Universal Healthcare

[JosephTheLibertarian]

When you've got nothing, just about anything is an improvement.

Why go in the wrong direction? Go in the RIGHT direction by getting government out

 

[SeanEdwards]

Why go in the wrong direction? Go in the RIGHT direction by getting government out

A pure free market will leave a portion of the population with no access to medicine. I do not find that an acceptable situation in light of the dangers of contagious disease. I don't want poverty stricken, untreated TB carriers breathing on me.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

A pure free market will leave a portion of the population with no access to medicine. I do not find that an acceptable situation in light of the dangers of contagious disease. I don't want poverty stricken, untreated TB carriers breathing on me.

You sound like a socialist to me. Will leave a portion of the population without? Yup, typical commie propaganda. That must be why healthcare only became an issue once government got involved in the 60s.

 

[sophocles07]

That must be why healthcare only became an issue once government got involved in the 60s.

That's ludicrous.

You think everyone was able to get treatment before the government "got involved"?

 

[SeanEdwards]

You sound like a socialist to me. Will leave a portion of the population without? Yup, typical commie propaganda. That must be why healthcare only became an issue once government got involved in the 60s.

Yeah? Well you sound like an anarchist to me.

Explain how your fantasy of an ultra free market system addresses the reality of indigent homeless people with drug-resistant TB.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Yeah? Well you sound like an anarchist to me.

Explain how your fantasy of an ultra free market system addresses the reality of indigent homeless people with drug-resistant TB.

Take care of yourself. Or die. Your choice. Want to help someone? Do it yourself. Don't rob me to "help" err subsidize homelessness. Grow a brain. Let's look at this in terms of nations: Do you support aid to Israel? No, right? Take that and apply it to everything else. Should the USA prop up and support the needy nations of the world? No, why? Because; a. it's stupid. and, b. it would result in dependency on US foreign aid, the nation wouldn't ever get its act together and you will do nothing but drive the US citizens further in debt via inflation.

The governments are the problem, not the people. The people in the nations of Africa are fully capable of creating prosperity within their own countries, but they can't, because their governments are

1. big

2. corrupt

3. and they have managed economies, with high taxes that rob the working class and exploit them, so that they can live lives of luxury inside their mansions.

 

[jjockers]

Yeah? Well you sound like an anarchist to me.

Explain how your fantasy of an ultra free market system addresses the reality of indigent homeless people with drug-resistant TB.

People suffer, but it's not the responsibility of our federal government to redistribute wealth.

There are many options for those suffering in a free market system. Where there is a business market, the free market excels. The question, then, is what is the business market for poor, suffering people?

My answer depends on a, in my opinion, valid assumption:

<b>People tend to be more charitable when 50% of their income is not being taken from them in the name of charity already</b>. There is a world of difference between being "forced to donate" and donating because you believe in a cause.


Thus, the business (money) would come from <b>people giving <i>with their consent</i></b> money and time to groups that represent those afflicted. There is already quite a large, successful structure that has been in place for thousands of years and operates in just this manner: the church. By the church, I mean the majority of all western (eastern too?) religious churches operate via voluntary donations.

There appear to be enough 'caring' people in this country to elect a socialist (EEK!). In a free market, these same people would surely be more than willing to donate their money and time to the local programs they 'think' their tax dollars are going towards.

Solution: local help paid for by people's donations, not federal mandated redistribution of wealth.

 

[SeanEdwards]

Take care of yourself. Or die. Your choice. Want to help someone? Do it yourself. Don't rob me to "help" err subsidize homelessness. Grow a brain. Let's look at this in terms of nations: Do you support aid to Israel? No, right? Take that and apply it to everything else.

Take care of yourself? What the hell does that mean? Don't you understand that you could be taking care of yourself that you could have medical coverage, and you can still catch some nasty disease and die? If you had children, which I doubt, would you be content with them sharing a bus seat with some guy hacking up TB all over them?

Infectious diseases are a community problem, whether you like it or not. Your argument is like saying you don't care if your next door neighbor builds their property into a giant fire hazard. Even if you have home insurance, does that mean you ignore the danger posed by your neighbor's unsafe property?

Microbes do not care about your liberty, or your political beliefs.

 

[SeanEdwards]

People suffer, but it's not the responsibility of our federal government to redistribute wealth.

There are many options for those suffering in a free market system. Where there is a business market, the free market excels. The question, then, is what is the business market for poor, suffering people?

My answer depends on a, in my opinion, valid assumption:

<b>People tend to be more charitable when 50% of their income is not being taken from them in the name of charity already</b>. There is a world of difference between being "forced to donate" and donating because you believe in a cause.


Thus, the business (money) would come from <b>people giving <i>with their consent</i></b> money and time to groups that represent those afflicted. There is already quite a large, successful structure that has been in place for thousands of years and operates in just this manner: the church. By the church, I mean the majority of all western (eastern too?) religious churches operate via voluntary donations.

There appear to be enough 'caring' people in this country to elect a socialist (EEK!). In a free market, these same people would surely be more than willing to donate their money and time to the local programs they 'think' their tax dollars are going towards.

Solution: local help paid for by people's donations, not federal mandated redistribution of wealth.

Does that same argument work for police and fire departments? Let the poor hope for police charity if they're a victim of crime? Let the poor people's property burn unless the fire department is feeling charitable?

 

[jjockers]

Take care of yourself. Or die. Your choice. Want to help someone? Do it yourself. Don't rob me to "help" err subsidize homelessness. Grow a brain. Let's look at this in terms of nations: Do you support aid to Israel? No, right? Take that and apply it to everything else. Should the USA prop up and support the needy nations of the world? No, why? Because; a. it's stupid. and, b. it would result in dependency on US foreign aid, the nation wouldn't ever get its act together and you will do nothing but drive the US citizens further in debt via inflation.

The governments are the problem, not the people. The people in the nations in Africa are fully capable of creating prosperity within their own countries, but they can't, because their governments are

1. big

2. corrupt

3. and they have managed economies, with high taxes that rob the working class and exploit them, so that they can live lives of luxury inside their mansion.

Joseph,

I admire your positions. The specific case cited by Sean Edwards, however, is contagious and would have an effect on other people. Everyone here knows the libertarian mantra (paraphrased: do what ye want so long as ye don't bother me), but when a person has a contagious health problem, <i>it is in your best interest</i> to get this person quarantined and/or cured.

Perhaps, if you knew your town had a bad case of homeless people spreading diseases, you'd be willing to donate to a town group setup to fund the hospital bills for these people. Perhaps. Well, it'd be easier if your money wasn't already be stolen to pay for some other town's (in a different country altogether) HIV epidemic.

Solution, again: stop taxing and let people give freely. They will. And it will mean a hell of a lot more. Plus, no one would have to force anyone to 'tax'. We'd do it freely according to what we want to see happen.

 

[jjockers]

Does that same argument work for police and fire departments? Let the poor hope for police charity if they're a victim of crime? Let the poor people's property burn unless the fire department is feeling charitable?

Police and fire departments are locally and state funded and operated. People do volunteer for the fire department. However, these departments are very clearly in our best interest. Crimes are generally committed against someone and by someone else. Fires cause harm to more than just the person blamed for the fire.

Someone else's health is not very clearly in my best interest. In some circumstances, like contagions, it is, but not the majority of health problems. In fact, it's in my best interest to allow that person to suffer the consequences for poor health choices so that future poor decisions are not made. When we offer a bail-out for poor personal decisions, we just get more poor personal decisions financed by the tax-payers.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Take care of yourself? What the hell does that mean?

It means what it says. Are you unable to take care of yourself?

Don't you understand that you could be taking care of yourself that you could have medical coverage, and you can still catch some nasty disease and die?

I could also get hit by a bus tomorrow, and die.

If you had children, which I doubt,

I see you have emotional attachments to communism. Nice ad hominem.

would you be content with them sharing a bus seat with some guy hacking up TB all over them?

You can't live life being scared of the unknown. This is already reality. You must not take public transportation

Infectious diseases are a community problem, whether you like it or not.

Says who? Yeah, you. That would just be your opinion. You like communism, just admit it. FOR THE COLLECTIVE!

Your argument is like saying you don't care if your next door neighbor builds their property into a giant fire hazard. Even if you have home insurance, does that mean you ignore the danger posed by your neighbor's unsafe property?

Bad analogy. We live in a statist world, so what do you think I would do in this scenario?

Microbes do not care about your liberty, or your political beliefs.

So?

 

[Paul10]

...

 

[SeanEdwards]

I think it's also worth mentioning that more and more ailments that used to be considered chronic diseases are actually a result of infection. Such as cervical cancer being caused by a virus. People used to think ulcers were caused by spicy food or stress, but it's now known to be related to infection.

So this notion that you can 'take care of yourself' is utterly bunk. Maybe if you sealed yourself in a fucking bubble, but not otherwise.

 

[jjockers]

Take care of yourself? What the hell does that mean? Don't you understand that you could be taking care of yourself that you could have medical coverage, and you can still catch some nasty disease and die? If you had children, which I doubt, would you be content with them sharing a bus seat with some guy hacking up TB all over them?

Infectious diseases are a community problem, whether you like it or not. Your argument is like saying you don't care if your next door neighbor builds their property into a giant fire hazard. Even if you have home insurance, does that mean you ignore the danger posed by your neighbor's unsafe property?

Microbes do not care about your liberty, or your political beliefs.

Sean, you can catch a nasty disease and die if you are in a hospital, getting treatment forcefully paid for by people you will never know, too. Hospitals are some very nasty places, and some 200,000 people die from infections <i>at</i> hospitals in the US every year. Fact of life - you can die at any time. Now, we can move on.

Whereas a fire almost certainly effects more than the people at fault, and a crime effects more than the individual at fault, your personal health choices, by and large, do not offer a serious threat to anyone else. We do have laws against drunk driving, and for good reason. You can drink, just don't risk hurting others in the process. You might get cancer from drinking too much, just don't ask me to foot your bill.

Contagions are the exception, not the rule. In such circumstances, the community should band together and form a defense. There is no reason to give up your health freedom (others pay for your health care --> subject to laws stipulating what you can and cannot do --> only some health care is allowed/payed for) to protect yourself from the small possibility of catching some contagion. When you give up liberty for protection, ...

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

What about the competition to provide for the people who don't get employer provided health care? Oh wait, it cost an arm and a leg to get insurance by yourself and it sucks. I also don't see how there isn't enough health care providers competing. What, if there's 3 more, cost will somehow magically go down?

Insurance industry is heavily regulated. You can't just start an insurance company. Communist.

The problem is the lobbying. Ron Paul also would have no say and the states come up with stupid plans like the charity care scheme.

Then leave the state.

Shitload of paperwork and other useless jobs. California's Medi-Cal is just a shitload of paperwork and the illegals get it till they die.

Make some sense.

As I've said before, the unions work hard to keep people from getting vocational jobs. There's 150000 qualified applicants rejected each year from nursing programs.

And why is a GED/High School diploma MANDATORY? That's just one form of govenment regulation.

Actually they do just as good as public schools when you compare apples to apples. The rich kids there do just as good as the rich kids in a public school. I can also easily make them even better than the private sector by getting rid of a grade and moving each grade down 1. Class sizes could also be bigger (near 50). Teachers don't teach one on one anyways. Also, textbooks need to have solutions. Not just crappy filler word explanations and problems. Every student should have a solutions manual to their math books.

I could make even better by taking the system and throwing it away. Want education? Go outside and find it.

If you're making 7.30 to 14 bucks an hour living in shitty apartments that cost 800 a month, you won't have enough money to buy insurance.

Blame that on:

1. lack of competition (government regulation)
2. corporatism (the corporate structure is a creation of the state)
3. statism in general
4. inflation
5. government fucking up the economy

 

[jjockers]

I think it's also worth mentioning that more and more ailments that used to be considered chronic diseases are actually a result of infection. Such as cervical cancer being caused by a virus. People used to think ulcers were caused by spicy food or stress, but it's now known to be related to infection.

So this notion that you can 'take care of yourself' is utterly bunk. Maybe if you sealed yourself in a fucking bubble, but not otherwise.

Not the greatest example. The H. pylori bacteria exist in everyone, just lay dormant until ... well no one really knows. In fact, it could be stress induced. Stress decreases (whether directly or indirectly) your immune system, making you more susceptible to infections.

You can fight infections. Just keep your immune system functioning optimally.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I think it's also worth mentioning that more and more ailments that used to be considered chronic diseases are actually a result of infection. Such as cervical cancer being caused by a virus. People used to think ulcers were caused by spicy food or stress, but it's now known to be related to infection.

So this notion that you can 'take care of yourself' is utterly bunk. Maybe if you sealed yourself in a fucking bubble, but not otherwise.

Hey? Oh well. If you are THAT inept that you can't even find a doctor on your own, well then maybe the disease found the right host. It's easy. Find a doctor. We need government to help us with that as well?

 

[jjockers]

So this notion that you can 'take care of yourself' is utterly bunk. Maybe if you sealed yourself in a fucking bubble, but not otherwise.

I'd just like to say that that is probably the saddest thing I have ever read on these forums. You can take care of yourself. How do you think people have survived for thousands of years? How do you think we are arguably the most evolved species known to exist? Should we thank our doctors and tax-payer money for keeping us afloat, when our bodies are surely designed to fail? Come on. Your body is a masterpiece that no doctor will ever understand. You can expect no doctor to understand your body better than you can. If you only knew half of what your body was capable of doing on its own, you would skip to the moon and back smiling knowing how independent you truly are from the pharmaceutical industrial complex.

 

[jjockers]

Hey? Oh well. If you are THAT inept that you can't even find a doctor on your own, well then maybe the disease found the right host. It's easy. Find a doctor. We need government to help us with that as well?

Actually, I am sure the government will try. We will have a list of approved insurance companies. Those insurance companies will then have a list of approved doctors. Couldn't be more simple. Or should I say disgusting.