Is It Time The USA Had A National Health Service?

[pikatore]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready A given? I didn't say that. Responsible citizens are a product of a nation whose laws are built around individual responsibility. People are either responsible for their actions, or HELD responsible for their actions. Responsible adults, try to raise responsible kids, who later become responsible adults. The public school system has done much to damage the concept, and no suprise, it is also a socialist concept.

Well, I think the privitisation of schools is a very good idea myself. As I said, I think socialism has SOME good ideas.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Limited, as in, kept at the local level, so local people can effectively petition, change and/or remove the law. All laws in the U.S. are limited by the bill of rights at the national and state level, but the effective "check" on abuse of power is keeping laws local, within reach of citizen protest and outcry.

Keeping laws local has it's own major disadvantages, which would result in irresponsible citizens abusing this and undermining these laws by doing things in other states, and why something like gun/substance control would definetely not work. That's why the smuggling trade has flourished in the US. In the UK, however, security is ultra tight, through a centralised legal blanket covering the whole United Kingdom. Step by step, the EU is also working on doing the same to Europe.

[Kamehameha34]

Oh, and what rights are we talking about here? The right to control where every cent of your tax dollars go?

No. The fifth amendment.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No. The fifth amendment.

How does tax dollars going to the NHS violate the fifth amendment, when you have no control over where they are going anyway?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: pikatore How does tax dollars going to the NHS violate the fifth amendment, when you have no control over where they are going anyway?

Not just the NHS, direct taxes in general.

I take a specific disliking to cases where direct taxes are unequally redistributed, as with the case of an NHS.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I take a specific disliking to cases where direct taxes are unequally redistributed, as with the case of an NHS.

So you have a problem with taxation then. I don't see how your idea of 'unequal distribution' plays any part in this. Taxes are, after all, going to be dynamically split by the government depending on how they want to fund themselves.

Anybody that opposes taxation in any form automatically opposes the NHS.

I personally don't mind taxation, as it is a pillar of a strong government.

[Kamehameha34]

So you have a problem with taxation then. I don't see how your idea of 'unequal distribution' plays any part in this.

It doesn't. My arguments aren't dependent on that principle, I was just stating that taxation and unequal distribution garners a special disliking from me.

Anybody that opposes taxation in any form automatically opposes the NHS.

It would be paid for by unconstitutional taxes, so the same arguments apply.

[pikatore]

so....??? Would you support a NHS if the tax that was funding it was constitutional..?!

[Kamehameha34]

Sure why not. ....?!?!?!!#@! :)

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Sure why not. ....?!?!?!!#@! :)

Who decides whether a tax is constitutional or not?

[Kamehameha34]

It's constitutional if it doesn't contradict any part of the constitution. Therefore, a logical application of the constitution.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 It's constitutional if it doesn't contradict any part of the constitution. Therefore, a logical application of the constitution.

No, it's constitutional if SCOTUS says it is.

[banko]

kame,
Give it up. stop hijacking this thread and go to the one you started. You pay taxes and right now the US has spent almost $500 billion on a war - a lot of that came from your taxes. So the question isn't do you want to pay taxes but if you are going to pay them then would you rather fund a war or perhaps give your fellow americans a better healthier life?

[Kamehameha34]

Stop addressing every American like they support the war. With the social climate regarding the war, you're at best foolish, and at worst offensive.

No, it's constitutional if SCOTUS says it is.

I see you're one of those who forsakes objective logic for the opinion of 9 government appointees.

SCOTUS can say that water is solid. That doesn't make it true.

The constitution isn't any different. The fact that it gives them authority doesn't mean that they can add and subtract from it as they please.

I already went through this with another proponent of illogic. We live in a logical world. The supreme court is wrong.

[shield772]

Quote by: Not You Again I live in the UK, and many Americans will be aware of our NHS service. I would dearly love to immigrate to the US; however, one of the financial commitments is the cost of medical insurance. Here in the UK our health care is free at the point of delivery, regardless of your financial standing, I’m against this, I believe if you can afford to pay for health care, you should. We can pay for our own individual health care, but we must also pay our national insurance contributions i.e. health care, it’s not one or the other, therefore, I object to paying for both. Is it time the US had a “NHS” type of health care?

Yes and actually we already have in place one of the most efficient health care system on the globe right now, it's called Medicare, all Congress has to do is amend the Medicare act and remove the must be 65 provision and replace it with a financial ability statement where the coverage you get depends on how much money you have or in most cases don't have. I know that if this was done the influx of Americans on health care providers would be massive and I also know this would create as it has in other countries that have national health care waiting lists and I personally would be ok with waiting for certain non life threatening care.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Well, it seems odd, since you and I usually are butting heads over individual rights issues, and your usually pro-collective as opposed to pro-individual.

In my view, there are times when collective rights should take precedence over individual rights. For example, I don't think that freedom of speech should be extended to protect speech intended to defraud. I don't think the right to enjoy property should be extended to deny people clean air, safe drinking water and downstream riparian rights. I don't think freedom of religion should include denying children medical care. I don't think freedom should be used to impoverish people and deny them life saving medical care. I don't think the right to own property should include the right to own people.

Where we butt heads is when freedom is deemed to always take precedence over collective rights and often the well-being of others. It is prudent and good public policy, in my view, to strike a balance,when necessary, between individual and collective rights. A dogmatic view of the precedence of collective or individual rights is counter-productive. I do believe that in the long term it is better for a society to err on the side of individual rights. I don't believe that individual rights, when marginally infringed, should take precedence over collective rights which would have broad public benefit. Universal health care, a defensive military, good infrastructure, and a just legal system are some examples.

Like it or not, we are individuals who live in societies, and each of those facts require accommodation and compromise to make life better for individuals and to make better societies, in my view.

Regards
S.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Sure why not. ....?!?!?!!#@! :)

So what is your argument? As long as the tax is... constitutional??? That's what you've been trying to say this whole time?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: pikatore So what is your argument? As long as the tax is... constitutional??? That's what you've been trying to say this whole time?

Yes, that seem an enormous stumbling block for some of you.