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.
let the liberals pay for the universal health coverage of all, we will help the poor and children and not just give to those who only wish to take
Private charity has neither the money nor the organization to provide for all of the poor and children, although they usually do a great job with what they have.
i am not talking about firemen. I am talking about the topic of paying for healthcare for all
the original post
Quote:
A society has a responsibility to protect its members against all grave threats to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. This includes sickness, injury, and disease. Don't believe me? Think that those "rights" are only negative in the sense that they protect people against infringement from others only? That's cool... but don't get pissed if your house catches on fire and the firemen decide to make you pay the whole cost for putting the fire out.
Think about it... fire protection, healthcare... what's the difference? Both generally (with some exceptions) come about as a result of accidental, sometimes (but not generally) self-inflected occurences. Neither are generally caused by infringement from others. Almost any argument you can make against universal healthcare you can also make against universal fire service. Almost all fire stations are taxpayer-funded, even the ones that take nominal fees as a requirement for service (as do some universal healthcare systems). You can make the argument that universal fire protection is only necessary because those fires can spread throughout a large area and affect large groups of people, but what about houses out in isolated rural areas? Do you believe people who live in rural areas should have to pay the whole cost of having their fires put out, since those fires probably won't spread to other people? If, in the future, people discovered how to place barriers between houses so that a fire in one house never spreads to another, would you then support the abolition of taxpayer-funded firemen? Besides, many diseases are contagious and can spread throughout the population, so the analogy remains consistent. If you have no right to healthcare then you have no right for the firemen to come and put your fire out if one starts.
Think about it, though... nearly all the philosophical arguments you can make against universal healthcare you can also make against universal firemen:
Libertarian Argument:
"You have a right to life, but you have no right for me to PAY to preserve your life by paying for a fricken DOCTOR to save you. It's time for the country to return to the days of personal responsibilitaah."
And the consistent libertarian argument:
"You have a right to life, but you have no right for me to PAY to preserve your life by paying for a fricken FIREMAN to save you. It's time for the country to return to the days of personal responsibilitaah."
Libertarian Argument:
"Socialized medicine violates my rights by forcing me to pay to preserve your well-being by subsidizing your healthcare expenses. I have a right to SPEND MA MOONAH AS I PLLAAIZE, thank you very much."
And the consistent libertarian argument:
"Socialized firemen violate my rights by forcing me to pay to preserve your well-being by subsidizing your house fires. I have a right to SPEND MA MOONAH AS I PLLAAIZE, thank you very much."
Just think about it, though...
Most people need healthcare more than they need firemen.
Who really likes going to the doctor when they don't have to?
You'd be surprised the amount of people who show up in the emergency room with a paper cut, or a runny nose. They know they can't be turned away (federal law) and they know they don't have to pay. All the costs of this B.S. are passed along to the paying customers of the hospital.
Of course it does, but if we siphoned the 15% of GDP we spend on medical care off into actual CARE rather than paying for insurance company administrative costs and profits, maybe those doctors would have more money to take home at the end of the day.
I doubt this very highly. I fail to see how gov't healthcare would pay doctors more, and I also fail to see how it would provide better service. IMO it would create a bureaucracy from hell.
Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Norway, the Netherlands, Italy, Iceland, Hungary, Greece, Germany, France, Finland, Denmark, the Czech Republic, Belgium, and Austria all have more doctors per capita than we do…
Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Ireland, Germany, Austria all have more nurses per capita than we do…
Despite the fact that they spend far less on healthcare than we do… could there be something wrong with the system?
I think our system needs improvement. No question.
But the amount of doctors and nurses is only one factor in a large equation. This doesn't say anything about the quality of care, which is another variable altogether. It also doesn't say anything about how much these countries spend on health care, nor does it say anything about the overall health of the countries. Additionally, most of the countries you named are small, wealthy, developed countries with smaller indigent populations than the United States.
just because there are more doctors and nurses does not mean their health care systems are better.
Fixing frivilous lawsuits and putting fair caps on damages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishmonger
Separate issue.
I strongly disagree here. I think this is the most important variable that is wrecking our current health care system. Malpractice insurance is absurdly expensive, and continuing to rise - and it is exactly because of these two things.
As far as the "Fire vs. Health care" argument, I think that is way, way off. The only two things those have in common is that they could, in theory, be provided by the government. Other than that it is apples and oranges, and I really don't see any other connection between the two.
I think our health care system, in some respects, is the best in the world. We have the best medical schools, the best doctors, the best nurses, the best medicine, and most importantly: the fastest response. I suggest you do some brief Googling on the health care situation in the UK. Gov't sponsored health care can leave you waiting for months for surgery. In terms of treating the wealthier half of America, our system is doing a great job. I strongly believe that a purely socialized health system will jeapordize this, and bring down the overall quality of our health care.
Having said that, I agree that it doesn't address the problem of indigent care, and care for lower-income families. The U.S. was set up for people who are personally responsible for themselves. Perhaps we do need better care for the indigent. I'm certainly interested to hear some good ideas about making this happen, but I don't think handicapping those of us who can afford health care is the solution.
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.
How would it be fair
