If you say people who don't mind contributing to the health care of others are a great benefit to society then the corollary is that people who don't want to contribute to others are a great detriment to society.
Logical fallacy. If eating apples improves your health it does not necessarily follow that not eating apples will make you sick.
That is why the United States was founded on the principals of individual rights, not on democracy. Just because the lie that "The United States is a democracy" has been repeated so many times that few people question it any more doesn't make it true.
The last forty years of socialised health care hasn't destroyed the economies of the UK, Germany or France yet, but it might do any second! Just hang on! Okay - any minute now! Honestly, do you not recognized how poor your comment works as an argument?
Did you miss the economic crises that is going on right now? Let's see how this works out before you declare how sustainable the welfare state is. Just because the various government have been able to keep the actual magnitude of losses relatively hidden doesn't mean that they don't exist.
As long as it is my prerogative to disagree then I have no argument with you.
The problem starts when you convince armed government agents to enforce your opinion upon me by coming to my house and saying, "We're going to take your money and put you in jail if you resist."
I'm not a complete arse, I don't mind paying a little for that person over there to *not die*.
That's wonderful. People like you are a great benefit to society. The problem happens when people like you see someone who does mind paying and says, "You are wrong. Whatever reason you may have for your decision is moot. You WILL PAY for that other person over there or else we will put you in jail and take your money anyway."
You are begging the question. "Health care for all" is your goal and you claim the right to do whatever is necessary to achieve it.
Let's follow you deregulatory path for 20 years as an experiment and if we have significant numbers of Americans without adequate health care then you admit it was a failure and it's immediately back to some government based system for everyone. How about that?
No. I will never agree that it is right to steal from one person in order to grant some kind of "right" to another person.
The government decides what objectives your "forced labor" will be used for. Luckily, we live in a representative democracy. If a majority of the people decide that "forced labor" will be used for health insurance, then that's what it will be used for.
So slavery is legitimate if a majority of the voters agree?
you aren't enslaving anyone by requiring a service, because people choose to work in service industries.
So if I decide to become a doctor then I have irrevocably chosen to treat any person, on any terms that they or the government mandate, for the rest of my career? If I decide to become an artist then I MUST produce paintings for anyone who wants one no matter if they can pay or not? My only other choice is to stop being a painter?
The fact that you are missing is that government interference in the free market back in the 70s caused the high prices. Hospitals, doctors and drug companies charge such high prices because they know that due to HMO-style insurance people can spend more than they otherwise would. Without that subsidy, prices could never have risen faster than inflation.
Throughout most of human history governments have justified their authority by nakedly appealing to "might makes right" or else by claiming that "God made me king so do what I say" Just because government have more gun (swords, spears) than the average person doesn't make them legitimate.
In our dreams, people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present education conventions of intellectual and character education fade from their minds, and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people, or any of their children, into philosophers, or men of science. We have not to raise up from them authors, educators, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for great artists, painters, musicians nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen -- of whom we have an ample supply. The task is simple. We will organize children and teach them in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way. --John D. Rockefeller, Sr.
YOU need to explain how affordable health care for everybody has anything to do with "enslaving" people.
Alice is sick and has no money. Bob is a doctor. If Bob does not agree to treat her for free does the government force him to? If the government agrees to pay Bob for Alice's treatment then it needs to tax Carol for the money. If Carol does not want to pay for Alice's treatment will the government punish her with asset confication and/or jail time?
So how would you define "If you choose not to buy my product you will still pay for it, or else the IRS will throw you in jail"?
Social welfare is used basically to make nobody go dead broke and end up in so much debt they're better off killing themselves. The idea is that if you have somebody who is close to flat broke to pay him enough so he/she can find a new job, and no more than that.
That's a great idea. All of you that believe that should get together, pool your resources and enact this program. We only have a problem when you force me to participate whether I agree with your plan or not. I have no problem with progressives until the decide they know better than me how my resources should be allocated and start reaching into my back pocket.
For all of those posting their "welcome to the 21st century" drivel there are two points you need to consider:
Our federal government is bought and paid for. This bill, if it becomes a law, forces the entire population of the US to purchase the insurance companies' product or go to jail. Leaving aside the issue of liberty, this is nothing more than corporate welfare (fascism)
The entire concept of "social welfare" permits people to consume more than they produce. In fact, it encourages this behavior. Determining how this incentive system can result in a bad outcome is left as an exercise for the reader
I'm assuming this is one of those "the body does this beacuse its better in normal circumstances, but in the case of severe trauma it's not so good" kind of things... but can anyone clarify why the body's normal healing process is blocked for spinal injuries?
There's theory going around that our immune system is at fault for a lot of problems, possibly including this one. Basically your immune response has evolved to be so aggressive that it causes collateral damage to your own cells, like the scene in Team America when they blow up the Louvre in order to save Paris from the terrorist.
This is great for keeping you alive long enough to breed if you live in the wild without sanitation but sucks if you don't want your body to fall apart when you get older.
Slashdot Mirror
Logical fallacy. If eating apples improves your health it does not necessarily follow that not eating apples will make you sick.
To be clear by "United States" I mean the United States defined by the Constitution, as opposed to other possible definitions.
That is why the United States was founded on the principals of individual rights, not on democracy. Just because the lie that "The United States is a democracy" has been repeated so many times that few people question it any more doesn't make it true.
Did you miss the economic crises that is going on right now? Let's see how this works out before you declare how sustainable the welfare state is. Just because the various government have been able to keep the actual magnitude of losses relatively hidden doesn't mean that they don't exist.
Those countries have high prices AND shortages. The high prices are just hidden by taxes.
Health care in Cuba is good for those well-connected party members and extremely scarce for everybody else.
And when people decide to stop producing?
Where does the money come from, and what happens to people who do not agree to cooperate?
Simple enough?
As long as it is my prerogative to disagree then I have no argument with you.
The problem starts when you convince armed government agents to enforce your opinion upon me by coming to my house and saying, "We're going to take your money and put you in jail if you resist."
Her grandfather chose how he wanted his resources to be allocated.
This is fundamentally different than the government forcibly taking from one group of people and giving it to another group of people.
That's wonderful. People like you are a great benefit to society. The problem happens when people like you see someone who does mind paying and says, "You are wrong. Whatever reason you may have for your decision is moot. You WILL PAY for that other person over there or else we will put you in jail and take your money anyway."
You are begging the question. "Health care for all" is your goal and you claim the right to do whatever is necessary to achieve it.
No. I will never agree that it is right to steal from one person in order to grant some kind of "right" to another person.
The jury is still out on how long it will last.
Start here.
So slavery is legitimate if a majority of the voters agree?
So if I decide to become a doctor then I have irrevocably chosen to treat any person, on any terms that they or the government mandate, for the rest of my career? If I decide to become an artist then I MUST produce paintings for anyone who wants one no matter if they can pay or not? My only other choice is to stop being a painter?
If you don't see the difference between voluntary cooperation and involuntary servitude...
The fact that you are missing is that government interference in the free market back in the 70s caused the high prices. Hospitals, doctors and drug companies charge such high prices because they know that due to HMO-style insurance people can spend more than they otherwise would. Without that subsidy, prices could never have risen faster than inflation.
Throughout most of human history governments have justified their authority by nakedly appealing to "might makes right" or else by claiming that "God made me king so do what I say" Just because government have more gun (swords, spears) than the average person doesn't make them legitimate.
A bet on the DOW is foolish as long as the Federal Reserve keeps printing bank reserves to prop up the stock market.
That's what progressivism is, after all.
Alice is sick and has no money. Bob is a doctor. If Bob does not agree to treat her for free does the government force him to? If the government agrees to pay Bob for Alice's treatment then it needs to tax Carol for the money. If Carol does not want to pay for Alice's treatment will the government punish her with asset confication and/or jail time?
Either they don't know or they don't care.
So how would you define "If you choose not to buy my product you will still pay for it, or else the IRS will throw you in jail"?
That's a great idea. All of you that believe that should get together, pool your resources and enact this program. We only have a problem when you force me to participate whether I agree with your plan or not. I have no problem with progressives until the decide they know better than me how my resources should be allocated and start reaching into my back pocket.
For all of those posting their "welcome to the 21st century" drivel there are two points you need to consider:
Supposedly you can recycle tamiflu that way also.
There's theory going around that our immune system is at fault for a lot of problems, possibly including this one. Basically your immune response has evolved to be so aggressive that it causes collateral damage to your own cells, like the scene in Team America when they blow up the Louvre in order to save Paris from the terrorist.
This is great for keeping you alive long enough to breed if you live in the wild without sanitation but sucks if you don't want your body to fall apart when you get older.