args

Universal healthcare

"I will try and isolate here what we still do disagree on." HERE IS WHERE I THINK EACH OF US STANDS: 1. You think people are entitled to free health care as one of their natural rights-- if not a natural right, a right that we should secure after the fact, similar to public education. My view: I do not think free health care is a natural right, but that affordable health care is a need likely to be met by unfettered private enterprise. I believe it is the responsibility of the individual to realize the importance of such a need and budget for health insurance appropriately, just as he does for food, clothing and rent. I feel the same about education. 2. You think, because health care is a natural right (or close to one), we should find a way to guaranty it to all. Although you might agree that government would not be the most cost-effective way of providing it, it must because private industry may allow some people to fall through the cracks. So efficiency sacrificed in exchange for certainty is worth the cost (in taxes). My view: Since I never agreed with the presumption that health care is a right, I don't think we morally have a say in how it should be provided, at what cost, to what extent, nor by whom. I believe it should be left to the free market to provide very affordable services (hence very affordable insurance) of acceptable quality wherever there is a need. If health care is still not financially feasible for some, then family, friends or charitable organization may or may not step in. But without insurance there is no guaranty. THAT'S MY VIEW ON OUR DIFFERENCES. HERE IS MY ROUND 4 ARGUMENT: "So you are saying that Laisezz-fare will take care of our sick, to be blunt. They have a need, and where there is a need and a dollar, capitalism will find a way to address the need. But what about where there isn't a dollar?" If government got out of the way, entrepreneurs could provide extremely affordable medical services, and that in turn would result in extremely affordable private health insurance. I realize some would still fall through the cracks, but that is where family, friends and charity may or may not step in. There are no guaranties. However, I have no problem with city or state governments deciding to provide additional safety nets beyond this point. At least citizens can decide whether they want to live there and pay the taxes required to support such programs. But, given that costs would me much less due to our hypothetical deregulation, it may not be that costly. "You say that all these things - "roof over their heads, food, clothing, electricity, running water, gas, cell phone, microwave oven, transportation" - are taken care of anyway. There are many that only have a place to stay due to socialized housing. We could just let these people sleep on the street." I am not for government providing housing to anyone. No one has a natural right to housing. The government is here to protect our natural rights. Anything beyond that is the job of private charity-- another industry that government intervention has crippled by forcing prospective voluntary donors to give involuntarily by way of taxation. Can you imagine how much more charities could do if taxes were lowered so individuals had more to give? A SIDE NOTE ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES VERSUS PRIVATE CHARITY: With government taking over half one's income it's amazing any private charities survive at all. Government is in the business of taking money from would-be donors and inefficiently spreading it about, all while robbing donors of any good feeling in exchange for their forced generosity. I read somewhere we are luck to see one of every four dollars spent on welfare programs reach the recipient in some form. That means government needs to confiscate more than four times the amount required to solve the problem. If citizens were allowed to keep the tax revenue currently spent on welfare programs they could pocket half, donate half to charity and nearly double the current dollar value of services provided to recipients. A similar analogy could be drawn from the money spent on unnecessary wars. Imagine how low are taxes would be and how well charities would do. "our nature... not our obligation". An interesting idea, but I think the policy will have to reflect our nature." I always accuse liberals of being like the protective parents who feel (because it is in their nature) they must create a safety net for their child to save him from the real-life consequences of his behavior or lack of. Case in point would be the 35-year-old unemployed slacker still living at home. His well-meaning, good-NATURED parents have effectively robbed him of the benefits of life's harsh lessons, which would have been helpful to him in developing his own self-reliance. Which brings me to my opinion on your personal credit situation. If feel you are one of the most fair-minded debaters on this site, and have enjoyed our acquaintance. But allow be to be blunt for a moment. By having your credit ruined, life has handed you a consequence in response to your behavior-- that of not securing private medical insurance. This action (or lack of) essentially led to your involvement in what is tantamount to grand theft of medical services. You should feel fortunate that you are being harassed by creditors and not by law enforcement. I don't see pilfering $5,000 worth of medical services from a doctor as any different from stealing a $5,000 motorcycle out of his driveway. I think you simply felt insurance was not a priority. I'm willing to bet you have a cell phone you pay for each month, rent, food, nights on the town, etc. You may even have a car payment. If so, you are like so many others who go on and on about how important universal health care is, yet they choose to spend their money on everything but health insurance. Your friend is a perfect example. He's bummed that his credit it trashed because he couldn't afford health insurance, yet he's out car shopping and obviously believes he can afford a monthly car payment. I'd ride a bike, use pay phones and eat Top Raman before I stopped making my health insurance payments. My values (how I spend my money) demonstrate how important I believe health care is. But again, it is not my right. "people should not have to trade physical health for financial health." No, just as I should not trade the condition of my house for financial health. That is why I bought a homeowners insurance policy. Private companies have devised a way to make it relatively affordable to avoid a major financial crisis in case my house burns down (similar to assurances provided by government in exchange for tax dollars, but much more affordable). In fact they are able to insure a home worth more than $500K for a measly $600 per year. But then again, the government has not gotten involved in the contracting industry and made the cost of rebuilding a burnt house astronomically high. "You say you wouldn't let someone die in the street, but your paragraph is a little contradictory, I hope you will admit. You say you wouldn't let someone die in the street, personally, but that society should have the choice to(I gather?). Then you go on to describe a gamble of choosing to buy health insurance vs. not buy it." I searched for a contradiction here and could not find one. I will come back to it if you are able clarify it to me in the comments section. If so I will correct my position. I see no contradiction when I say that people are likely to (but not obligated to) help others, and that as a result of this fact it would be wise to get insurance. I hope I've clarified my position and helped you hone your's. We agree on what an ideal outcome would be: adequate and affordable healthcare for ALL. We disagree on how to get there and on whether people have an absolute right to said outcome. Thanks for your time and thoughts on this.