Let's debunk one of liberals' belief — healthcare should be a fundamental right

Well perhaps you should stop allowing yourselves to be hypnotised by the 'creed' of the 16th century and face the reality and accepted mores of the modern Western world?

 

A right cannot refer to objects (goods and services), only to actions (production and trade which must be voluntary).

 

Do you think I'm hypnotised by the creed of the collectivist?

 

having universal healthcare if anything is part of freedom not not having it, it frees your citizens up to live their lives without fear of dying if they get ill and cant afford treatment, it also ensures every single citizen will be looked after if they do get ill surely thats freedom compared to being free to not purchase insurance and die cause you cant afford an operation ? or be denied coverage cause of a pre-existing condition and go bankrupt cause you were unlucky enough to get cancer, thats not freedom is anything thats enslavement.

 

This goes a little deeper than commerce, don't you think? Morality and empathy are not tradeable commodities.

 

its also a fact that, due to profiteering in the private sector, healthcare is cheaper in countries with universal healthcare than those without it, further it is proven to be benificial to your economy as well as a healthy population is a productive one

 

and when I say cheaper I mean it costs a third as much for a similar standard of care thats scandalous why arent americans in outrage about that ? theyre ripping you off over your health the most important thing you have thats a disgrace

 

A question I have occasionally put to the naysayers here, is would they forego being treated for free in Britain, should they be unfortunate enough to fall ill here, in favour of a hugely costly private alternative which delivers the same level of care-minus the steak dinner and private room. I have never had a satisfactory reply.

 

yeah and pay 200 quid a month for the privelege, only to be denied cover when you get ill anyway cause an assessor has gone through your file for a week with fine tooth comb to find any discrepancy at all. that happens Ive met insurance assessors from the states they tell me what they do. its a horrible job, the only more immoral one I can think of is a commodities trader.

 

and they dont even cover the full treatment they will cover like 80% of it you have to pay the rest, some treatments can cost 50 thousand dollars so thats 10 grand you have to pay yourself. I met one person was telling me that when they go to the dentist their insurance has an excess like a car policy so they pay that to start with, but also the company only pays the rate that things cost when the policy was taken out, which was say 5 years ago, so if a filling cost 50 dollars then but 80 now they still just pay 50 you have to make up the rest

 

This depends, of course, on which policy you subscribe.
Cutting corners and saving money is often the wrong attitude in the long run. But then, private insurance gets very expensive for full coverage, specially as one gets older, the price increases are obscene.

 

well I suppose older people are higher risk after all lol, what a scandalous system putting a premium on their own citizens lives that is crazy, how could you be proud of your country if it treats you like that

 

Yes, statistically older people are at higher risk.

Whereas in universal health care systems, the risk is calculated over a lifetime, private insurance tends to be better value for the young and become almost unaffordable for the old.
Which system would you rather have, pay more when you're young and are an earner, or save money first and then have to drop insurance when you're most likely to need it, because you cannot afford the rising costs any longer?

 

Oh look, someone who doesn't know what "Socialism" or "Marxist" means. But more to the point, that still doesn't deal with the inherent problem that if property rights are completely sacrosanct, then all taxation is theft. One cannot oppose taxation specifically for health care on the ground that taxation is theft and not simultaneously be against all government.

You have a right to life.

 

"You have a right to life" That normally involves food.

 

Can't believe I missed this thread. Send a man a message next time you want to start a thread about his ideas

Before I address your points, I want to say thank you. For once, you've made a thread where you intelligently discuss something a liberal actually said. I'm always happy to discuss the issues in a calm, intelligent, and open matter.

So, let's begin:

Sorry for the vagueness. I try to be as specific as possible when talking about my ideas, but I do all my posting on an iPhone, which makes lengthy posts a bit cumbersome.

As for government v. private charity, I actually agree with you. I would love for private charities to take on social welfare effectively.

My only problem is that they failed. The government's current system (which, as I explained in your other thread, absolutely needs to be fixed), as totally inept as it is, still helps more people than private charity has, and is it any wonder why? All private charities have limited funds. They do not receive a constant stream of revenue like the government does. So by nature, they can only do so much, and unfortunately too many people embrace Rand's false and deplorable "virtue" of greed to make donations strong enough.

The other problem I have with private charity is that private charities in the U.S. seem to LOVE exporting American charity to starving and orphaned children and natural disaster victims of other countries, while mostly ignoring victims of the same things here in America.

So until private charities can solve the above problems and step up to the plate, I intend to just stick to reforming our government system of social welfare to make it leaner, cheaper, and actually helpful.

Now, a question for you (or anyone that cares to answer): would you be willing to accept the government helping private charities with their funding issues if the charities agreed to take on social welfare?

I agree. I would also suggest that people who actually want a war or intervention should pay more in taxes than those who don't.

It is impossible to go through life without your choices affecting other people. Now, that alone isn't justification for social programs. However, a person who doesn't receive proper nutrition (food) or is left exposed to the elements (shelter) will inevitably end up in an emergency room (healthcare) that we all pay for with taxes already.

So if we're already paying for it, why can't we just make it less costly on ourselves?

A valid and sadly too true.

Not hardly. Rand's philosophies are immensely popular in today's America, and all she really did was repackage Social Darwinism.

I don't necessarily think it'll happen, I'm just saying there is a disturbing move to social darwinism in this country recently.

America is supposedly the greatest country on earth. Why can't we succeed where the others failed?

Single-payer healthcare.

I don't believe man has a right to choose who lives and who dies.

 

Of course not, they suck ass, but that doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bath water. The solution to a broken system is to fix it.

 

What rubbish. You have to pay for every one of your rights except free speech. They don't stop being rights because you pay for them.

 

As someone who grew up with universal health care where no one is turned away, where everyone gets free medical treatment, free hospital treatment... I find your words incomprehensible.... bordering on "disconnected'.

Universal health care is a right. Has been for 37 years over here. That it isn't over there points to some portion of backward, callous... and "disconnected" rationale as per your quote.

 

The only people suggesting we force doctors and hospitals to provide care to everyone for nothing in return is...well...you. Under my proposal, people working in the healthcare profession get paid for what they do.

 

The concept of a "right" is entirely philosophical. There is no set in stone definition of what a right is.

 

three great posts in a row and I thought you were a crazy on another thread


five actually good going

 

Greed + short term thinking.

 

Yes, and in Britain we have enjoyed UHC since 1948. Nobody here objects to the small monthly contribution they make in order to ensure they get quality healthcare-without worrying about venal insurance fleecing them, whilst contributing nothing to their health. There is of course the private option.

 

Just out of curiosity, which post made you think I was a crazy?