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.
First of all, we need the question/discussion framed with proper words.
The central question isn't about health care, health insurance, ZOMG_lifesaving_meds_n_stuff, life expectancy in developed nations versus per capita spending, or any other extraneous topic. No no, the central question is this:
Do people have a societal/collective "right" to use/own/benefit from the goods/services produced by others regardless of their ability to trade for said goods and services?
No need to wrap it in euphemisms, or various appeals to sympathy/emotion. Just state the question outright.
If you say that indeed, people do have a "right" to use/own/benefit from the goods/services produced by others regardless of their ability to trade, then that NECESSARILY means that one person has a "right" to the labor of another. In the case of health care, the common deflection is that oh no, the doctor/NP/PA/nurse will be compensated, but who compensates them on behalf of the person who could/would not trade for her services?
Somewhere in the process, no matter how you structure it, someone will have been forced to labor on behalf of the person who has the "right" to use/own/benefit from the goods/services produced by others regardless of their ability to trade. Calling that force "taxes" and then defining the framework of taking as "the social contract" does not in any way change the nature of forcing people to labor on behalf of others.
This is why there are no such thing as positive rights. The government/state may indeed decide to redistribute that which they take by force, and do so under some universal system of entitlement, but that does not make the entitlement a "right" of any sort. It simply makes it something the State is doing on decently comprehensive basis in an attempt to convince you that they are benevolent.
But the bottom line is them taking by force/violence, which means they do indeed force people to labor on behalf of others. Everyone needs to look up "quasi-slave" and then compare that definition with "social contract." Apparently, so long as you are born into quasi-slavery and everyone both a) agrees that it's necessary & proper and b) that it's not bad if you call it something lofty like "the social contract", then quasi-slavery is cool and only mean spirited meanies would dare argue otherwise.
Let us now restate the real question in the proper framework:
Given how much the quasi-slaves called taxpayers are already forced to labor for, should we add health care to that list so that less of their labor can belong to them, and more of that labor can belong to the collective?
That's the intellectually honest way to state the question properly.
The reality is that it has nothing to do with the age of voters and everything to do with the corrupt system of campaign finance and the destruction of the labor union movements. If other developed countries had our system of campaign finance and extremely weak labor unions, they wouldnt have universal health care either.
Workers being dependent on employment for the health of their families is a strong weapon for the employer in the relentless struggle between worker and employer. Workers are rightly terrified of losing their job when the consequence could be the death of their family members or themselves and will be obedient and submissive as a result. The ruling class will not give up this weapon of control without a fight. Thats why we see their puppets in Congress and the White House and their media arm (basically all corporate mainstream media) fighting tooth and nail to convince ordinary people that we can not have it.
And people here think they can wish free healthcare into existence same as a Porsche!!! Surely you see that mindset at work!!!
Don't be so daft healthcare is (like the fire brigade or the police or the schools) a public service a Porsche is not! Let me ask you - are you happy paying for a police force that 'other' people end up using (particularly the 'bad' guys).
That isn't what I said so wipe that smiley off your post.
You can contract with a private fire service same as pool cleaner, landscaper etc., you could also have an insurance policy in enforce that comes into play when a fire occurs (it would dispatch equipment), and Im sure there are other possibilities, the market has a way of providing multiple solutions and the end user gets to choose the best.
All that freedom is scary huh?
Having to rely on a private fire service is freedom? If your local Culligan man loses his franchise and you can't get your bottled water delivered that's one thing. but if your private fire service goes out of business and leaves town in the middle of the night and your house catches on fire the only way that could make you feel free is if you embrace the Janis Joplin definition of freedom as "having nothing left to lose"
Certainly food, shelter & clothing come before healthcare as a necessity of life, and therefore , a "right." Why aren't The Nannycrats advocating for free food, housing & clothing for all?...Certainly because that position would expose them too obviously as "communists" or more correctly, as politicians trying to buy votes with taxpayer money.
Anyone thinking a single payer system would lead to lower healthcare costs needs to be disabused of that false notion: simple Law of Supply & Demand-- Fewer people excluding themselves due to high costs are now included with universal coverage-->demand up--> cost up. The only way costs would come down is by instituting rationing. (Eg- no coverage for more expensive, but more effective anticoagulants: coverage for aspirin only, or denial of coverage for CABG because long term survival is not clearly superior to medical management, etc)
Why is 'everyone expected to play by the rules and assume his/her fair share of the risk' when it comes to the fire brigade but NOT when it comes to the nation's health? I fail to see why you are prepared to pay for one but not the other?
Because "the nation" has no health of it's own -- that's a collectivist fallacy.
As a reasonably-educated citizen, I should be expected to recognize what precautions I need to take, why I shouldn't smoke, what genetic predispositions exist in my family, etc. I'm expected to co-operate with my personal physician (whom I get to choose) in these matters.
Just as with those who work and contribute -- those who think are likely to live better (and usually longer) than those who decline to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCALMike
Are you, or are you not, against tax funded public schools and police services? Its a simple question.
At some level, police protection has to operate on the same principle as explained above; and those who require more, because they have more to lose, can invest in private security (I thought all the "progressives" were infatuated with the notion of "ability to pay".)
With regard to schools, Absolutely, positively not! My thirteen-year-old nephew-by-proxy has been homeschooling himself for several years, and gets more of the essentials (as opposed to the NEA's propaganda) in less time.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 04-08-2019 at 08:40 AM..
Because "the nation" has no health of it's own -- that's a collectivist fallacy.
As a reasonably-educated citizen, I should be expected to recognize what precautions I need to take, why I shouldn't smoke, what genetic predispositions exist in my family, etc. I'm expected to co-operate with my personal physician (whom I get to choose) in these matters.
Just as with those who work and contribute -- those who think are likely to live better (and usually longer) than those who decline to do so.
So now you tell me how me and my Mrs were supposed to 'know' about the Muscular Dystrophy exactly?
That's bollox, you could always try asking somebody who actually lives in the UK about their actual real experience concerning the NHS?
Bollox? From the article I posted:
"Research by the The British Ophthalmological Surveillance Unit found up to 22 patients every month were going blind or being left partially sighted because treatment was not started in time."
Costs could also come down because people would get regular preventative checkups rather than waiting until they are sick enough to get free treatment at the emergency room which is actually very expensive.
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.
Stop being an arse.
