Because whenever the government runs a service, it always does so through its use of force or coercion. The only reasonable way to apply government power is against corruption and crime, which is the wrongful use of force on others. Using government power for any other purpose is unjustifiable,
So are you saying that government schemes to help people economically, policies to help the enviroment, changes on laws to stop discrimination, changing things to aid people etc are wrong? That the government can only work as a police force is what you can say, nevermind the whole defence aspect of it. The government is meant to serve the people and the idea of limiting it to do that is a very grave one. On top of that even basic stuff like rubbish collecting and fire services should not be done with that view.
Also how will giving a system that will want more doctors, nurses etc, INCREASE jobs, etc. There wont be a sudden massive job loss as a fair view will want to keep their insurance which is fine, its just now that it has a choice. The healthcare is to a high standard and yet is not meant to compete like a company. Again its a service.
Just as you need a baker to bake bread, you need several people to run a healthcare system, including doctors. If one man says that he has the right to a loaf of bread every day, and uses the government to ensure that he gets one free loaf of bread from a baker every day, then how is that any different from stealing that same loaf of bread himself?
Your blurring the issue. The idea of the system is that the person will also pay into the pot to get to so others can also have a loaf of bread. He is being given the bread as a benefit and when he can get back on his feet, he can pay into the same system. Thats what national healthcare is meant to be. A system for everyone and everyone contributes.
We pay for the police force through taxes, because anytime a crime is committed we want them to be there using force to stop a wrongful use of force. Healthcare requires money too, but it shouldn't come from taxpayers, but from the people who wish to purchase it (i.e. the patients), and the only way that prices will go down and quality will go up for all individuals (so I'm arguing) is in a free-market healthcare system.
As said, the idea that the government should but nothing but a police force is silly at best. On top of that healthcare is a basic need like food. If a man gets sick he will need treatment and then you bump into this: What if he can't pay for it? You could say there should be a benefit but guess where thats coming out of? The taxpayer! You want good healthcare to stop people from dying, to fight infection and keep people happy. Another basic need like the police service which you seem fine with surporting (no fire service?)
It is Mr. Joe's responsibility to defend himself, yes, but crimes do happen. The whole point of the government is to uphold the rights of its people, and we grant them a certain amount of power so that they might do that.
The rights of its people and what the people want. Its evident that people want more then just basic things otherwise government would not be so complex. Again goverments are meant to do more than hold up the basic rights of its people, they are meant to help the country and its people propser and deal with its issues. Not just hold by certain rules. Besides if Joe did not defend himself or did not beleive in guns, would you say that he should not be entitled to protection via the police?
As I've said before, the current US healthcare system is not a free-market system. For example, over 50% of the money spent on Medicare and Medicaid comes from the government, which necessarily gets its money from taxpayers. Because it's not a free-market system, I'm making an important distinction here between the system that I want, the system that is, and the system that you want.
M&M is a lifeline for a lot of people. Are you saying that it should be taken away? What if people cannot afford it? You could tout charities and what not but they can only do so much for so many peope. They wont cover everything and medical bills can be quite high. So again, what will they do if they cannot afford it?
Also why would the free market system be any better? I have already said on how 10% of people cannot afford health insurance and the lack of innovation. Again they will compete by cutting corners and screwing people over for profit, not service improvment. So please explain how it wouuld be any better?
I'm not arguing only for companies here. I'm arguing for several individuals that have to earn a living, such as doctors, nurses, hospital staff, etc. Now, one could argue that insurance companies are big enough already, and I agree. But their loss is nothing compared to the lowered income of the people working at clinics and hospitals.
For a start why would their income suddenly dropped. Again, the private companies would be allow to run and compete. If the companies you tout to be big and able for a free market solution are so good then why would they not be able to afford to pay their staff?
Without any sort of profit, there would be less money to invest in higher-quality care. And what about charity hospitals? They don't work for any sort of profit, and yet they get enough money from voluntary donation to help people who can't afford healthcare.
Tax payers money from 300 million people that can then get pooled into researche or buying stuff off of private companies if it needs to, you know. I already said a lot of healthcare innovation comes from universities and otther areas of healthcare. That would never stop in a government system, on top of that, if insurance companies are makinf profit as it is, why innovate fast?
Also voluntary donation will only go so far. What if its a high cost regular treatment? What if its something that stops someone from working. I would like evidence that charties could cover the at least, current 30 million people uninsured. Think about how much it costs for work with x rays, operations, holding someone in for a night and this for just for one person, potentially on their own. So again, what if the donations don't cover it?
Then shouldn't we be spending less if it's not working? By the way, where does this "10%" number come from? I keep seeing it lately, but with very little sources to prove it.
Thats how much a person spends on healthcare in the US by the way, not government spending.
Oh and here is proof, its actually higher:
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www ... 05647.html
US Cenus wrote:
The percentage of the nation’s population without health insurance coverage remained unchanged, at 15.7 percent in 2004.
15.7%, and this will rise as the economic situation really bites in. I concede I got this figure too low. *nods*
Yes, because it's not a free-market system.
Again many countries that have a government system have better results and don't spend as much. On top of that the US system is already quite free market and over 15% cannot pay for it. How would making it even more free market make it better?
Would I be paying for my own healthcare or my neighbor's? This sounds suspiciously like Social Security.
You'd be paying into a pool. So your paying for everyones healthcare and they are paying for all of your healthcare back.
Companies may be profit-hungry, but at least they aren't given the power to write laws to improve their odds and weaken their competitors.
Governments don't compete like companies do, they have money to keep a high standard and to move with the times. Again its a service, not a company. The police don't try and compete with private security constantly. I know some government agencies do but this is not a one size fits all thing. Some do some don'tand who do and don't can be controlled.
Besides people have more control over goverment and what it does. Thats the idea of a government.
With taxes, everybody's paying for everybody else. Or rather, everybody's paying the government hoping that it will go towards someone else. I'm not saying that no one would use it, but whatever happened to charity hospitals, private accounts, and door-to-door doctors?
Yeah, again you have more control over gorvernment and what it does over a company. On top of that, charities can cover only so much, private accounts only go so far and don't door to door doctors cost money? Again, what if you can't afford it?
If I need to wait an hour and a half for my interim permit at the DMV, and then wait a week and a half for my real learner's permit, that's fine. I'm still going to get it, but a driver's license and snail-mail are very different from a leg operation.
Its not common for national healthcare systems to have people die waiting and for high case stuff, the responce is very fast so I don't think you'd have to worry. ;)
We gave them billions through the Marshall plan.
Which we paid back and who says all that went to healthcare?
hope that this isn't what I'm arguing for
You have good intensions but you are kind of not seeing reality, In reality charities etc wont have cash to cover people and there will be more and more poor people who cannot afford health insurance. Basically you are proposing a situation where more and more end up in bad health because they cannot pay for care.
Yes, I probably am paying for it, if I pay taxes. If I'm already paying 12.4% of my income for Social Security, why would I be comfortable giving even more of my earned money to others?
Because you wont have to buy insurance which can cost more than tax can?
My taxes go to the government, and the government could give it to my own workers. Then again, they could give it to some workers who need it more then my workers. How is it economically better for me to be forced to give away money to a system than might not benefit me or my workers?
Because everyone pays for everyone else, your workers would get treatment so you would not have to pay for sick days and you'd not have to insure them which by the 2004 US Census, 59.8% of people go by an employer based health insurance plan. This means you don't have to pay for them and you can use that money elsewhere. The tax rate would be lower than for paying for someones insurance.
And no, I'm not saying that if you're poor, you should not be allowed healthcare easily. I'm saying that the free-market has consistently shown to lower costs for everyone, including the poor.
First, simple but blunt: Prove it.
Secondly, if over 15% of people cannot afford these "low costs" then they are either not low enough or something is wrong. I'd also like you to show how cheap these costs are. Also I would like to add this:
http://www.ahiphiwire.org/News/Default. ... TRACK_USER