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

[El_Machinae]

Insurance can be a very good system, especially when you take out investor markup from the equation (meaning, if the corporation is merely trying to stay profitable, instead of maximizing profits). However, regular insurance corps are allowed to discriminate their customers - teens pay more for car insurance, etc. And so, a healthy insurance program cannot be truely fair if people aren't batched into groups.

As well, nationalised health care off-loads risky behaviour - smoking, for example.

However, after looking at the numbers, it seems that health care is delivered most efficiently if it's nationalised - as long as there are sane methods of discouraging abuse of the system.

 

[RedWolf]

Poor people do not pay taxes. Try again.

So, if you are against it for immigrants who dont pay taxes...why should you be for it for poor people who dont pay taxes?

Poor people don't pay taxes? Really? They do in my country... less then rich people of course if you're talking income tax... More (proportionately) if you're talking sales taxes...

 

[Gabryel Karolin]

I am all for nationalized healthcare, how horrible it would be if the poor were forced to live with grave illnessess or constant pain because they can not afford to go to the hospital. Or even worse, can not afford to take their children there.

Drug-abusers and people who inflict upon themselves these conditions is a different story, and I am not sure they should be fully included in this system.

However; Anyone who loves their country and has some bit of compassion for their fellow citizens should not mind paying a small bit of their income to those in honest need. For the good of the country, and because helping others is good, for you and for them.

 

[IglooDame]

The crux of my opposition to 'free' health care isn't really economic liberty, but social liberty.

That is this: once the public is paying for your health care, they have a vested interest in the health of your body, right? High risk-factor lifestyles/activities/diets suddenly and without fanfare become the purview of taxpayers, and thus, the electorate.

How soon, then, until smoking is banned purely from the negative health effects? And I don't mean "banned in public places", I mean "DEA breaking into your house unannounced and hauling you off to jail for for possession of a carton of cigarettes in your basement" banned. How soon after that, until fast-food joints get regulations handed to them regarding fat content of superburgers? And after that, ice cream and candy bars being regulated like ephedrine is now? And after that, required attendance at gyms?

Yeah, most of that is a slippery-slope argument, but I don't want the barrier being pierced in the first place. There are enough battles being fought - and lost - with respect to the control someone has over their own body (assisted suicide and medical marijuana, to name the two obvious ones), I have no desire to give the social conservatives even MORE control over my personal body at the same time as I give the economic liberals even more control over my wallet.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Simple Question really. I consider it a form of insurance. How 'bout you?

It's insurance.

 

[tomsnowman123]

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

That's why we need tuition free secondary schooling for all.

The crux of my opposition to 'free' health care isn't really economic liberty, but social liberty.

That is this: once the public is paying for your health care, they have a vested interest in the health of your body, right? High risk-factor lifestyles/activities/diets suddenly and without fanfare become the purview of taxpayers, and thus, the electorate.

How soon, then, until smoking is banned purely from the negative health effects? And I don't mean "banned in public places", I mean "DEA breaking into your house unannounced and hauling you off to jail for for possession of a carton of cigarettes in your basement" banned. How soon after that, until fast-food joints get regulations handed to them regarding fat content of superburgers? And after that, ice cream and candy bars being regulated like ephedrine is now? And after that, required attendance at gyms?

Yeah, most of that is a slippery-slope argument, but I don't want the barrier being pierced in the first place. There are enough battles being fought - and lost - with respect to the control someone has over their own body (assisted suicide and medical marijuana, to name the two obvious ones), I have no desire to give the social conservatives even MORE control over my personal body at the same time as I give the economic liberals even more control over my wallet.

To me that seems to be stretching it. I don't think things would just start being banned that are unhealthy. If so, fast food, soda, candy, and much, much more would be in trouble. I view it as increasing social freedoms, not decreasing.

 

[Mastreditr111]

igloodude is right... allowing the government further control over something, anything, that is traditionally the responsibility of private citizens is just asking for it to insinuate itself where it is not wanted... this is why i keep proposing private charities as a solution... they can in no way try to restrict us in our activities, and they are, as i have often said before, far more efficient in determining who truly has need of assistance

 

[IglooDame]

To me that seems to be stretching it. I don't think things would just start being banned that are unhealthy. If so, fast food, soda, candy, and much, much more would be in trouble. I view it as increasing social freedoms, not decreasing.

Explain why marijuana is banned, then. Explain why seatbelt use and (in many states) wearing motorcycle helmets are required by law. The arguments in favor of those examples is generally "it costs the public when you use marijuana or get in a crash when you weren't wearing your seatbelt/helmet".

If the public already cares about whether I wear a seatbelt enough to have police fine me when I don't, imagine how much they'll care when they're paying my medical bills outright?

 

[Samson]

igloodude is right... allowing the government further control over something, anything, that is traditionally the responsibility of private citizens is just asking for it to insinuate itself where it is not wanted... this is why i keep proposing private charities as a solution... they can in no way try to restrict us in our activities, and they are, as i have often said before, far more efficient in determining who truly has need of assistance

I really do not think he is. We have lots of examples of states that have Free health care at the point of delivery, and I do not see that these suffer particuly badly from being nanny states.

I REALLY do not think this is a job for charities, the nations health is just too important to leave to the vagracies of charitable donations.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Explain why marijuana is banned, then. Explain why seatbelt use and (in many states) wearing motorcycle helmets are required by law. The arguments in favor of those examples is generally "it costs the public when you use marijuana or get in a crash when you weren't wearing your seatbelt/helmet".

If the public already cares about whether I wear a seatbelt enough to have police fine me when I don't, imagine how much they'll care when they're paying my medical bills outright?

A lot of the people who wish to legalize marijuana tend to have more liberal views on health care, i.e., the green party. It's a more liberal view, and liberals tend to stand for social freedoms. Marijuana is banned in the US because the Republican party party is in control, and not all liberals support it yet. Hopefully one day, it will be legal.

 

[tomsnowman123]

I REALLY do not think this is a job for charities, the nations health is just too important to leave to the vagracies of charitable donations.

Exactly, since when have all charities been perfect, un-corruptable orginizations? The government could implement health care better, and bring freedom to those who don't have it. Health care is a human right, imo.

 

[Mastreditr111]

hopefully????????? WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!! how is drug use a goal to become unbanned!?!?!? frankly i think that rather than trying to screw all the little latin american countries that produce the drugs by trying to get them to stop, we should make drug USE of any kind (except alcohol, too ingrained in culture) punishable by a manditory 5-7 year minimum prison sentence and a further 10 years of probation

as is we only arrest dealers and smugglers... that is stupid

 

[tomsnowman123]

hopefully????????? WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!! how is drug use a goal to become unbanned!?!?!? frankly i think that rather than trying to screw all the little latin american countries that produce the drugs by trying to get them to stop, we should make drug USE of any kind (except alcohol, too ingrained in culture) punishable by a manditory 5-7 year minimum prison sentence and a further 10 years of probation

as is we only arrest dealers and smugglers... that is stupid

Marijuana has numerous medicinal purposes, and right now it can't be used in this way. Legalizing it might also reduce gang violence, although that is debatable. My main reson for legalizing it is the medical one, and the fact that it gives people more choice.

 

[Samson]

hopefully????????? WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!! how is drug use a goal to become unbanned!?!?!?

Rather OT here, if you really want to discus it start a new thread or find one of the old ones and bump it (with a helpfull comment of course). Basicly the point is that a vast majority of the problems assosiated with drugs are caused by the prohibition not the drug itself.

 

[Mastreditr111]

ok no more threadjacking... on this topic, at least

 

[Paradigne]

The US DOES have free health care. Especially for illegal immigrants who do not have to pay a dime (Harris county, TX spent $97 miilion last year in nonrecoverable expendatures on illegals - That's just ONE county).

Hospitals are not allowed to refuse treatment to ANYONE for life threatening injuries/illnesses, whether they can afford to pay or not. They CAN put a lien on your property though if you happen to own a home.

As far as all the WWJD? I firmly believe in teaching a man to fish as opposed to giving him one...

 

[Mastreditr111]

THANK YOU!!!!! That's just the analogy i needed... why give people money and healthcare when we can teach them through our education system so they'll be able to get this for themselves.

 

[tomsnowman123]

The US DOES have free health care.

The US is the only industrialized nation in the world without a national health care system. There is so much we could do with one.

THANK YOU!!!!! That's just the analogy i needed... why give people money and healthcare when we can teach them through our education system so they'll be able to get this for themselves.

Our educational system right now is flawed. Again, I believe health care to be a human right, something everyone should have, no matter what.

 

[GinandTonic]

I find the concept of assigning healthcare by criteria other than need inexplicable, even offensive. Who would live and die decided by their bank accounts? Madness and folly.

 

[Mastreditr111]

There is NO undisabled person in this country who doesn't have a chance to ascend to at least middle-class, if they work hard for it. Welfare should, thus, logically be restricted to people with physical or mental disabilities that prevent them from working and earning a living.