What they spend that money on is important > because I lean more toward a socialist way of thinking than capitalism, I believe that the disadvantaged shouldn't just be left to rot, roll over and die.
Unfortunately, it seems many people in this life are selfish ***** who don't give a toss about their fellow man or woman, and never will.
A sad fact.
To paraphrase Frederic Bastiat, I'm not against healthcare because I don't support government-run healthcare.
I'm sick and tired of the "If you're not for government program X you're an evil, heartless person who worships Ayn Rand" ad hominems that run rampant on this site. It's a major reason why I don't post much here anymore.
Money is a worthless thing, since it's only an exchange intermediary. The goods and services you get are what are valuable. Also the fluctuation of exchange rates demonstrate pretty well, that money in itself offers no value.
Not really. Money is the equalizer that allows us to trade goods in a proper manner in the first place. Do you know how much of your stuff is worth a brand new car?
I don't want to dodge the hard questions and I know that there are many more who sick loved ones. I wanted to show a bit that the topic is a very sensible one, yet many people seem to forget that there are real lives connected to it. Also, experiences can change one's view. This happened to myself: I was in the past far more on the side of Fluffy_Bunny and magickware99 than I am today.
Save your sob story and the claim that you become more interested in your fellow man because of a harrowing life experience. My mother also survived cancer and I know full well how much everything would have cost if my family didn't have top medical insurance.
This doesn't change a thing for me.
No reason to get cynical here. My interest for fellow man didn't raise or anything and it don't has to to be still supportive to the idea of universal health care. I think I hate humans more than you^^ But I also think that I'm a member of a country, of a greater community, which should be better than its parts. It should be protective and care-taking, it should promote equality and knowledge. As a part of the community one has the anonymous obligation to support the weaker ones. (Nobody expects you to take care of a stranger directly). And sometimes people have just bad luck, but this is no reason to drop them. It is better to invest in the human ressource, than to throw it so easily away. If you don't think that is how the world should work, than that is okay with me. I honestly don't care.
Money is a worthless thing, since it's only an exchange intermediary. The goods and services you get are what are valuable. Also the fluctuation of exchange rates demonstrate pretty well, that money in itself offers no value. But this dicussion is too far off-topic.
When people argue against universal healthcare by saying it costs too much money, they aren't raising a fuss over the physical pieces of paper. They're talking about the value the money represents. Every dollar of value that a government devotes to universal healthcare is a dollar of value that could be devoted to something else (e.g. education). I think you're probably smart enough to understand this, which makes your whole "money is worthless" thing a pretty intellectually dishonest statement.
There is too little money invested in education AND universal health care. I think the government should raise its investment in the human ressource on all levels, but at the same time makes huge mistakes in spending it otherwise. (That is the German situation, as I view it at least. I don't know much about the US government's spending.)
And regarding this whole "money is worthless"-issue: First of all, it's just plain sad that a human life has a price tag. What does money mean against a human life? What is a dollar worth in happiness? Secondly, money isn't a stable value. Currencies can have high inflation, can get created or abolished. Of course, "money is worthless" is just waaay over the top and untrue, but sometimes I begin to speak in badly constructed melodramatic prose! Oh, raging horror! Make this stop!!
No reason to get cynical here. My interest for fellow man didn't raise or anything and it don't has to to be still supportive to the idea of universal health care. I think I hate humans more than you^^ But I also think that I'm a member of a country, of a greater community, which should be better than its parts. It should be protective and care-taking, it should promote equality and knowledge. As a part of the community one has the anonymous obligation to support the weaker ones. (Nobody expects you to take care of a stranger directly). And sometimes people have just bad luck, but this is no reason to drop them. It is better to invest in the human ressource, than to throw it so easily away. If you don't think that is how the world should work, than that is okay with me. I honestly don't care.
Some Americans have the idea that people should be expected to take care of strangers directly. In other words, they think it is an individual moral duty to freely donate, either directly to individuals or to worthy charities. And this notion is deeply reflected in our cultural values - the US has the highest rate of charitable giving in the world, and the third-highest rate of volunteerism.
Some people in the US see the expansion of government programs as threatening these private charities and removing some of the incentive to give directly by making people think "I don't need to give, the government will take care of them."
I'm not saying this attitude is right or wrong, but it's important to remember that "I don't want the government to pay for this" is not the same thing as "I don't care about other people."
There is too little money invested in education AND universal health care. I think the government should raise its investment in the human ressource on all levels, but at the same time makes huge mistakes in spending it otherwise. (That is the German situation, as I view it at least. I don't know much about the US government's spending.)
You're missing the point, which is that money is finite, and government spending has to come from somewhere. In a perfect world, the government would buy everyone a house and a car. But money isn't infinite.
So the question is: how do we decide that healthcare from the government is a "basic human right," but a car from the government isn't? How do you prioritize?
And regarding this whole "money is worthless"-issue: First of all, it's just plain sad that a human life has a price tag. What does money mean against a human life? What is a dollar worth in happiness? Secondly, money isn't a stable value. Currencies can have high inflation, can get created or abolished. Of course, "money is worthless" is just waaay over the top and untrue, but sometimes I begin to speak in badly constructed melodramatic prose! Oh, raging horror! Make this stop!!
It's great to say "it's just plain sad that a human life has a price tag," but when we're talking about the government, it does. And it's unavoidable. There will always be situations where the government could save more lives (or make them better) by spending more money. Some people die in auto accidents who would have otherwise lived if they had been driving an ultra-safe, new BMW instead of a cheap used car. Does that mean the government should buy everyone a BMW? You can't put a price on human life, right?
First of all, it's just plain sad that a human life has a price tag. What does money mean against a human life?
Money represents the economic power that can potentially save lots of human lives. Putting a price tag on human life sounds horrible if you think of it in the melodramatic terms of, say, slavery or contract killing. But in reality, it's an absolutely necessary part of performing large-scale medical and humanitarian work. You can't just say, "Human life is priceless, so let's just suspend the laws of economics and pull resources out of nowhere to save everybody."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
"I'm not saying this attitude is right or wrong, but it's important to remember that "I don't want the government to pay for this" is not the same thing as "I don't care about other people."" You're right. And here I see a major difference to Germany, where volunteering is not nearly as appreciated. The Americans are far ahead here. I have the impression that the really rich people donate much more in the US, too. (But I must say, volunteering wouldn't be my thing.)
"You're missing the point, which is that money is finite, and government spending has to come from somewhere. In a perfect world, the government would buy everyone a house and a car. But money isn't infinite. So the question is: how do we decide that healthcare from the government is a "basic human right," but a car from the government isn't? How do you prioritize?" Well, Germany buried in recent years a lot of money in completely unnecessary buildings. That money could have been way better invested. And in a democratic state you prioritize through elections.
"It's great to say "it's just plain sad that a human life has a price tag," but when we're talking about the government, it does. And it's unavoidable. There will always be situations where the government could save more lives (or make them better) by spending more money. Some people die in auto accidents who would have otherwise lived if they had been driving an ultra-safe, new BMW instead of a cheap used car. Does that mean the government should buy everyone a BMW? You can't put a price on human life, right?" This is entirely true, but I have got more and more the impression, that the point isn't about the government spending its money, but instead people don't want to pay higher taxes for a basic security. When everyone is paying more taxes, that money could be given those in need. But probably it would be invested in huge, never-finished buildings instead...
Edit- In fact, I have great faith in people in general, and I believe that most people are kindhearted and will do the best they can to provide for those they care about.
But I also think that I'm a member of a country, of a greater community, which should be better than its parts. It should be protective and care-taking, it should promote equality and knowledge. As a part of the community one has the anonymous obligation to support the weaker ones. (Nobody expects you to take care of a stranger directly). And sometimes people have just bad luck, but this is no reason to drop them. It is better to invest in the human ressource, than to throw it so easily away.
Rhetoric sound great. It's nice and pretty. Most rhetoric are nice and pretty.
But have you ever considered what these mean in terms of specifics? What exactly does it mean to "promote equality and knowledge". What does it mean to be "protective and care-taking"? What does it mean to "support the weaker ones"?
Once you determined what all those means, what exactly do you plan on going about to do all those things? How do you plan on allocating the resources to achieve your goals? How much resources is required to achieve them?Have you considered the human element, wherein people won't even act the way you expect them to?
Here's a fun example- Many blacks communities in the U.S. rejected attempts to improve schools and education during the big movements during the 60s-70s. Why? Because they felt that those were the white population attempting to impose their will and their beliefs of what it meant to have a good education; they felt that they were being buried under external influences.
Mind you, these were impoverished communities with bad schools and all that. It wasn't as if it was some good community that the white folks were trying to intrude upon.
For a more recent example- A community in... Washington I think it was? (I forget) rejected a proposal to build a Trader Joe's in their community. It would have brought a lot of much needed jobs, and Trader Joe's is well-known for being good to its employees.
Their explanation? Trader Joe's is fancy white people stuff and they don't need that *****.
Point being- Things are NEVER simple. It is not simply "Give a bunch of money/resources and things will get better". It is not simply "If only people cared more then the world will be a better place!".
Ehm, eh, ah, what? Is the penguin closer to a Steve-Jobs-roboter-replica than the Philospoher's Stone? I didn't know we are discussing now in a dadaistic way...
I was essentially asking him if he considers ALL human life to be equal, in that he has no greater consideration for his parents than some people living in Buenos Aires.
Unfortunately, it seems many people in this life are selfish ***** who don't give a toss about their fellow man or woman, and never will.
A sad fact.
If you honestly think that the people who disagree with you are just cartoonishly evil, no progress in this discussion is possible. This is a complicated issue, with a whole bunch of factors weighing in on both sides. Listen to what people are saying with an open mind - entertain the possibility that they are no more sociopathic than you are, but rather are considering things that you may not be. Don't resort to simplistic stereotypes.
My above statement was not directed at those in this thread.
However my statement is perfectly valid. It's not a simplistic stereotype at all.
Maybe you guys could reduce 'offence' spending for a while?
Seriously?
Yeah, seriously.
In 2013, the entire world spent a collective 1,747 billion dollars on defence/military. Of this, 640 billion was spent by the USA.
You say the USA spends so much so that other countries don't have to, or don't want to, but please bear in mind that the USA has decided to go it alone and invade countries against the wishes of the UN in recent times.
I could say much more here, but this thread is supposed to be about health.
And now my own personal experience: My father got cancer, when I was 9 years-old, my girlfriend (or more like fiancee) got extremely sick with a 15% survival rate two years ago (to everyone's information, they were all insured by private), but these are such terrifying experiences and I can't even imagine how I devasted I would have been, if they had died, simply because there wasn't enough money, the most trivial and worthless thing on earth.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Helping people when they need it most. This is why a healthcare system is important.
....
All this talk of whether or not healthcare is a basic human right is kinda petty, and I don't think it actually relates to the whole reason we're here.
The main question I see people arguing about here is;
What about those who can't afford it?
I think they should have some sort of safety net. Not everyone starts life on easy street...
Save your sob story and the claim that you become more interested in your fellow man because of a harrowing life experience. My mother also survived cancer and I know full well how much everything would have cost if my family didn't have top medical insurance.
This doesn't change a thing for me.
What happens when medical insurer's go broke? (Cos this happened some years back here in Australia, it caused all sorts of chaos)
Or they dispute your claim and leave you out in the cold? (cos cancer patients in the USA have this happen from time to time, tends to make the news)
Both are very real possibilities.
Which leads me into the next question;
Do people who are unable to afford healthcare, or are deemed un-insurable due to pre-existing conditions and/or poor life-style choices, or those who have had their insurer refuse to honour their claim, deserve to have some sort of safety net?
Why or why not?
Personally, I think healthcare should be accessible to all in the day and age of 640 billion worth of military spending.
All this talk of whether or not healthcare is a basic human right is kinda petty, and I don't think it actually relates to the whole reason we're here.
Not really. It is actually quite important.
As bitterroot put it nicely- is it a policy issue or is it a right issue? If it is a policy issue then virtually all arguments that essentially say "poor people can't pay for healthcare on their own, and so deserve to get help"/related is moot. If it is an issue of right, then we must absolutely provide everyone with free healthcare, no questions asked.
What happens when medical insurer's go broke? (Cos this happened some years back here in Australia, it caused all sorts of chaos)
Or they dispute your claim and leave you out in the cold? (cos cancer patients in the USA have this happen from time to time, tends to make the news)
Both are very real possibilities.
What of it?
I ask, again, why are any of these possibilities supposed to make me think we should provide cheap/free/w.e. healthcare to all?
Seriously, I'm getting tired of being asked what really amounts to moral questions that also seemingly questions my moral compass. Batterysrevenge and hyalapterouslemur asked me what if I got sick and don't have insurance. I ask why does this matter? They never respond.
Now you ask me what if my parents lost their insurance? My mom would probably have never been able to get proper treatment and she probably would have been dead in 2-4 years time. My family would be terribly sad and we'll never be the same. My dad would probably fall into a deep depression because the man literally can't live without his wife, etc. My brother and I would have to deal with the fact that we lost our mom, and it'll be impossible to even put to words how difficult this would be.
But why would this make me decide that everyone should have cheap/free healthcare?
As far as I can tell, your argument is basically saying "We should provide things to people because people can be terribly sad without them/the consequence of lacking said things can make people terribly sad". This is not a good argument. Heck, this is barely an argument. As Bitterroot wrote, your line of argumentation is so incredibly broad that virtually everything can apply. It loses all meaning and has no real purpose.
Which leads me into the next question;
Do people who are unable to afford healthcare, or are deemed un-insurable due to pre-existing conditions and/or poor life-style choices, or those who have had their insurer refuse to honour their claim, deserve to have some sort of safety net?
Why or why not?
You just wrote that arguing whether healthcare is a basic human right is pettyand not particularly relevant to the issue at hand. And then you bring it up again.
In 2013, the entire world spent a collective 1,747 billion dollars on defence/military. Of this, 640 billion was spent by the USA.
Yup. But accounting for 30% of the entire world's defense spending looks slightly less exorbitant when you remember that we account for 25% of the entire world's GDP. Numbers are tricky like that.
What happens when medical insurer's go broke? (Cos this happened some years back here in Australia, it caused all sorts of chaos)
And what happens when the government goes broke?
What you're saying, that insurance pools can run out of money, actually underscores the point we've been making: we as a society literally cannot completely guarantee healthcare for everybody, because healthcare costs resources and resources are finite. God knows there's a ton of wasted resources in our current system. But what you're talking about isn't an informed proposal for reducing the waste - it's just a feel-good wave of the hands. "Wouldn't it be wonderful if everybody had healthcare?" Yes, it would. So how do we do it?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
]And what happens when the government goes broke?
What you're saying, that insurance pools can run out of money, actually underscores the point we've been making: we as a society literally cannot completely guarantee healthcare for everybody, because healthcare costs resources and resources are finite. God knows there's a ton of wasted resources in our current system. But what you're talking about isn't an informed proposal for reducing the waste - it's just a feel-good wave of the hands. "Wouldn't it be wonderful if everybody had healthcare?" Yes, it would. So how do we do it?
I'd imagine that if government (society) is expected to pay for healthcare completely and indefinitely it'd make sense for government (society) to take reign over the development and implementation of healthcare.
So yes... we spend a lot of money on Defense.... and we spend a lot more money on health care. Selling a few air craft carriers isn't going to magically fund health care for all.
So yes... we spend a lot of money on Defense.... and we spend a lot more money on health care. Selling a few air craft carriers isn't going to magically fund health care for all.
This isn't really a fair comparison, although I agree defunding the military wouldn't magically make all of healthcare work. That $2.9 trillion is a result of out of control prices. Government price controls significantly reduce that amount (with the huge caveat here that it would have to be done properly), as would the economies of scale coming from funding the health costs of the entire population.
The $2.9 trillion is complex to say the least. And competition between healthcare entities doesn't drive down prices because people don't (and often can't) price shop. Having a single payer system does significantly reduce prices for a bunch of reasons (I can expand on this if you guys would like), but simply put a single payer can decide payments, and providers no longer have to weigh bad debt in their costs and healthcare entities are no longer negotiating blindly with equipment and supply companies and insurance companies.
Now you ask me what if my parents lost their insurance? My mom would probably have never been able to get proper treatment and she probably would have been dead in 2-4 years time. My family would be terribly sad and we'll never be the same. My dad would probably fall into a deep depression because the man literally can't live without his wife, etc. My brother and I would have to deal with the fact that we lost our mom, and it'll be impossible to even put to words how difficult this would be.
But why would this make me decide that everyone should have cheap/free healthcare?
As far as I can tell, your argument is basically saying "We should provide things to people because people can be terribly sad without them/the consequence of lacking said things can make people terribly sad". This is not a good argument. Heck, this is barely an argument. As Bitterroot wrote, your line of argumentation is so incredibly broad that virtually everything can apply. It loses all meaning and has no real purpose.
Because living people can be taxed, support an economy and all manner of amazing things that dead people don't.
What you're saying, that insurance pools can run out of money, actually underscores the point we've been making: we as a society literally cannot completely guarantee healthcare for everybody, because healthcare costs resources and resources are finite. God knows there's a ton of wasted resources in our current system. But what you're talking about isn't an informed proposal for reducing the waste - it's just a feel-good wave of the hands. "Wouldn't it be wonderful if everybody had healthcare?" Yes, it would. So how do we do it?
There are other countries in the world with healthcare for all, regardless of insurance cover. I live in one of them.
You already know this.
Because living people can be taxed, support an economy and all manner of amazing things that dead people don't.
Most living people that can be taxed make enough money to afford health care.
And we come back to those who can't....
Anyone here know any single mother's? Bet your bottom dollar they have a hard time making ends meet. So do you think their kids should be made to suffer the consequences of going through life without healthcare?
I feel the main thing people aren't appreciating about this whole shebang is this;
Most chronic conditions, think cancer etc., are usually a LOT cheaper to treat in the early stages (not to mention have a higher success rate).
If healthcare is cheap/free, it encourages people to get stuff checked out before it becomes a big problem.
Case in point;
Skin Cancer.
Here in Australia, getting your skin checked is free. We have the highest rate of skin cancer in the world, and we also have one of the better treatment rates too.
A suspect lesion/mole can be removed with a minimum of fuss, but if the person couldn't afford to have this service done, they may later end up in a hospital etc etc.
Preventative medicine is far better than the alternative, and a free healthcare system is one way of encouraging this outcome.
Because living people can be taxed, support an economy and all manner of amazing things that dead people don't.
Most living people that can be taxed make enough money to afford health care.
And we come back to those who can't....
Anyone here know any single mother's? Bet your bottom dollar they have a hard time making ends meet. So do you think their kids should be made to suffer the consequences of going through life without healthcare?
I feel the main thing people aren't appreciating about this whole shebang is this;
Most chronic conditions, think cancer etc., are usually a LOT cheaper to treat in the early stages (not to mention have a higher success rate).
If healthcare is cheap/free, it encourages people to get stuff checked out before it becomes a big problem.
Case in point;
Skin Cancer.
Here in Australia, getting your skin checked is free. We have the highest rate of skin cancer in the world, and we also have one of the better treatment rates too.
A suspect lesion/mole can be removed with a minimum of fuss, but if the person couldn't afford to have this service done, they may later end up in a hospital etc etc.
Preventative medicine is far better than the alternative, and a free healthcare system is one way of encouraging this outcome.
I live in reality. I do not live in a world that can be dictated by should and should not. Nobody should ever have to choose between buying bread or toilet paper, nobody should have to explain to their kids that even though Santa did not come this year it was not because they were naughty, and in my opinion 10 year olds should not have their own laptops...
That does not mean we can magically give everyone plenty of food and other essentials, fill up every home with toys for Christmas or outlaw giving laptops to little kids. Doing these things has a cost. Nothing is free.
While it might be cheaper to treat earlier rather than later, it's even cheaper to not treat at all.
It's very hard to debate in this thread, because it seems like there are two different claims flying around, and I'm not sure which of the two we're discussing at any given point:
1. Healthcare is a basic human right that all people are entitled to. If a country (large or small, rich or poor) does not provide healthcare to all its citizens, it is violating their human rights and behaving in a fundamentally unethical way.
2. The US, based on its current economic and geographical circumstances, ought to provide free single-payer healthcare to its citizens because the benefits of doing so would outweigh the costs. No claim is being made as to whether healthcare is a basic human right.
People should try to make clear which of these claims (or both) they're endorsing.
Anyone here know any single mother's? Bet your bottom dollar they have a hard time making ends meet. So do you think their kids should be made to suffer the consequences of going through life without healthcare?
The US provides free healthcare to low-income children and their parents through the CHIP program. The US also offers Medicaid benefits to low-income people, with or without kids.
There are other countries in the world with healthcare for all, regardless of insurance cover. I live in one of them.
You already know this.
You completely missed the point, which is the line you actually cut from your quotation of me, which is, "And what happens when the government goes broke?" The government is not a magical font of infinite resources. It has to work with the same economy as everybody else. If there aren't enough resources in the economy to give everybody healthcare, not everybody is getting healthcare. Australia has healthcare for all only as long as "all" is not more patients than it can handle, exactly the same as if everybody was insured privately. (And for what it's worth, nothing can be a basic human right if it's not always possible to achieve in any human society. It's always possible to say, "I won't kill you, I won't torture you, I won't take your stuff, I won't make you worship my god." It's not always possible to say, "Here's your flu shot.")
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You said evil. I didn't. Methinks you're getting desperate to paint me in a corner here mate.
Sociopaths exist. Prove they don't to prove me wrong.
...
You missed the point, it being that any attempt to reduce an argument to a simplistic "if X, then Y" is creating a simplistic stereotype that really means nothing beyond a stupid talking point.
Which is exactly what you did when you wrote-
Unfortunately, it seems many people in this life are selfish ***** who don't give a toss about their fellow man or woman, and never will.
A sad fact.
So everyone should have free/cheap healthcare because they'll live longer, and we can tax them longer?
That doesn't even make actuarial sense, because as people live longer their healthcare liabilities go up. The elderly almost always cost more than they pay in taxes - frequently much more. If all we wanted was the most profitable tax base, we'd euthanize everyone at age 55 or so. (Similarly, cigarettes and obesity actually lower healthcare costs on average because they kill people before they get old.) We as a society want to prolong life because we value life, not because we value money.
EDIT: That said, it does make financial sense to ensure that young people are healthy. If all your twenty- and thirty-somethings are coming down with the flu, a lot of work doesn't get done.
EDIT: That said, it does make financial sense to ensure that young people are healthy. If all your twenty- and thirty-somethings are coming down with the flu, a lot of work doesn't get done.
Which is why a lot of businesses will provide flu shots on site. I was able to literally walk up stairs and get a flu shot (took 5 minutes) one day at work. If that was not the case I would probably never get one. I've always had insurance but until I worked where I currently do I had never once gotten a flu shot.
So everyone should have free/cheap healthcare because they'll live longer, and we can tax them longer?
That doesn't even make actuarial sense, because as people live longer their healthcare liabilities go up. The elderly almost always cost more than they pay in taxes - frequently much more. If all we wanted was the most profitable tax base, we'd euthanize everyone at age 55 or so. (Similarly, cigarettes and obesity actually lower healthcare costs on average because they kill people before they get old.) We as a society want to prolong life because we value life, not because we value money.
EDIT: That said, it does make financial sense to ensure that young people are healthy. If all your twenty- and thirty-somethings are coming down with the flu, a lot of work doesn't get done.
I'm pretty sure Slave doesn't actually believe in what he wrote, and wrote it simply to trip me up (or something like that) because he has a very mistaken view of my beliefs.
EDIT: That said, it does make financial sense to ensure that young people are healthy. If all your twenty- and thirty-somethings are coming down with the flu, a lot of work doesn't get done.
Which is why a lot of businesses will provide flu shots on site. I was able to literally walk up stairs and get a flu shot (took 5 minutes) one day at work. If that was not the case I would probably never get one. I've always had insurance but until I worked where I currently do I had never once gotten a flu shot.
Quick note: Those are government subsidized flu shots you're getting at those businesses. Surprise! You've just been injected with socialism
EDIT: That said, it does make financial sense to ensure that young people are healthy. If all your twenty- and thirty-somethings are coming down with the flu, a lot of work doesn't get done.
Which is why a lot of businesses will provide flu shots on site. I was able to literally walk up stairs and get a flu shot (took 5 minutes) one day at work. If that was not the case I would probably never get one. I've always had insurance but until I worked where I currently do I had never once gotten a flu shot.
Quick note: Those are government subsidized flu shots you're getting at those businesses. Surprise! You've just been injected with socialism
I may not like socialism but that doesn't mean I'll refuse the benefits it provides me currently
To paraphrase Frederic Bastiat, I'm not against healthcare because I don't support government-run healthcare.
I'm sick and tired of the "If you're not for government program X you're an evil, heartless person who worships Ayn Rand" ad hominems that run rampant on this site. It's a major reason why I don't post much here anymore.
No reason to get cynical here. My interest for fellow man didn't raise or anything and it don't has to to be still supportive to the idea of universal health care. I think I hate humans more than you^^ But I also think that I'm a member of a country, of a greater community, which should be better than its parts. It should be protective and care-taking, it should promote equality and knowledge. As a part of the community one has the anonymous obligation to support the weaker ones. (Nobody expects you to take care of a stranger directly). And sometimes people have just bad luck, but this is no reason to drop them. It is better to invest in the human ressource, than to throw it so easily away. If you don't think that is how the world should work, than that is okay with me. I honestly don't care.
There is too little money invested in education AND universal health care. I think the government should raise its investment in the human ressource on all levels, but at the same time makes huge mistakes in spending it otherwise. (That is the German situation, as I view it at least. I don't know much about the US government's spending.)
And regarding this whole "money is worthless"-issue: First of all, it's just plain sad that a human life has a price tag. What does money mean against a human life? What is a dollar worth in happiness? Secondly, money isn't a stable value. Currencies can have high inflation, can get created or abolished. Of course, "money is worthless" is just waaay over the top and untrue, but sometimes I begin to speak in badly constructed melodramatic prose! Oh, raging horror! Make this stop!!
Some Americans have the idea that people should be expected to take care of strangers directly. In other words, they think it is an individual moral duty to freely donate, either directly to individuals or to worthy charities. And this notion is deeply reflected in our cultural values - the US has the highest rate of charitable giving in the world, and the third-highest rate of volunteerism.
Some people in the US see the expansion of government programs as threatening these private charities and removing some of the incentive to give directly by making people think "I don't need to give, the government will take care of them."
I'm not saying this attitude is right or wrong, but it's important to remember that "I don't want the government to pay for this" is not the same thing as "I don't care about other people."
You're missing the point, which is that money is finite, and government spending has to come from somewhere. In a perfect world, the government would buy everyone a house and a car. But money isn't infinite.
So the question is: how do we decide that healthcare from the government is a "basic human right," but a car from the government isn't? How do you prioritize?
It's great to say "it's just plain sad that a human life has a price tag," but when we're talking about the government, it does. And it's unavoidable. There will always be situations where the government could save more lives (or make them better) by spending more money. Some people die in auto accidents who would have otherwise lived if they had been driving an ultra-safe, new BMW instead of a cheap used car. Does that mean the government should buy everyone a BMW? You can't put a price on human life, right?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
"You're missing the point, which is that money is finite, and government spending has to come from somewhere. In a perfect world, the government would buy everyone a house and a car. But money isn't infinite. So the question is: how do we decide that healthcare from the government is a "basic human right," but a car from the government isn't? How do you prioritize?" Well, Germany buried in recent years a lot of money in completely unnecessary buildings. That money could have been way better invested. And in a democratic state you prioritize through elections.
"It's great to say "it's just plain sad that a human life has a price tag," but when we're talking about the government, it does. And it's unavoidable. There will always be situations where the government could save more lives (or make them better) by spending more money. Some people die in auto accidents who would have otherwise lived if they had been driving an ultra-safe, new BMW instead of a cheap used car. Does that mean the government should buy everyone a BMW? You can't put a price on human life, right?" This is entirely true, but I have got more and more the impression, that the point isn't about the government spending its money, but instead people don't want to pay higher taxes for a basic security. When everyone is paying more taxes, that money could be given those in need. But probably it would be invested in huge, never-finished buildings instead...
...
I don't hate humans at all.
Edit- In fact, I have great faith in people in general, and I believe that most people are kindhearted and will do the best they can to provide for those they care about.
Seriously, wtf is up with all these assumptions.
Rhetoric sound great. It's nice and pretty. Most rhetoric are nice and pretty.
But have you ever considered what these mean in terms of specifics? What exactly does it mean to "promote equality and knowledge". What does it mean to be "protective and care-taking"? What does it mean to "support the weaker ones"?
Once you determined what all those means, what exactly do you plan on going about to do all those things? How do you plan on allocating the resources to achieve your goals? How much resources is required to achieve them?Have you considered the human element, wherein people won't even act the way you expect them to?
Here's a fun example- Many blacks communities in the U.S. rejected attempts to improve schools and education during the big movements during the 60s-70s. Why? Because they felt that those were the white population attempting to impose their will and their beliefs of what it meant to have a good education; they felt that they were being buried under external influences.
Mind you, these were impoverished communities with bad schools and all that. It wasn't as if it was some good community that the white folks were trying to intrude upon.
For a more recent example- A community in... Washington I think it was? (I forget) rejected a proposal to build a Trader Joe's in their community. It would have brought a lot of much needed jobs, and Trader Joe's is well-known for being good to its employees.
Their explanation? Trader Joe's is fancy white people stuff and they don't need that *****.
Point being- Things are NEVER simple. It is not simply "Give a bunch of money/resources and things will get better". It is not simply "If only people cared more then the world will be a better place!".
I was essentially asking him if he considers ALL human life to be equal, in that he has no greater consideration for his parents than some people living in Buenos Aires.
My above statement was not directed at those in this thread.
However my statement is perfectly valid. It's not a simplistic stereotype at all.
Yeah, seriously.
In 2013, the entire world spent a collective 1,747 billion dollars on defence/military. Of this, 640 billion was spent by the USA.
You say the USA spends so much so that other countries don't have to, or don't want to, but please bear in mind that the USA has decided to go it alone and invade countries against the wishes of the UN in recent times.
I could say much more here, but this thread is supposed to be about health.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Helping people when they need it most. This is why a healthcare system is important.
....
All this talk of whether or not healthcare is a basic human right is kinda petty, and I don't think it actually relates to the whole reason we're here.
The main question I see people arguing about here is;
What about those who can't afford it?
I think they should have some sort of safety net. Not everyone starts life on easy street...
What happens when medical insurer's go broke? (Cos this happened some years back here in Australia, it caused all sorts of chaos)
Or they dispute your claim and leave you out in the cold? (cos cancer patients in the USA have this happen from time to time, tends to make the news)
Both are very real possibilities.
Which leads me into the next question;
Do people who are unable to afford healthcare, or are deemed un-insurable due to pre-existing conditions and/or poor life-style choices, or those who have had their insurer refuse to honour their claim, deserve to have some sort of safety net?
Why or why not?
Personally, I think healthcare should be accessible to all in the day and age of 640 billion worth of military spending.
Anything becomes a simplistic stereotype if your argument amounts to "If you disagree with me, you are evil".
Not really. It is actually quite important.
As bitterroot put it nicely- is it a policy issue or is it a right issue? If it is a policy issue then virtually all arguments that essentially say "poor people can't pay for healthcare on their own, and so deserve to get help"/related is moot. If it is an issue of right, then we must absolutely provide everyone with free healthcare, no questions asked.
What of it?
I ask, again, why are any of these possibilities supposed to make me think we should provide cheap/free/w.e. healthcare to all?
Seriously, I'm getting tired of being asked what really amounts to moral questions that also seemingly questions my moral compass. Batterysrevenge and hyalapterouslemur asked me what if I got sick and don't have insurance. I ask why does this matter? They never respond.
Now you ask me what if my parents lost their insurance? My mom would probably have never been able to get proper treatment and she probably would have been dead in 2-4 years time. My family would be terribly sad and we'll never be the same. My dad would probably fall into a deep depression because the man literally can't live without his wife, etc. My brother and I would have to deal with the fact that we lost our mom, and it'll be impossible to even put to words how difficult this would be.
But why would this make me decide that everyone should have cheap/free healthcare?
As far as I can tell, your argument is basically saying "We should provide things to people because people can be terribly sad without them/the consequence of lacking said things can make people terribly sad". This is not a good argument. Heck, this is barely an argument. As Bitterroot wrote, your line of argumentation is so incredibly broad that virtually everything can apply. It loses all meaning and has no real purpose.
You just wrote that arguing whether healthcare is a basic human right is pettyand not particularly relevant to the issue at hand. And then you bring it up again.
What?
So what do you think of my International Medical Treaty Organization idea? Screw Denmark, am I right?
Really? This is so trite it doesn't even qualify as a platitude. Of course a healthcare system is important. Who the hell is saying that it isn't?
And what happens when the government goes broke?
What you're saying, that insurance pools can run out of money, actually underscores the point we've been making: we as a society literally cannot completely guarantee healthcare for everybody, because healthcare costs resources and resources are finite. God knows there's a ton of wasted resources in our current system. But what you're talking about isn't an informed proposal for reducing the waste - it's just a feel-good wave of the hands. "Wouldn't it be wonderful if everybody had healthcare?" Yes, it would. So how do we do it?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'd imagine that if government (society) is expected to pay for healthcare completely and indefinitely it'd make sense for government (society) to take reign over the development and implementation of healthcare.
Do you realize how little money $640 billions dollars is? After a quick google I found this: http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/highlights.pdf "In 2013 U.S. health care spending increased 3.6 percent to reach $2.9 trillion, or $9,255 per person, the
fifth consecutive year of slow growth in the range of 3.6 percent and 4.1 percent"
So yes... we spend a lot of money on Defense.... and we spend a lot more money on health care. Selling a few air craft carriers isn't going to magically fund health care for all.
This isn't really a fair comparison, although I agree defunding the military wouldn't magically make all of healthcare work. That $2.9 trillion is a result of out of control prices. Government price controls significantly reduce that amount (with the huge caveat here that it would have to be done properly), as would the economies of scale coming from funding the health costs of the entire population.
The $2.9 trillion is complex to say the least. And competition between healthcare entities doesn't drive down prices because people don't (and often can't) price shop. Having a single payer system does significantly reduce prices for a bunch of reasons (I can expand on this if you guys would like), but simply put a single payer can decide payments, and providers no longer have to weigh bad debt in their costs and healthcare entities are no longer negotiating blindly with equipment and supply companies and insurance companies.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
You said evil. I didn't. Methinks you're getting desperate to paint me in a corner here mate.
Sociopaths exist. Prove they don't to prove me wrong.
Because living people can be taxed, support an economy and all manner of amazing things that dead people don't.
There are other countries in the world with healthcare for all, regardless of insurance cover. I live in one of them.
You already know this.
Most living people that can be taxed make enough money to afford health care.
And we come back to those who can't....
Anyone here know any single mother's? Bet your bottom dollar they have a hard time making ends meet. So do you think their kids should be made to suffer the consequences of going through life without healthcare?
I feel the main thing people aren't appreciating about this whole shebang is this;
Most chronic conditions, think cancer etc., are usually a LOT cheaper to treat in the early stages (not to mention have a higher success rate).
If healthcare is cheap/free, it encourages people to get stuff checked out before it becomes a big problem.
Case in point;
Skin Cancer.
Here in Australia, getting your skin checked is free. We have the highest rate of skin cancer in the world, and we also have one of the better treatment rates too.
A suspect lesion/mole can be removed with a minimum of fuss, but if the person couldn't afford to have this service done, they may later end up in a hospital etc etc.
Preventative medicine is far better than the alternative, and a free healthcare system is one way of encouraging this outcome.
I live in reality. I do not live in a world that can be dictated by should and should not. Nobody should ever have to choose between buying bread or toilet paper, nobody should have to explain to their kids that even though Santa did not come this year it was not because they were naughty, and in my opinion 10 year olds should not have their own laptops...
That does not mean we can magically give everyone plenty of food and other essentials, fill up every home with toys for Christmas or outlaw giving laptops to little kids. Doing these things has a cost. Nothing is free.
While it might be cheaper to treat earlier rather than later, it's even cheaper to not treat at all.
1. Healthcare is a basic human right that all people are entitled to. If a country (large or small, rich or poor) does not provide healthcare to all its citizens, it is violating their human rights and behaving in a fundamentally unethical way.
2. The US, based on its current economic and geographical circumstances, ought to provide free single-payer healthcare to its citizens because the benefits of doing so would outweigh the costs. No claim is being made as to whether healthcare is a basic human right.
People should try to make clear which of these claims (or both) they're endorsing.
The US provides free healthcare to low-income children and their parents through the CHIP program. The US also offers Medicaid benefits to low-income people, with or without kids.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
...
You missed the point, it being that any attempt to reduce an argument to a simplistic "if X, then Y" is creating a simplistic stereotype that really means nothing beyond a stupid talking point.
Which is exactly what you did when you wrote-
So everyone should have free/cheap healthcare because they'll live longer, and we can tax them longer?
EDIT: That said, it does make financial sense to ensure that young people are healthy. If all your twenty- and thirty-somethings are coming down with the flu, a lot of work doesn't get done.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Which is why a lot of businesses will provide flu shots on site. I was able to literally walk up stairs and get a flu shot (took 5 minutes) one day at work. If that was not the case I would probably never get one. I've always had insurance but until I worked where I currently do I had never once gotten a flu shot.
I'm pretty sure Slave doesn't actually believe in what he wrote, and wrote it simply to trip me up (or something like that) because he has a very mistaken view of my beliefs.
Quick note: Those are government subsidized flu shots you're getting at those businesses. Surprise! You've just been injected with socialism
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I may not like socialism but that doesn't mean I'll refuse the benefits it provides me currently