Universal health insurance

  • Thread starter Thread starter Homerun40968
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
goofyjim said:
No the government should provide necessities for those who are unable to. Housing, food, clothes, healthcare and childcare are necessities. Lawncare and petcare are optional.
Click to expand...
Obviously, you’re not seeing where I’m coming from on this…

Maybe from now on I should substitute “use of violent force to extract taxes and the threat of imprisonment to redistribute resources without individual consent” for the word “government”

that might help to make my point a little clearer.

For example, I understand your statement to read:

“No, the use of violent force to extract taxes and the threat of imprisonment to redistribute resources without individual consent should be used to provide necessities for those who are unable to.”

Does that help to clarify my position?
 
goofyjim said:
Well let’s see. When was the last time a hospital gave a free appendectomy to someone who was already disabled and didn’t have health insurance?
Click to expand...
About ten minutes ago. No one goes to the hospital with acute appendicitis and gets turned away.
 
vern_humphrey said:
About ten minutes ago. No one goes to the hospital with acute appendicitis and gets turned away.
Click to expand...
They may not get turned away but are they required to pay a bill later on which they can’t afford? They shouldn’t. We should have a system in place where life or death situations are no longer a burden to the patient.
 
goofyjim said:
BTW we don’t need to tax anyone’s wages. We can cover all this with a consumption tax. If you buy a more expensive car than I do you pay a higher tax while the percentage is the same. And we can still provide for all the basic needs of our citizens.
Click to expand...
But our entire economy is based on consumption, Jim-
when you tax consumption, people consume less, because consumption costs more, and so the economy slows down, and the government isn’t getting as much as they expected to get in taxes. Then, to make up for it, the government raises those taxes, or implements new ones, or enacts cutbacks in services.

Also, dont’ think that consumption taxes only hurt the rich. The salesman who is trying to sell that car to feed his family now will sell fewer cars because they cost more- not because he is making more, but because the government is taking a bigger cut. I guess if that salesman isn’t on socialized medicine now, he will be soon because the government has just hurt his bottom line.
 
goofyjim said:
They may not get turned away but are they required to pay a bill later on which they can’t afford? They shouldn’t. We should have a system in place where life or death situations are no longer a burden to the patient.
Click to expand...
Why?

If I go to the hospital with apendicitis, I have to pay, don’t I?

Why should anyone get services for free? What’s wrong with expecting people to pay what they can for the services they get?
 
Oscarthecat said:
But our entire economy is based on consumption, Jim-
when you tax consumption, people consume less, because consumption costs more, and so the economy slows down, and the government isn’t getting as much as they expected to get in taxes. Then, to make up for it, the government raises those taxes, or implements new ones, or enacts cutbacks in services.

Also, dont’ think that consumption taxes only hurt the rich. The salesman who is trying to sell that car to feed his family now will sell fewer cars because they cost more- not because he is making more, but because the government is taking a bigger cut. I guess if that salesman isn’t on socialized medicine now, he will be soon because the government has just hurt his bottom line.
Click to expand...
Well then the government will have to learn to with nothing because taxing anyone’s wages is unfair. Noone should be forced to give any of what he labors for.
 
vern_humphrey said:
Why?

If I go to the hospital with apendicitis, I have to pay, don’t I?

Why should anyone get services for free? What’s wrong with expecting people to pay what they can for the services they get?
Click to expand...
Because some people cannot afford it and appenicitis is a life threatening disorder.

But of course it is better for them die than to make it from people.
 
vern_humphrey said:
Why?

If I go to the hospital with apendicitis, I have to pay, don’t I?

Why should anyone get services for free? What’s wrong with expecting people to pay what they can for the services they get?
Click to expand...
So then if they can’t pay later on should we go back and undo it and let them die. Let’s get off the money kick for a change and just treat people to prevent them from dying. If they are unable to pay so what?
 
goofyjim said:
So then if they can’t pay later on should we go back and undo it and let them die.
Click to expand...
Once again, you’re arguing with the bugaboos in your own head.

No one ever said we should put someone’s appendix back if they can’t pay.
goofyjim said:
Let’s get off the money kick for a change and just treat people to prevent them from dying. If they are unable to pay so what?
Click to expand...
Take your own advice – get off the money kick. Work harder, contribute more, and help the rest of us pay.
 
ribozyme said:
Because some people cannot afford it and appenicitis is a life threatening disorder.
Click to expand...
And that’s why no one with sappendicitis is turned away.

But everyone should pay for what they get. If they cannot pay all, they should pay some.

And what they cannot pay, you should pay – you do have a job, don’t you?😛
ribozyme said:
But of course it is better for them die than to make it from people.
Click to expand...
Quite a comment from a guy who thinks the earth is over-populated.:rotfl:
 
goofyjim said:
They may not get turned away but are they required to pay a bill later on which they can’t afford? They shouldn’t. We should have a system in place where life or death situations are no longer a burden to the patient.
Click to expand...
Who should they be a burden to? Someone has to pay the bill, shouldn’t it be the person recieving the service?
 
Caesar517 said:
Who should they be a burden to? Someone has to pay the bill, shouldn’t it be the person recieving the service?
Click to expand...
To the hardest working people, of course. They should pay so the rest of us can skate.:rolleyes:

As I’ve said before, I’ve seen many people on these forums propose wonderful things – to be paid for by someone else. I’ve never seen anyone say, “I should work harder, so I can bear my share of the burden.”
 
goofyjim said:
Everyone has the right to basic human needs. Healthcare is one of them. If pathia has the right to a job, then pathia has the right to insurance on the job as well. Maybe if we provided a little more of that we wouldn’t have to discuss whether the government should be involved. And it seems like the one line of thought that prevents universal health care is the worship of that almighty dollar.
Click to expand...
Are you arguing from a religous or political perspective?

Everything you have is a gift from God. You don’t have a right to anything. The food you eat, the water you drink, the clothes you wear are a given graciously by God to some. Many don’t have these luxuries. Healthcare is a morally acceptable privilege. We should try to expand healthcare on the basis that it improves the overall welfare of humanity, not that humanity has any righteous claim to it.

The Founding Fathers asserts a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Although government can protect its citizens from its own attacks on life, it has no authority, be it by congressional statute, executive order, or Supreme Court decision, to regulate death or sickness.
The Founding Fathers did not assert a right to happiness but the pursuit thereof. Thus, if healthcare is an essential element of happiness, it is not granted by the government (socialized medicine) but rather citizens may pursue it through their own means (privatized healthcare).

So from what source do you assume the right to healthcare?
 
summasix said:
Are you arguing from a religous or political perspective?

Everything you have is a gift from God. You don’t have a right to anything. The food you eat, the water you drink, the clothes you wear are a given graciously by God to some. Many don’t have these luxuries. Healthcare is a morally acceptable privilege. We should try to expand healthcare on the basis that it improves the overall welfare of humanity, not that humanity has any righteous claim to it.

So from what source do you assume the right to healthcare?
Click to expand...
Healthcare should be provided to as many people as possible because it reduces suffering.
 
vern_humphrey said:
Once again, you’re arguing with the bugaboos in your own head.

No one ever said we should put someone’s appendix back if they can’t pay.

Take your own advice – get off the money kick. Work harder, contribute more, and help the rest of us pay.
Click to expand...
There you go again Vern. I work hard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top