1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Free health care: Is it a handout, or a form of insurance?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Eukaryote, Jun 24, 2006.

?

Is public health care a handout or a form of insurance?

  1. It's a form of insurance.

    62.5%
  2. It's a handout.

    29.7%
  3. It's a radioactive monkey!

    7.8%
  1. Elrohir

    Elrohir RELATIONAL VALORIZATION

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    12,507
    They give it to you because you cannot afford to buy it yourself. Sounds like a handout to me. Whether you consider the government giving out handouts, or not, is a different matter.
     
  2. tomsnowman123

    tomsnowman123 Simple Liver

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    2,576
    Location:
    In front of my Koobox with Linspire
    Some of the welfare states, like Sweden and The Netherlands abolished capital punishment decades ago and are at the forefront of progressive legislation for women, gays, ethnic minorities, and anti-censorship. These social democracies usually score highest in the widely respected Freedom House annual survey on civil liberties. So a welfare state does work in terms of freedom. Universal health care would provide opportunities for people who normally wouldn't have the freedoms enjoyed by others. I don't see why we can hold them back like that.
     
  3. Elrohir

    Elrohir RELATIONAL VALORIZATION

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    12,507
    That's a different type of freedom. In the countries you mentioned, you have great social freedom (If you're gay, or you want an abortion or something) but limited economic freedom, because the government is always taking your money, and using it for healthcare, and such things.

    I prefer a different system, where economic freedom is virtually absolute, while the social freedom's are regulated, albeit sanely and democratically.
     
  4. tomsnowman123

    tomsnowman123 Simple Liver

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    2,576
    Location:
    In front of my Koobox with Linspire
    I think these programs help provide social and economic freedom to those who wouldn't have it. But this is really a matter of opinion.

    But regulated social freedoms? :(
     
  5. Emp.Napoleon

    Emp.Napoleon SUPER EMP!

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2002
    Messages:
    2,006
    Location:
    Washington, DC / San Diego, CA
    What use is there in saying that we are an advanced society is only the rich and powerfull can use the tech advances. In order to truly say we advance in the medical field we must allow all the fundamental right to life. Therefore we need Universal Heathcare.
     
  6. Shadylookin

    Shadylookin master debater

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2002
    Messages:
    6,719
    Location:
    eternal damnation
    number of lower to middle income adults and children without health insurance > the number of crack addicts.

    whether you aggree or disagree with nationalized health care surely you can accept that
     
  7. Elrohir

    Elrohir RELATIONAL VALORIZATION

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    12,507
    Sure it does - providing economic freedom (The money to buy stuff) for the people who didn't have it before - at the expense of those who could. No, thank you, I'd rather pay my own way and have everyone else do the same.

    If they're believed to be morally wrong, why not? I think you must have missed my stipulation that they be regulated "sanely and democratically". And what you may think of as rights and freedoms (Abortion, gay marriage, etc) I wouldn't view as such - I just used the phrase "regulating social freedoms" because I figured that's how you would view it.
     
  8. Taliesin

    Taliesin Puttin' on the Ritz

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,906
    Location:
    Montréal
    Why should economic freedom be the supreme freedom? There's no particular reason for thinking that it must be. Why not the freedom to live a healthy and humane life? I would very happily sacrifice a great deal of economic freedom in order to improve my standard of living and that of people in my community, and that involves using a lot of taxes to pay for a lot of health care, education, community programs, arts programs, children's programs, environmental protection, and other such things.

    This is what living in society amounts to, really. If you'd rather preserve your economic freedom at the cost of human freedom, yours and that of others, then you're declaring yourself an anti-social who wants to opt out of society. Fine. But don't drive on our roads, or go to our schools, or use our hospitals. Or rather, do, since they are by principle to be all-inclusive, but know that they exist thanks to the fact that people who think differently than you are in charge.

    EDIT: In fact, when you think about it, if you greatly benefit from public programs (and you do), then denying the principle of public programs is essentially the same act as that of a drug addict or criminal who receives care from society despite having declared himself as an anti-social.
     
  9. tomsnowman123

    tomsnowman123 Simple Liver

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    2,576
    Location:
    In front of my Koobox with Linspire
    And wy aren't they rights? Why can't I choose? You say you want the right to your money, I say I want the right to my... rights.
     
  10. tomsnowman123

    tomsnowman123 Simple Liver

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    2,576
    Location:
    In front of my Koobox with Linspire
    Good post. It isn't the supreme freedom. Giving some money to taxes doesn't restrict your rights. There are people who need help so that they can have all of the freedom's that others enjoy. Freedom is the supreme freedom. Thiese programs, like welfare, helath care, etc., are a way of spreading this freedom.
     
  11. Eukaryote

    Eukaryote Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2005
    Messages:
    3,239
    Location:
    Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
    The placebo effect is wrong in this case. Plus you have to take into account the horrible cost defficancy of privite health care. Beacuse the U.S. is an industrailized nation where the goverment has little to no intrest in health care, it has the highest percentage of GDP spending on healthcare in the world. Ten years ago the U.S. spent 12.7% of its budget on health care.
     
  12. Mastreditr111

    Mastreditr111 Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    548
    Location:
    Outside Philadelphia, PA, USA
    1. who created the Freedom House criteria? (this is an actual question, i dont kno)
    2. they provide freedom in the short term, but they are neither economically nor personally viable. They create a dependence on government that is at best detremental to, and at worst in direct opposition to, freedom. Not only that, but as states like the Third Reich, WWII Italy, and the USSR proved, democracy, true democracy, is only possible when the people are prosperous, or when they truly have nothing left to loose by destroying their government. When times are desperate, people will believe in Hitlerian demogogues, and we will face 1984. Though i hate to say it, democracy itself seems to be a "fairweather only" concept for many of us. We have to have a system that is as fair as possible in regards to oppurtunity but does not interfere so much that it can cripple the economy and kill off the fair weather
     
  13. Mastreditr111

    Mastreditr111 Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    548
    Location:
    Outside Philadelphia, PA, USA
    by the way, often times we hold people back by giving them everything they need and want. The European system is the only example here... West European economies are at beast stagnant, at worst inflationary on a Weimar German level. They are all less prosperous per capita than the US by a factor of 1.5-2. The US is not perfect, i have seen the statistics regarding wealth distribution here, but it is better than just about anywhere else. finally, you say that welfare states rank high in freedom. This is because of other factors brought on by liberalism, like unrestricted gay marriage (which i have nothing against) and a high tolerance for widely varying cultures. NOT because they have a massive welfare system
     
  14. tomsnowman123

    tomsnowman123 Simple Liver

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    2,576
    Location:
    In front of my Koobox with Linspire
    Canada, Italy, and Finland all may be better than us in these regards.

    Yeah, that's social freedom. But I believe social freedom has a direct correspondance with programs like welfare, health care, etc. It allows people to enjoy those freedoms.
     
  15. Mastreditr111

    Mastreditr111 Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    548
    Location:
    Outside Philadelphia, PA, USA
    maybe, to a small extent, healthcare should be regulated, and anyone who truly needs welfare will also need free health care. But right now both programs are bloated, inefficient, and allow people to basically be lazy. I think the current estimate is that about half of the people on welfare dont really need it, and that they could easily find gainful employment with a little education. maybe we should replace cash payments with education, food, and housing grants (spendable only on these items, not TV's or booze), so noone who wishes to profit off the system can exploit it
     
  16. tomsnowman123

    tomsnowman123 Simple Liver

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    2,576
    Location:
    In front of my Koobox with Linspire
    1. World Audit Publisher

    2. A dependence on the government merely to provide them with freedom. The government should almost never step in regarding social issues, which the US government does do.
     
  17. Mastreditr111

    Mastreditr111 Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    548
    Location:
    Outside Philadelphia, PA, USA
    noone can enjoy freedom when their countries economy collapses because it cannot compete with another's, or because they pay 70% of their income to support other people, most of whom CAN work
     
  18. tomsnowman123

    tomsnowman123 Simple Liver

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    2,576
    Location:
    In front of my Koobox with Linspire
    There are areas where are money can be diverted. In the US, we put way too much money towards our military, that could be better used. And these programs don't cause an economic collapse.
     
  19. Mastreditr111

    Mastreditr111 Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    548
    Location:
    Outside Philadelphia, PA, USA
    frankly i agree, but we already hashed that out a bit, and we think it can be pulled from different places in the military. and yes, they do, in the long-term, if they are left to their own devices. look at Europe's economy, again, compare it to ours. and this is after only 50 years of these policies and with constant breaks as conservatives regularly come into power there. education programs are, frankly, a much better investment than welfare programs
     
  20. allhailIndia

    allhailIndia Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2001
    Messages:
    3,328
    Location:
    Casa de Non Compos Mentis
    I prefer to take a more nuanced position(or flip-flop as others would call it;)) on this.

    Basic, primary healthcare ought to be free, i.e., medical attention during pregnancy, a healthcare centre dispensing medicines and giving proper medical attention per 1000 people or so. Anything else beyond that should be accessible for a price. Employers must be encouraged to provide employees and dependents with health insurance upto reasonable limits. The State should also provide incentives for more people to fund or set up hospitals in a particular region through tax waivers or cost sharing for a few years.

    This may sound hard, but health and education are also service industries which have to think of payrolls, staff and depreciation. Taxpayer money would be better utilized in this manner rather than trying to run free hospitals which provide poor healthcare and bleed money.
     

Share This Page