we need free healthcare (part 2)

First thread maxed out, so I'm making a second.

My OP in the last one:

So far, no conservative, not one, has brought a good argument against this. Let's see a real argument, eh cons? lol jk we'll never see that from the right

 

I don't need a "good" argument only one.

I'm not paying for your health care and I already have it myself, thank you very much. I'm happy with what I have. Find someone else to pay for your health care if you don't want to, but I'm not being taxed so you can go to the doctor and I don't feel a bit of guilt about that whatsoever.

"Good" argument? Not sure. Don't really care. You shouldn't be pushing your morals on other people's economic lives.

 

I don't know if I made this point in the last thread, but you do not need 'free' healthcare. Nowhere in the world is healthcare free. We all pay for it. In countries with universal coverage, single-payer or a hybrid public-private systems, we pay with our income and sales taxes, special healthcare taxes & levies and supplementary insurance. It is in no way free. I won't work for free and I don't expect those in the medical field to do so either.

 

LiberalActivist; I'd kind of like to know what issue your an activist for. For now briefly on your comments, since I doubt your open real debate...

Where are you getting this; No body in the US for any reason, legal or illegally in the country, having just murdered a cop or a pregnant lady and been hurt, is denied Health Care, nor does anyone die in the streets. As for ranking, what form of Health Care are you talking about, which treatment, diagnoses, maybe Hospitals or equipment. We have 311 Million people that live here and untold millions that visit each year, with demographics like no other Country, give me some sense for comparing quality....

Seems, like a repetitive question, so you tell me what Country with 311 Million people treats more of the total (USA, as stated treats everyone). Do you honestly believe China, India, the only ones with more people, do a better job in taking care of all their citizens...Check out the Countries by population, to help your argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population

Well I hear you can get Health Care in Nigeria for a fraction of the US cost or even in Mexico it's much cheaper. For what you get, the quality, expertise treatment, speed and care, I'd rather use the US system.

When did HC become a "basic human right". Is food, a basic right, housing, an auto or even being born a human right?

"Right Wingers" or maybe the "Rich", those with a "Private Jet", or simply play by the rules and achieved something you haven't. Those your calling greedy, pay for hundreds of charitable medical care facilities around the Country and have been doing so, long before anyone even considered health care a need, much less a human right.

 

Rights cannot be obtained by confiscating money from others.

I could see saying that you thing the government should have the responsibility of health care, but to say somebody has the right to healthcare is a misuse of the word right.

 

Excuse me,,but ''GREEDY'' are the ones that want somebody else to pay for it....You should fix that,,,Oh and pay your own frigin bills......

The people don't want it,,catch up and follow the polls......

 

Two countries often cited as having 'free' healthcare are Canada and the UK where income tax rates are about 50%. In the US it is about 35% per year. The higher tax rate in the UK and Canada is generally attributed to national health care thus it is not 'free' at all. Moreover, one can expect to pay a premium on top of their taxes in the UK and Canada. For instance. A routine office visit in the US is about $59. In Canada it is $30. This, on the surface looks good for Canada however, in the US you are not paying 15% of your income for national heath care.

 

Wow... nice way to say don't f with my money.

 

huh! really? I'll tell my accountant I haven't been paying enough

we have four federal tax rates 15%, 22%, 26% and 29% and a number different provincial rates... my provincial rate is 10% combined with 22% federal for a total 32% add another percent or so for city tax, well short of your 50% claim...per capita we pay about half of what americans pay for healthcare...

 

I think universal health care (there is no such thing as free health care) is a great idea and I would support if it it didn't have the government involved. The government screws up everything it does. I'd hate to see it destroy the health care system.

 

Yes, no such thing as FREE anything, esp not free health care.

 

The government is motivated by good spirits while corporations are motivated by money, money, money. How could you ever prefer the greedy corporations over governmnet?

 

Wake up...you're dreaming... You're ignoring a basic truth about government. It gets money on a needful basis. That is why most government programs are always broken. The more broken they are the more tax dollars they collect.

Corporations have to be highly functional otherwise they lose profit because folks do not seek the services of half- A$$ 'fly by night' businesses. The only reason corporations are inefficient is due to government intrusion....Which is what our health industry suffers from.

 

:

so if the corporatiosn do everything so great, why not privatized police?


Oh snap

 

The choice is greedy corporations or forceful confiscation by a wasteful government. In that case I'll choose the corporations. See my sig line for the reason why.

 

I never said corporations 'do everything so great' YOU did. I said they have to make a profit and in order to do that, must satisfy the customer. Government, on the other hand, gets money from being needy.

There are private patrol companies and they do quite well. Ever notice that there are never enough police?...That is government at work.

 

Good spirits? Where is the "good spirits" clause of the constitution?

Here's the flaw in your argument:

Let's assume, for a moment, that health care is a right guaranteed by the U.S. constitution. If health care is a right, how does the constitution guarantee that right? First of all, what is health care? Define it. Is it any and every measure necessary to prevent someone from dying? What is reasonable? Should the end goal be the elimination of all illness? Is there some standard of health that everyone must meet? You tell me.

Secondly, once you define your standard how do you propose that standard should met? I assume that health care requires the expertise of health professionals. Do health professionals have individual rights that supersede the right to health care? Let's take the money issue right out of the equation. Should one human be forced to give health care to another?

Are we talking about the enslavement of the entire medical profession here?

If we're not talking about enslavement, then how can any such right to the expertise of health care professionals be guaranteed by the government? Does government have to pay medical professionals, pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment suppliers, research facilities, and hospitals whatever they demand in order to ensure everyone gets health care? Should government have the right to decide what a health care professional deserves? How is that different then enslavement?

Your premise makes no sense. Health care is not a right. You cannot force someone to care about or for someone else without violating the natural human right of free will.

Government can not and should not have the power to force one person to provide services to another. Government can not and should not have the power to force one person to purchase services from another.

You want people to be healthy? That's great. Get the government out of the way. Get third party payment systems out of the way. Doctors and patents need to decide what just and equitable compensation directly. No system of managed outcomes provides for more diverse outcomes then individual management. When the management comes from a single source and controls the choices of many individuals, then many individuals have bad choices made for them because those choices cannot provide for every individual need in the same way individual choices provide for those needs.

 

LOL so we should privatize police? What's next, ANARCHY?

 

Are you here to have a serious discussion?

 

why not there are already privatized fire departments, how about privatized military as well, let the military industrial giants run that too if the free market can do everything so much cheaper...

 

Wyly.

Your signature is quite ironic. Not only did you get his name wrong, I think you'd be quite surprised to know just what type of political views John Stuart Mill held.

I suggest you read his essay on liberty. You can find it here:

Three Essays: On Liberty; Representative Government; The Subjection of Women. Oxford University Press, 1975, ISBN 0-19-283013-9

Mill was quite concerned with the power that society could exert over the individual and was never a proponent of tyranny of the majority over the minority. In my opinion, he would not have subscribed to the idea that health care was a right guaranteed and secured by the authority of government.

If you are still impressed with Mill after reading, perhaps you should change your signature to:

John Stuart Mill

 

LiberalActivist, I support a universal health care system, but you really need to stop calling it "free healthcare." The system will have to be paid by taxes and you're just going to alienate your cause by calling it "free."

 

How is privatized security 'anarchy?' There are thousands of private security businesses...none I know of advocate anarchy. In fact, they need to do a good job of keeping peace and order per their contracts otherwise, their employer will seek a company that can do that.

 

your post is doubly ironic...

1st my signature is a straight cut'n paste not my spelling at all, out of principle I don't correct it ( I'm also too lazy to bother)..

2nd- spelling is not a indicator of intelligence or stupidity, but you have the arrogance to point out an spelling error thinking that it is, you don't know the definition of stupid, now that's doubly ironic!...really, how can you claim to understand anything written by JSM and miss the simple concept of "stupid" in the signature...

one can be totally illiterate but still be a genius...or literate and stupid...

 

Unfortunately for you, you have no say, except through your elected representatives, in whether or not your tax dollars are spent on health care. If a majority of both house and the President concur, you will be helping to pay for health care for those who have none.

You can object all you want, but when push comes to shove, if the government decides to pay for health care, your going to have to accept reality.