The war on universal healthcare

[AerodynamicOwl]

I thought OI would be the place for this article. I've heard many many arguments for and against universal health care. While I agree that health care is a basic right, I haven't the foggiest idea why.

Does anyone have a decent argument for it?

Anyone against it?

[Demogorgon]

You can't exercise any other right if you've died from an illness that you couldn't afford to get treated, can you?

Healthcare is one of the most basic things humans need to live. Unless one does not value human life then they cannot oppose everyone getting healthcare.

[AerodynamicOwl]

You can't exercise any other right if you've died from an illness that you couldn't afford to get treated, can you?

Healthcare is one of the most basic things humans need to live. Unless one does not value human life then they cannot oppose everyone getting healthcare.

I always knew it was a long those lines, but i could never put it into words. :bored:

[danyboy27]

an argument i heard a lot about is: well its personnal problem, healthcare is something everyone should take care by themselves, and people shouldnt pay for other people healthcare beccause its their own fault and problems. if a guy need a new heart beccause he eat bad well why should we pay for this assole?


that basicly the most elaborate critics of healthcare i ever heard so far from right winger.

[Bud Struggle]

an argument i heard a lot about is: well its personnal problem, healthcare is something everyone should take care by themselves, and people shouldnt pay for other people healthcare beccause its their own fault and problems. if a guy need a new heart beccause he eat bad well why should we pay for this assole?

dany nailed it.

Also, one one could say the the availability of healthcare should be a right to purchase if that is something that you wish to do. For one person to have to pay for the healthcare of others is essentially socialistic.

There comes a further problem--if you are going to ask me to play for your health problems maybe I should have some control over how you live your life. Maybe I'll want to stop your smoking and drinking--and definitely any drug taking. So in a sense healthcare may take away people's freedoms.

Once you change the status quo there are all sorts of reperpcussions that may be unintended or unwanted.

[mykittyhasaboner]

dany nailed it.

Also, one one could say the the availability of healthcare should be a right to purchase if that is something that you wish to do. For one person to have to pay for the healthcare of others is essentially socialistic.

There comes a further problem--if you are going to ask me to play for your health problems maybe I should have some control over how you live your life. Maybe I'll want to stop your smoking and drinking--and definitely any drug taking. So in a sense healthcare may take away people's freedoms.

Once you change the status quo there are all sorts of reperpcussions that may be unintended or unwanted.

Are you serious or not? I honestly can't tell.


If you are serious....how in the hell would universal health care take away "people's freedoms"? Just because everyone pay's their part for everyone to have access to health care doesn't mean that you need/can have control over other people's lives.

[Dimentio]

dany nailed it.

Also, one one could say the the availability of healthcare should be a right to purchase if that is something that you wish to do. For one person to have to pay for the healthcare of others is essentially socialistic.

There comes a further problem--if you are going to ask me to play for your health problems maybe I should have some control over how you live your life. Maybe I'll want to stop your smoking and drinking--and definitely any drug taking. So in a sense healthcare may take away people's freedoms.

Once you change the status quo there are all sorts of reperpcussions that may be unintended or unwanted.

A society where the sick who are too poor to pay for themselves are not looked after will become a society where poor people have less to lose. Should anyone demand that a poor person simply should crawl into a ditch and die to not "waste" the beautiful public park, that poor person has the obligation to fight for her survival, even if that means breaking in to a private chemist or forcing a surgeon at gun-point.

If you are unhealthy, how could anyone demand that you should work to be able to be cured? The idea that some people deserve to die because of randomness, in-born deficiencies and other factors like hard labour, is in its least brutal form simply greedy egoism and in its worst - ideological form - something akin to national socialism and eugenics.

All ideologies which cannot be applied universally on all human beings exist only to gain the interests of a few and must therefore be discarded as they show now consideration for the wholeness that the world is no matter if we like it or not.

[The Red Next Door]

Those people are just fucking idiots and one of these days, they are going to need medical attention and they will not be able to come up with the money for it, Ironically, you have dirt poor people saying this type of crap and they will not be talking. when the time comes for them to get the doc.

[Skooma Addict]

There should not be universal health care. However, it should be required for some hospitals to take in certain patients in life threatening conditions. So if someone is sick and dying, they can go to a hospital and get care. Possibly other government assistance given to people who qualify.

[Dean]

There should not be universal health care. However, it should be required for some hospitals to take in certain patients in life threatening conditions. So if someone is sick and dying, they can go to a hospital and get care. Possibly other government assistance given to people who qualify.
Why should non-paying consumers receive health care?

[Bud Struggle]

Are you serious or not? I honestly can't tell.

If you are serious....how in the hell would universal health care take away "people's freedoms"? Just because everyone pay's their part for everyone to have access to health care doesn't mean that you need/can have control over other people's lives.

Those aren't my arguments--those are just ones that I've heard being made. I should have made that clear. :)

[Skooma Addict]

Why should non-paying consumers receive health care?

There are some goods and services which a person should be entitled to regardless if they can afford them or not.

[Dean]

There are some goods and services which a person should be entitled to regardless if they can afford them or not.

Why? :blink:

[Skooma Addict]

Why? :blink:

The fact that I think someone should be entitled to certain goods and services is just my personal preference. The goal is to maintain a society with good economic incentives, but at the same time to ensure that it is relatively humane. The cost of allowing people to starve to death for example is greater than the cost it takes to tax other citizens to ensure that everyone is able to eat in my opinion.

[Dean]

The fact that I think someone should be entitled to certain goods and services is just my personal preference. The goal is to maintain a society with good economic incentives, but at the same time to ensure that it is relatively humane. The cost of allowing people to starve to death for example is greater than the cost it takes to tax other citizens to ensure that everyone is able to eat in my opinion.

Not if they are not contributing to the economy. In fact, the real costs are in allowing them to survive and continue to 'leach,' as you propertarians would call it.

The equilibrium market value for the population level should go down insofar as people are unable to purchase food or health care.

[Skooma Addict]

Not if they are not contributing to the economy. In fact, the real costs are in allowing them to survive and continue to 'leach,' as you propertarians would call it.

The equilibrium market value for the population level should go down insofar as people are unable to purchase food or health care.

I was not referring to monetary cost. I was referring to my personal psychic cost (I am not implying it is cardinal). Allowing people to starve in a country like the U.S. where the standard of living is high makes me very uneasy. I would prefer it if we taxed others in order for everyone to be fed, even if potential economic activity is lost. It is just a matter of personal preference.

[Dean]

I was not referring to monetary cost. I was referring to my personal psychic cost (I am not implying it is cardinal). Allowing people to starve in a country like the U.S. where the standard of living is high makes me very uneasy. I would prefer it if we taxed others in order for everyone to be fed, even if potential economic activity is lost. It is just a matter of personal preference.

It's good to know that you no longer apply your paradigm of logic to your ideological policies. Now you can simply rely on emotions for your positions! :laugh:

Let us know when you reach logical rather than emotional humanist conclusions. :)

[Skooma Addict]

It's good to know that you no longer apply your paradigm of logic to your ideological policies. Now you can simply rely on emotions for your positions! :laugh:

Let us know when you reach logical rather than emotional humanist conclusions. :)

Someone that liked to see people suffer would support something like "anarchism" as it is perceived among most people today (lawless order and chaos). Logic alone will not lead to one correct social system. Personal preferences always come into the picture. You are no different. You cannot be a socialist solely through the use of logic.

[Baseball]

You can't exercise any other right if you've died from an illness that you couldn't afford to get treated, can you?

Healthcare is one of the most basic things humans need to live. Unless one does not value human life then they cannot oppose everyone getting healthcare.

Need food more.

[syndicat]

the two main arguments for universal social provision for health care are from positive liberty and from solidarity.

positive liberty means that each person is to have roughly equal access to the means to develop their potential and to sustain their capacities.

you can't have control over your life if you don't have access to information, development of skills and knowledge, or if you can't protect your basic biological capacities, that is, your health.

solidarity means that one is aware that everyone is vulnerable to sickness or injury and we have compassion and a sense of common vulnerability, so we wish to ensure that people are provided for in such situations.

but preventive measures are also justified by positive liberty as well, not just after the fact treatment when problems occur.

[Dean]

Someone that liked to see people suffer would support something like "anarchism" as it is perceived among most people today (lawless order and chaos). Logic alone will not lead to one correct social system. Personal preferences always come into the picture. You are no different. You cannot be a socialist solely through the use of logic.
Actually, I can, and I am.

The basic premise I follow is to support the enrichment of all human beings on an egalitarian basis. The moral logic for this is that human needs are fairly consistent, though must each be respected in their differing character - though human capability, especially in the context of propertarian economic systems with disparate opportunity, is not equal.

The logic is very basic and very sound. I think it would be valuable for you to try to explore your emotions and find from what logical values they come - after all, you don't think or feel anything for no reason at all.

[Dimentio]

Logical conclusions without emotional foundations are like a brain without a heart.

[Dean]

Logical conclusions without emotional foundations are like a brain without a heart.
Only if you mysticize your mental faculties and pretend that there aren't logical reasons which dictate emotional attitudes.

[RGacky3]

Someone that liked to see people suffer would support something like "anarchism" as it is perceived among most people today (lawless order and chaos). Logic alone will not lead to one correct social system. Personal preferences always come into the picture. You are no different. You cannot be a socialist solely through the use of logic.

We all have moralistic drives, but if we don't use them in a rational way its pointless.

Morals want us to act by principles, how we do that is done by logic.

But the fact is your views are both illogical and deprived of basic human morality.


Those aren't my arguments--those are just ones that I've heard being made. I should have made that clear.

If your gonna state an arugment, whats the reasoning behind it? otherwise its not an argument, its an empty statement.


dany nailed it.

Also, one one could say the the availability of healthcare should be a right to purchase if that is something that you wish to do. For one person to have to pay for the healthcare of others is essentially socialistic.

There comes a further problem--if you are going to ask me to play for your health problems maybe I should have some control over how you live your life. Maybe I'll want to stop your smoking and drinking--and definitely any drug taking. So in a sense healthcare may take away people's freedoms.

Once you change the status quo there are all sorts of reperpcussions that may be unintended or unwanted.

Its impossible for it to be a personal problem because we arn't all doctors, and because right now insurance companies run the game, so having it as a personal problem is'nt an option right now, its either democratic or its autocratic (public or corporate).

[Dimentio]

Only if you mysticize your mental faculties and pretend that there aren't logical reasons which dictate emotional attitudes.

I would go the other way around. Its your emotional attitudes which ultimately serve to make your mind delve into logical explanations for those attitudes, justifications so to be.

Attitudes are ultimately formed in childhood, by experiences and observations and to some extent reading.

The majority of people are not searching for logics in themselves, but in society to provide it for them, in the form of established dogm(s) which could serve to guide people.

Of course, emotional attitudes in their turn are formed by the material conditions the individual is living in. It would be highly metaphysical and idealistic to claim that the mind is ruling the heart (though it is that way for a minority of individuals of often very high intelligence).

[Ele'ill]

dany nailed it.

Also, one one could say the the availability of healthcare should be a right to purchase if that is something that you wish to do. For one person to have to pay for the healthcare of others is essentially socialistic.

There comes a further problem--if you are going to ask me to play for your health problems maybe I should have some control over how you live your life. Maybe I'll want to stop your smoking and drinking--and definitely any drug taking. So in a sense healthcare may take away people's freedoms.

Once you change the status quo there are all sorts of reperpcussions that may be unintended or unwanted.


You currently pay for illegitimate wars- foreign and domestic. You pay for military defense so money can be allocated to support all sorts of atrocious coups. You pay for police to use bank face recognition software to identify demonstrators- you pay for military city zones at every closed door private world banking meeting. Why not pay to save someone's life and hope they get adequate treatment and recover?

[Stephen Colbert]

One of the stronger ones ive heard was that a public option doesnt need to make a profit so it would run private sector alternatives out of business.


I smiled. :lol:

[La Comédie Noire]

I have yet to see a convincing argument that universal health care would cost a butt load of money because of irresponsible people. It's just an assumption that sounds convincing until you think about it. There's always this greater efficiency the capitalists boast of like it'd be awesome, if I wanted to be economically efficient I'd sell everything I owned and start eating discount canned corn.


You currently pay for illegitimate wars- foreign and domestic. You pay for military defense so money can be allocated to support all sorts of atrocious coups. You pay for police to use bank face recognition software to identify demonstrators- you pay for military city zones at every closed door private world banking meeting. Why not pay to save someone's life and hope they get adequate treatment and recover?

Imagine how many tumors you could remove with 3 trillion dollars! War is a huge waste of money.

[Dimentio]

I have yet to see a convincing argument that universal health care would cost a butt load of money because of irresponsible people. It's just an assumption that sounds convincing until you think about it. There's always this greater efficiency the capitalists boast of like it'd be awesome, if I wanted to be economically efficient I'd sell everything I owned and start eating discount canned corn.

Imagine how many tumors you could remove with 3 trillion dollars! War is a huge waste of money.

Its really a matter of identity.

"As a pro-lifer, I cannot support an organisation opposed to the death penalty"