First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Post Reply Why do people have a problem with healthcare being a right?
1006 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/2/17
People care more about their money than about the well being of others. This includes tax payers and even the health care system in America.
13504 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F
Offline
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 2/2/17

theYchromosome wrote:


srlan23 wrote:

Well, that's the problem with democracy. You'll always have people who aren't happy with the way it is. There'll be always a minority who doesn't agree but I still think democracy is the best option we have.


Well, I'd say a system of individual property and contract rights would be best. Anarcho-Capitalism, in short. If a minority disagrees, then they don't sign the contract. Simple as that. We allow people the option to "opt-out" of government if they want. It's far too broad a topic to cover here, but either way, I must still persist that who owns what should not be decided by whatever the majority feels might be best.


I'm not a big fan of that system. I don't say it can't work but I'm very, very sceptical.
But that's too off-topic for this thread (I guess).
Posted 2/2/17
I'm sure I already saw a thread on this just stopping in
Posted 2/2/17

ishe5555 wrote:
Social contract is BS. You can't have an agreement at the point of a gun. You can't have an implied agreement with your government. Because anything you would considered as an "implied agreement" is at the point of a gun (the government's power).


As long as we live in a democratic republic, that's just how it is. I may not agree with it, but that's the reality of the situation. The government determines everything that income tax is used for, no? We don't each vote on a new bill as to whether we agree or disagree with it. A republic has representatives that can be faulted based off of their own, subjective, line of reasoning. Ergo, the will of the government often trumps over the will of the people.......... and here we are.
Posted 2/2/17
1) Taking it for granted that other people will pay the price isn't generally considered a good thing, which is a common impression of those who outright demand free health care and get all pissy when people voice opposing opinions.

2) At least, in the USA, we do have a problem with folks leeching off of the government, which has become a stigma. Pride and disgust blending together.

3) As mentioned early on in this thread; natural right vs legal right.

4) Distrust of free healthcare being sustainable, given, for example, how incredibly expensive healthcare is in the USA.
48110 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 2/3/17

ninjitsuko wrote:

The "implied agreement" was simply that the friend who now "owns" the television is free to do as they wish. There weren't any stipulations on it at the time of giving him said television. It was implied as there weren't any known stipulations to avoid when taking the television home.


Then it still doesn't describe the situation. The argument is whether taxation itself is the implied agreement. That is, that the act of transferring "the TV" is an implied agreement. If your example is an illustration that 'what happens after property exchanges' is implied, then we are talking about different things. You start with the assumption that I 'give' my TV to the friend, but that's exactly the thing that's being debated. You're assuming the thing you're trying to prove.



The contract/agreement was made the moment you were born into this country or became a citizen. The "implied" aspect is simply the implied actions/inactions of those that represent their constituents in our federal, state, and local governments. I've met quite a few people who disagree with the terms, past, and present but accept that it's something they must do in order to continue working in the United States. "Agreement" isn't a misnomer in this situation because it's a known expectation. You can simply refuse to live in the United States and don't abide by their rules. The "agreement" was made long before any of us were born, on behalf of the country that we live in. It's implied because you know about it, that you expect a certain outcome, that you have specific social freedoms, and that you're given the right to vote.

To disagree would simply mean you leave the country and work elsewhere. Though, as someone who has lived overseas (in England) and worked there - the United States still expects you to pay income tax on any income over $30,000 overseas or else you lose your citizenship. So if you wholeheartedly agree, that's a route you can take to show disagreement with the implied agreement. It doesn't change the fact that the moment that income tax is collected on both state and federal levels that you no longer have authority over it nor do you own it. That's not "your money" nor is it "your hard labor" ... it's the United States of America's money at that point.


I agreed to the contract before I even knew what the terms were? Sounds shaky, my dude. Again, you're assuming the proposition that you're trying to prove. If 'agreement isn't a misnomer because it's a known expectation' then does that mean that slaves agree to their tasks because the tasks are known expectations? They should expect forced labor, so their agreement is implied?

I don't really understand the logic of the "you can just leave" argument. The government has claimed the right to the products of my labor. Yes, it's true that I could leave, preventing it from claiming my future labors, but this still does not justify its claim on past labors. You still haven't really answered my questions. If people were given a contract with the terms being 'the current government,' would everyone sign? Would anyone that doesn't sign be forced to accept the terms anyway? You can't just assume that everyone agrees to this contract when all your implications rest on it being true. That's the problem with Social Contract theory. It assumes the very thing it's trying to prove.
Posted 2/2/17

theYchromosome wrote:
Content Removed to Keep Quotes Shorter <Snip>


It wasn't necessarily meant to describe the overall situation. You had started off with using the analogy that if someone had stolen your television ... so I used a television in an analogy to the best of my capacity to explain how that analogy wasn't correct. Admittedly, it wasn't necessarily the best analogy - but it was more so to state that once you've given somebody something, you have little to no control over how they use it. If you give your friend $500 and he told you "I'm using this to make my life better" and he spends it all on drugs - to him, that's how he made his life better. You're free to be pissed off about it but it doesn't change the fact that he's spent it already. Same goes with the television and it's "use" - you give it up without knowing that it will be used on. Once you've surrendered it to someone, it can be used for anything (from watching pornography or just taking it out back and shooting it).

And yes, you did "agree" to the contract as you're part of the country that you're residing in. The ability for Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states is actually part of the United States Constitution. Ultimately, the power was given to the government by us, the citizens, at some point or another. This means that the law of the land is decided by the government - not by the individual.


If people were given a contract with the terms being 'the current government,' would everyone sign? Would anyone that doesn't sign be forced to accept the terms anyway?


These questions are mostly irrelevant altogether to the topic. The answers to your questions would end up with the same answers we have today. Let's say the majority did agree to it - seeing as we're in a democratic republic, the majority would rule and it would be considered that "everyone signed it". Let's say the majority disagreed with it - what then? We would construct a new contract that would be passed to the next generation the moment that they're born. It would prompt an endless loop of revising the laws, the contract, and the expectation each time a new generation of citizens is born.

"Would anyone that doesn't sign be forced to accept the terms anyway?"

The "individual" isn't important in a democratic republic. We have representatives that speak on the behalf of their constituents because of this. Even if you disagree with the representative, you agree by proxy because the majority is greater than the individual. So to answer that question: yes. Even if you voted no if the majority said yes, your vote equals a yes in the state that you've living in. To change this, we'd have to change the overall government system that this country is founded upon.

I wouldn't argue against doing that but it's an idealistic perspective to believe that we can change the government while a government is still actively running with the support of its citizens.
qwueri 
20480 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Online
Posted 2/2/17
The arguments I usually see against universal healthcare in the US usually have more to do with aversion to the governmental management of the healthcare system. Claiming that privatized companies are more efficient, provide better quality, and is incentivized to continue development of medical research through profit. The argument usually assumes that individuals who cannot afford to pay for private insurance can access state or federal run Medicare/Medicaid.
48110 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 2/3/17

ninjitsuko wrote:
<snip>


I just realized a couple of things. One of them, I think, is that you've not been arguing in favor of the system we have, but have merely been pointing out "this is the system we have." In which case, there's actually far less that I disagree with you on.

However, we do very much disagree on whether modern governments actually have the consent of the governed. I don't think we will get much further on that issue, and it's starting to get pretty far removed from the original topic. This seems to me to be a pretty good time to call it quits.
23054 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 2/2/17

theYchromosome wrote:


srlan23 wrote:


theYchromosome wrote:


srlan23 wrote:

No because a TV isn't as much worth as a life and he didn't ask you to give him your TV.
You live in a country in which you have to pay taxes. You agree to do it by living and making money in that country. You can't do whatever you want just because you feel like it. You can't choose which taxes you pay and which not.


He didn't ask me to give him my TV? I mean, you can argue that taxpayers are asked whether they want to pay for healthcare, but if someone's answer is "no," and everyone else's is yes, then that person is paying for something which they do not consent to. You say I agree to do it by living and making money in the country, but when the alternative to living and making money is dying, it hardly seems like a free choice. The fact that governments are too powerful to oppose does not seem to me to give them any more or less of a claim to the products of my labor.


Well that's called democracy. You can't always do what you want. You can't pick which taxes you pay for a very good reason(= because the country would collapse otherwise). Btw. the alternative to living and and making money in the USA isn't necessarily dying, you could also move.


Oh? And where can I live and make money without paying taxes? And, your argument still doesn't apply to North Korea. Is their right to extract money justified?


I would say the Government has a duty to you as much as it has a duty to us. I do not think things are dire enough for me to stop paying taxes.


The wrong with North Korea definitely is not the taxes, if you can call it that.
Posted 2/2/17


Pretty much. I don't necessarily agree with the form of government that we have at the time but it's the type of government we have. As long as the underlying structure of it remains the same, I can't rationally consider income taxes that are given to the federal government "my money" or "my labor" as it ends up being dispersed in ways that I have little to no power over as an individual.

Nor do I necessarily agree that modern governments have the consent of the governed, entirely. Many are complacent, some are just uncertain how and where to bring about the desired/required change, and so on. And yeah, it's a good time to call it quits - although, in a way, we have stayed on topic to a degree.


86792 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
45 / M / WA
Offline
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 2/2/17
The problems with healthcare are because the government got involved; taxes should be lowered, bureaucrats fired, agencies dissolved ...and involvement in healthcare ended. It is really easy to "care" with someone else's money! You have a right to purchase healthcare ...but you don't have a right to force me to pay for it. I want as little money as possible sent to WA! We need to vote in people who will respect our pr$perty; I will decide when to purchase insurance - not some government bureaucracy. I never have or will pay any ACA fine.

I have a right to keep a gun to protect my life ...should the government pay for it?
Spiritual health is vitally important ...the government must provide me with church funds.
In order to exercise my right to free speech, government funds must be used to transport me to rallies in DC.

The Feds could allow people to buy insurance across state lines, repeal laws forbidding hospitals to advertise and compete on price, expand HSAs improving them by removing restrictions.
Posted 2/2/17

dougeprofile wrote:
It is really easy to "care" with someone else's money! You have a right to purchase healthcare ...but you don't have a right to force me to pay for it.


As I've said numerous times on this thread thus far:
With our current form of government, it is not your money.

You wouldn't be paying for anything, not with your own money. You'd be taxed all the same and money would be given to both federal and state governments. Unless you change how the government is structured altogether (moving us away from a democratic republic), you're not paying for squat even if there were a universal healthcare system that was governed by the US government.
23054 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 7/18/17

dougeprofile wrote:

The problems with healthcare are because the government got involved; taxes should be lowered, bureaucrats fired, agencies dissolved ...and involvement in healthcare ended. It is really easy to "care" with someone else's money! You have a right to purchase healthcare ...but you don't have a right to force me to pay for it. I want as little money as possible sent to WA! We need to vote in people who will respect our pr$perty; I will decide when to purchase insurance - not some government bureaucracy. I never have or will pay any ACA fine.

I have a right to keep a gun to protect my life ...should the government pay for it?
Spiritual health is vitally important ...the government must provide me with church funds.
In order to exercise my right to free speech, government funds must be used to transport me to rallies in DC.

The Feds could allow people to buy insurance across state lines, repeal laws forbidding hospitals to advertise and compete on price, expand HSAs improving them by removing restrictions.


I argue that while not everyone needs a gun, that everyone here virtually needs a doctor. I suppose a compromise we can agree with is that healthcare should be provided to some extent to those who can't afford it?
73502 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 2/2/17 , edited 7/20/17
I Haven't completely followed the topic to the end, but I just want to say that all the selfish people who don't want the govt to do this and that (including healthcare need to get over there damn selves. Really, EVERYTHING you have is not yours because of you.

I didn't like the tv analogy so much, I think roads work better for an example and so... Aside from toll roads, how many billions of dollars have you spent on building a 10 mile stretch of highway that you've used before? how about side walks, public spaces and beaches? You have NO right to be there based on your income or what you make. It's not yours, but you know what? because you're a citizen of this country you don't have to worry about it not being yours because by being a citizen you have the right to use it whenever you please because we all take care of those things. If things like roads were privately owned it would be stupid. Could you imagine having a car and not being able to drive outside the front of your house because you don't own the road anywhere else? or better yet charging everyone who went past your house and also having to pay everyone who's house you drive past? Ridiculous right? well it's the same thing that so many people seem to want with health care system by paying their own way. Hugely expensive things that everybody needs should be taken care of collectively or sem-collectively because it makes things easier for everybody.

"what if some people mooch and don't pay?" (a phrase i've heard time and time again) That is literally the case with everything in the world and is ultimately empty. It's the same as making the argument that nobody should be law abiding citizens because some people will steal and commit crime instead of work (that's why there are police, and guess what? thats a job created to deal with the flaws in the current system).


To answer the topic question, it's because they are selfish and greedy in the same way that some mega rich people are. They only want for themselves, and act and move to do good only for themselves and their circle. When something doesn't expressly benefit them more than anyone else involved, they have a problem with it even if the overall result is positive for them.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.