Is It Time The USA Had A National Health Service?

[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?

[Osborn F Enready]

No.

No to an American NHS.

It's important that U.S. citizens and resident aliens who are the poor or working poor be deprived of a service that all other developed and many under-developed countries provide as a fundamental right.

Also, as long as the U.S. does not have a universal single-payer health care system, like all of its economic competitors, it will be easier for countries like mine (Canada) to take jobs away from Americans and give them to Canadians. We must make sure American US-based businesses remain saddled with huge health care costs while their overseas and continental competitors are not.

It's really important that the richest country in the world set an example of how to punish people who can't afford health care. It's good to see people who can barely get by, destroyed by hospital bills, or even better die because they can't get treatment. And let's not forget how important it is to really grind their children down too.

And what the Hell, any American who can't afford treatment can always go to Cuba where they will be treated for free. If they travel by way of Canada, the American government will never know.

Don't you just love that all-American "crap on the poor, working poor, and middle class" Spirit. That's what made America great-screwing the little guy.

Regards
S.

[Nono]

Absolutely agree. And they could stick a few more people in jail too (poor people, obviously). Hell, is two million the best y'all can manage? I mean, now that prisons are being privatized, it's a sure-fire way to line the pockets of one's political cronies.

But back to the topic -- lack of universal health care is just another excellent way of reminding people who's boss and reaffirming that fundamental principle: the law of the jungle.

sd, congratulations for doing your bit to stiffen America's spine in the face of reality.

[Not You Again]

Quote by: sdbest No to an American NHS. It's important that U.S. citizens and resident aliens who are the poor or working poor be deprived of a service that all other developed and many under-developed countries provide as a fundamental right. Also, as long as the U.S. does not have a universal single-payer health care system, like all of its economic competitors, it will be easier for countries like mine (Canada) to take jobs away from Americans and give them to Canadians. We must make sure American US-based businesses remain saddled with huge health care costs while their overseas and continental competitors are not. It's really important that the richest country in the world set an example of how to punish people who can't afford health care. It's good to see people who can barely get by, destroyed by hospital bills, or even better die because they can't get treatment. And let's not forget how important it is to really grind their children down too. And what the Hell, any American who can't afford treatment can always go to Cuba where they will be treated for free. If they travel by way of Canada, the American government will never know. Don't you just love that all-American "crap on the poor, working poor, and middle class" Spirit. That's what made America great-screwing the little guy. Regards S.

Well said

[Milton Bradley]

What part of the "wealth redistribution" part of this argument don't you fellas get?


Why do some of you lack the ability to grasp the concept that some of us just plain don't agree with the philosophy of wealth redistribution? I mean, I know you have heard the arguments, they're posted all over this damn place. So, really, why can't you understand it's just a different core ideal, and that we have earned our exemption from your philosophies with our sovereignty?


You guys are getting almost as bad as the door to door proselytizers.


We need room for dissent.

[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...

Many of you hardcore libertarians would have poor sick people simply dying rather then forfeit some of your income to help them... The value of inalienable freedom has to stop somewhere...there are certain things members of a society have to do to work together. 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...

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.

[Milton Bradley]

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... Many of you hardcore libertarians would have poor sick people simply dying rather then forfeit some of your income to help them... The value of inalienable freedom has to stop somewhere...there are certain things members of a society have to do to work together. 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... 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.

You know, of all the people on this forum, I bet I am the person in need of the security blanket more than anybody, but it still doesn't change my philosophy, or my interpretation that "the general welfare" was never to extend all the way to socialized health care.


A government burdened with all the roles people wish to place on it under the "common good" can only grow into a behemoth like we see before us now. Bureaucracy breeds more bureaucracy.


I just happen to think that this falls under the catagory of "the price of freedom", and truly, had government never been empowered ( as they were ) with Social Security, etc..., and the people retained control of the government, and the communities retained control of the corporations within their jurisdiction, heathcare wouldn't be the costly semi-socialized mess that it is, but a lean "free market" system that would rival any system anywhere. It woud have too. ( Yeah, thats a rambling improper sentence, but I'm too tired to correct it. )

[Nono]

Quote by: Milton Why do some of you lack the ability to grasp the concept that some of us just plain don't agree with the philosophy of wealth redistribution? I mean, I know you have heard the arguments, they're posted all over this damn place. So, really, why can't you understand it's just a different core ideal, and that we have earned our exemption from your philosophies with our sovereignty?

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

(...) a lean "free market" system that would rival any system anywhere (...)

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.

[Nono]

Quote by: day 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...

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

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

[Kamehameha34]

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

Yes, and refusing to comply with theft is obviously refusing "any sort of social solidarity."

:rolleyes:

[Nono]

Y'see, Kam, you're approaching this with the dogmatism of a jihadi who believes that any man who doesn't grow a full beard is an infidel. Trimming your beard is apostasy and taxation is theft. Real easy. Next?

[Kamehameha34]

Now, I'm going to explain thoroughly and succinctly just how wrong you are - ironic, even.

Taxation, then unequal redistribution is theft.

Let's look at the definition for theft:

1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.

I do not have a choice to pay taxes. If I do not pay them, the United States government will reach into my bank account and take my money.

Unequally distributed taxes are a textbook case of theft. Case closed - it's an objective matter.


However, that little parallel you drew is much more comparable to your own beliefs. If someone doesn't comply with a single standard (accepting government theft through involuntary taxation, or growing a beard), then they are shunned by a certain society (jihadists, and what you seem to think is all society).


I honestly didn't even see how you thought the parallel applied to me.

[Nono]

In a way, we're going off-topic here. In another way, we're bang on.

Quote by: Kam Let's look at the definition for theft: "...the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny. ..."

Wrongful taking? Society (through its members' elected representatives) decides that some of your wealth rightfully belongs to society as a whole, not to you.

Personal goods or property, eh? To some extent some of this stuff is, by definition, wrongfully acquired (in my opinion) when wealth distribution throughout society becomes grossly uneven.

Unequally distributed taxes are a textbook case of theft.

I'm guessing that "unequally distributed taxes" is a fancy way of saying unflat tax, right? Taking more from the rich than from the poor is by no means theft in my view.

You can't take it with you, Kam. In the end, it isn't really your property.

[Kamehameha34]

Wrongful taking? Society (through its members' elected representatives) decides that some of your wealth rightfully belongs to society as a whole, not to you.

If you belong to a community, and they vote that your house should be sold and distributed between them, you would have to support that decision or be a hypocrite.

A collaborative crime does not make a lawful act.

Personal goods or property, eh? To some extent some of this stuff is, by definition, wrongfully acquired (in my opinion) when wealth distribution throughout society becomes grossly uneven.

It's grossly uneven when Mr. Joe Blow gets a 100,000 dollar check for triple bypass surgery because he can't find sustinence beyond McDonald's, and I take good care of myself to the point where I don't become a drain.

I'm guessing that "unequally distributed taxes" is a fancy way of saying unflat tax, right? Taking more from the rich than from the poor is by no means theft in my view.

Do you know what "distribute" means?

Quote by: Distribute 1. to divide and give out in shares; deal out; allot.

Thusly, unequal distribution means that the taxes are unevenly divided. Some people get more than their fair share of the pie.

I can tolerate equally distribution upon forced taxation, barely.

You can't take it with you, Kam. In the end, it isn't really your property.

It will cease to be my property until I willingly trade it away, or there ceases to be a me to own the property.

[Nono]

Quote by: Kam If you belong to a community, and they vote that your house should be sold and distributed between them, you would have to support that decision or be a hypocrite.

That's it, always go for the extreme example. (Safer that way -- you don't have to engage in serious discussion.)

If it comes to that, yes, support it or leave the community. What on earth would you be doing in a community whose values are so at odds with yours?

It's grossly uneven when Mr. Joe Blow gets a 100,000 dollar check for triple bypass surgery because he can't find sustinence beyond McDonald's, and I take good care of myself to the point where I don't become a drain.

Is that how it is? Or is this another carefully pumped up example serving to take things to the extreme?

Thusly, unequal distribution means that the taxes are unevenly divided. Some people get more than their fair share of the pie.

OK, we agree, as long as we agree on the definition of "fair".

It will cease to be my property until I willingly trade it away, or there ceases to be a me to own the property.

Well that's just an arbitrary conviction. I might take the view that it isn't -- just because you've got your hands on it -- necessarily your property to begin with.

[Kamehameha34]

That's it, always go for the extreme example. (Safer that way -- you don't have to engage in serious discussion.)

That's how you test for flawed ideals. Push it to the extreme.

If it comes to that, yes, support it or leave the community. What on earth would you be doing in a community whose values are so at odds with yours?

You missed the point.. People don't have the right to take your property, even if they happen to live near you and have a majority's support.

Is that how it is? Or is this another carefully pumped up example serving to take things to the extreme?

That's how it would be, pushed to the extreme to magnify the flaw.

Well that's just an arbitrary conviction. I might take the view that it isn't -- just because you've got your hands on it -- necessarily your property to begin with.

No. It's a fact. If someone takes it without my permission, it is still my property, just stolen property.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Nono If it comes to that, yes, support it or leave the community. What on earth would you be doing in a community whose values are so at odds with yours?

The community is growing away from the collective ideals that formed it. So who is more wrong here? People like myself, for wanting to remain free, and true to the original ideals, or people such as yourself for trying to impose these laws on the everybody everywhere?

[Osborn F Enready]

Great posts Kam, and Milton. I fully agree.

The great thing is, if people REALLY want socialized healthcare in the U.S., they can move to a community and "make it so" out of their own collective intrests.

I however, don't seek that type of system, and thanks to individual rights, I don't have to participate in that type of system nor can one be FORCED upon me.

The problem is, all those that want it, can't make it so, and rely on others who don't want it, or need it, to make it so FOR them.



-There are lots of socialist nations out there if a citizen seeks socialism.
-There is the option of forming a socialist commune, within the nation.
but...
There is only one nation that places individual rights at its core of both law and justice, and is governed by the people, whom also reserve the right to bear arms to shrug off "defective" government corrupt to its foundations, which is exactly what the communist socialist agenda is in regards to this nation, corrupt to the very foundations of our society, law and culture.

“It is my right to be uncommon...if I can; I seek opportunity...not security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me. I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed. I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stole calm of utopia. I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud, and unafraid; to think and act for myself; enjoy the benefits of my creations and to face the world boldly and say, This I have done, and this is what it means to be an American.”

-Dean Alfrange

(text highlighted by bold, italics, underline, etc... by me)

[Nono]

Quote by: Kam People don't have the right to take your property.

A freely elected government does, though.
Again, it seems to me that this term "property" is mighty arbitrary.

Quote by: Milton The community is growing away from the collective ideals that formed it.

Is it now? And what "collective ideals" are those? And what evidence is there that it's "growing away" from them (whatever they are).

Kinda vague, Milton.