out the other is intellectually dishonest.
Scandinavia (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland), Australia, Singapore, New Zealand, Canada, Estonia and Chile all have very healthy free market economies AND national healthcare.
The idea that one cancels out the other is intellectually dishonest.
No they don't, they have extremely heavy burdened tax systems and HEAVILY regulated markets.
As I said before, all that is being done is putting blinders on and focusing on the things you want to look at while ignoring all the things that detract from your point.
Can't have a right to liberty and a right to healthcare because you have to infringe on liberty to achieve the latter.
So which is it people? Right to health care (ie force others to provide it for you) or a right to liberty (the responsibility to provide for yourself).
Now I will respect peoples argument if they say they don't care about liberty and freedom, they just want to be taken care of, at least it is a soundly formed position, but you can't have both.
Pick one, and remember, both come with responsibilities and consequences.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
