Is It Time The USA Had A National Health Service?

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Nono Yes, here we run up against values. Yours and mine are simply different in this respect.

Are you willing to kill other people in the name of your values? Are you willing to have other people kill for you?

The operative word being "lean". The winners in such a system would be anything but lean, and the much more numerous losers could tell you all you need to know about that word.

What are your criteria for "victory" here?

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: another day I'm largely libertarian, but socialized health care is the only thing I agree with... It's the one thing I think all members of society should shoulder, regardless of whether joe blow working man never has to use it...we have to look out for one another...

Please. "We have to look out for one another" is a politician's phrase, plain and simple. It's so open-ended and ambiguous that it can translate into killing those who fail to toe the line -- which is hardly looking out for them, IMO.

Here's a simple question: Do you honestly believe that compassion can only come from pointing a gun at someone (so to speak)?

Many of you hardcore libertarians would have poor sick people simply dying rather then forfeit some of your income to help them...

Do you have proof of this?

The value of inalienable freedom has to stop somewhere...there are certain things members of a society have to do to work together.

Unfortunately for you, freedom is inalienable in a very real sense -- the sense of free will. Here you are attempting to impose your personal values upon everyone else, as if they are material objects that exist outside of your mind. This has a name: the reification fallacy.

If you don't like it go on and be a jackrabbit in the sagebrush...be a hermit in the mountains and I guarantee you won't have to submit one dollar to the government...

S'nice. Now what if a bunch of these "hermits" decide to interact with one another? Could one then say that there is a "society of hermits"?

But no one is prepared to do that. They want all the benefits of a civilized society without having to sacrifice anything of their own.

Does "a civilized society" require coercion, in your view? Why or why not? Also, while we're at it, what do you think are the benefits of a civilized society (whatever you mean by that)?

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Nono Precisely. We live in societies. You can't have it both ways, you can't suck and blow.

We live in societies by choice, amirite? But what (in your view) separates one society from another?

If you refuse any sort of social solidarity, you don't belong in the society.

Thanks for telling us that, Your Majesty. :rolleyes:

- Rob

[Autolykos]

By the way, I'd like to point out that "The U.S. should have a national health service because every other developed nation has one" is a classic example of an appeal to majority, which is an oft-invoked logical fallacy.

- Rob

[banko]

The US people will allow their government to spend around $445 billion dollars to kill people including their own citizens in a war, they won't go with a NHS because they would rather see each other die than to have to pay a little bit out of their own pocket.

Based on the estimated US population from the CIA fact book. Every man woman and child in the US has contributed $1,477.72 to the war. Compare that to Canada where in my province we pay $44 for an individual ($88 per month for 2 or more people) per month or $528.00 per year for health care. That would mean a saving from what is spent on the war of around $286 billion dollars. Yes a NHS seems just retarded doesn't it.

I would think that it would make better sense to Americans to improve the quality of life for other americans and all that patriotic family values crap, but it seems that americans are more into killing and death.

[Nono]

Quote by: Auto Are you willing to kill other people in the name of your values? Are you willing to have other people kill for you?

Mystic stuff, Auto. I can see you're making the same sort of reductio-ad-absurdum endeavour as Kam, but can't see where you're headed with it.
How about just come out with your argument instead of beating around the bush?

What are your criteria for "victory" here?

Oh I dunno -- getting that triple bypass you're gonna die without, for example.

We live in societies by choice, amirite?

Man, you wouldn't think so with so many members of this board believing they ought to be able to dispense with it when it suits them.

But what (in your view) separates one society from another?

Culture and language, say. Culture including mentality, world view, "values".

[Nono]

Quoted by Autolykos:

"The U.S. should have a national health service because every other developed nation has one"

Just whom are you quoting here, Auto? That sentence in this thread escaped my detection.

[Kamehameha34]

The US people will allow their government to spend around $445 billion dollars to kill people including their own citizens in a war, they won't go with a NHS because they would rather see each other die than to have to pay a little bit out of their own pocket.

You see, there are two things wrong with that.

1. A great amount, if not a majority of Americans do not support the war.

2. That's not true. I'd support an advertising campaign for a healthier lifestyle, paid for by voluntary product taxes.

[Kamehameha34]

Man, you wouldn't think so with so many members of this board believing they ought to be able to dispense with it when it suits them.

Society does not necessitate forced taxation - A claim I've challenged over a page ago that you have yet to defend.

Quoted by Autolykos: "The U.S. should have a national health service because every other developed nation has one" Just whom are you quoting here, Auto? That sentence in this thread escaped my detection.

You mean you don't remember my pointing out to you that other countries are irrelevant?

That specifically was about due process, but it applies to all domestic policy.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 The fact that my objective analysis won't affect a court ruling doesn't stop me from being right.

Being "right" has nothing to do with the Constitution. When you raise the Constitution of the United States you're discussing matters of law, not what is right. The two are not necessarily the same. A law is deemed just and constitutional, and therefore enforceable, until it is decided by a competent court that it is not. This is first year law school.

Regards
S.

Quote by: Autolykos Are you willing to kill other people in the name of your values? Are you willing to have other people kill for you?

Well, aren't we getting a little extremist here?

And, exactly which of your values are you willing to personally kill people to preserve or promote?

Regards
S.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: sdbest Being "right" has nothing to do with the Constitution. When you raise the Constitution of the United States you're discussing matters of law, not what is right. The two are not necessarily the same.

Keep up. I'm discussing the constitutionality of universal health care, and I'm right in saying it is unconstitutional.

A law is deemed just and constitutional, and therefore enforceable, until it is decided by a competent court that it is not. This is first year law school. Regards S.

No. A law is deemed existent until ruled by a court to be unconstitutional.

Laws to not default to constitutional just because they have been passed.

Quote by: Autolykos By the way, I'd like to point out that "The U.S. should have a national health service because every other developed nation has one" is a classic example of an appeal to majority, which is an oft-invoked logical fallacy. - Rob

Perhaps you can explain why the U.S. should not have a universal health care system, like other developed countries. If that's your view.

While the appeal to majority is considered a form of fallacious argument, it's also the basis of democracy.

Regards
S.

[droque]

The reality is that if the United States ended its military-industrial exploits the American economy would collapse.

The same is true about the government keeping millions unemployed to cause many more millions underemployed to prevent inflation that would end in a depression.

KNOW THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH WILL SAVE US!

[Kamehameha34]

Perhaps you can explain why the U.S. should not have a universal health care system, like other developed countries. If that's your view.

Simple. Because we have a constitution that necessitates due process for the seizure of any property - as unequally distributed taxes would circumvent.

While the appeal to majority is considered a form of fallacious argument, it's also the basis of democracy.

There you go again. You think that others can vote away my property, or more relevantly, you think other countries have 'votes' towards the American health system.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I'm discussing the constitutionality of universal health care, and I'm right in saying it is unconstitutional.

You've peaked my curiosity. How can a universal heath care program in the U.S. be unconstitutional? You already have government-paid health care in Medicare and Medicaid--programs that have been in place for over 40 years. The issue is the uninsured who don't qualify for Medicare or Medicaid. Why would providing government-funded health care for them be an affront to the U.S. Constitution?

If you have any, I'd welcome being apprised of the decisions and precedents, if any, you're relying on for your learned legal opinion.

As a sidebar and just to but some humanity into this debate, medical bills are the most common reason for personal bankruptcy in the U.S.; the U.S. spends more money per capita on health care than any other country in the world; according to the WHO, the U.S. health care system's performance was ranked 37th in the world and American overall health was ranked 72nd. See Health care in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I await the rationale for our legal opinion.

Regards
S.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Because we have a constitution that necessitates due process for the seizure of any property - as unequally distributed taxes would circumvent.

The U.S. federal and state tax codes are a result of due process. The federal and state governments can and do legally seize your property (i.e. your money in the form of taxes), whether you like it or not. And waiving around and misrepresenting the Constitution won't change that.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 There you go again. You think that others can vote away my property, or more relevantly, you think other countries have 'votes' towards the American health system.

Other Americans can vote away your property, and they do. I'm not aware that anyone in this debate thinks they have a 'vote' about the American health system. That's up to Americans. But we can damn well talk about it--again, whether you like it or not.

Regards
S.

[Kamehameha34]

You've peaked my curiosity. How can a universal heath care program in the U.S. be unconstitutional? You already have government-paid health care in Medicare and Medicaid--programs that have been in place for over 40 years. The issue is the uninsured who don't qualify for Medicare or Medicaid. Why would providing government-funded health care for them be an affront to the U.S. Constitution?

Both of those are unconstitutional.

The constitution provides for taxation, but taxation denotes equal redistribution. When you coerce me into paying taxes for this NHS, those taxes are unequally distributed to those of varying health. That is called theft. In America, we are entitled to due process before we forfeit our property.

[Kamehameha34]

The U.S. federal and state tax codes are a result of due process.

No.. Due process includes determining for guilt, which is irrelevant. The basic idea behind due process is the government's disallowance to take my property whenever they feel like it.

Once again.. Laws do not default to constitutional. Therefore, the passing of a law to take away my property is not due process.

Other Americans can vote away your property, and they do.

THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

I yiyi, keep up. :rolleyes:

I'm not aware that anyone in this debate thinks they have a 'vote' about the American health system.

You lost track of your own discussion..

We are talking about why other COUNTRIES are irrelevant. Other COUNTRIES do not have a vote towards the American health system, therefore, other COUNTRIES are irrelevant.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Both of those are unconstitutional.

Why? Give me the clauses in the Constitution or the amendments and the precedences that you're relying on for your opinion.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 The constitution provides for taxation, but taxation denotes equal redistribution.

Taxation does not denote equal redistribution, and never has. Where do you get these notions?

Quote by: Kamehameha34 When you coerce me into paying taxes for this NHS, those taxes are unequally distributed to those of varying health. That is called theft. In America, we are entitled to due process before we forfeit our property.

There is no "theft" involved. The various programs you claim are unconstitutional are all a product of due process.

But let me state the obvious. Why not organize people who feel like you and challenge the programs in court? See what the Supreme Court thinks about your constitutional views. I know what I'm suggesting would not be easy, but perhaps there are others who feel aggrieved as you and would fund such an effort.

Regards
S.