Thread: Medicine

it is my opinion that healthcare is the responsibility of those that consume it. like any other good or service, if i want it, i work, i earn money, and i buy it.

i really don't see the complication. healthcare is not a human right anymore than food or shelther... that is, if you want it, you can buy it.

i like buying my own healthcare. i can choose how much to spend, and where, and i can choose what services and goods i wish to consume. i should be free to purchase healthcare i don't need, and free to not purchase healthcare if i do need it. it's my body, and it's my choice. the only freedom i demand is the freedom to buy what i want, and not have my money taken via threat of force and given to those who did not earn it, to reward their irresponsibility.

Originally Posted by jockeys

i like buying my own healthcare. i can choose how much to spend, and where, and i can choose what services and goods i wish to consume. i should be free to purchase healthcare i don't need, and free to not purchase healthcare if i do need it. it's my body, and it's my choice. the only freedom i demand is the freedom to buy what i want, and not have my money taken via threat of force and given to those who did not earn it, to reward their irresponsibility.

I haven't seen anything brought up in the US, ever, that any health care economists would call a threat to the availability of fee-for-service medicine.

Originally Posted by ScottS

I haven't seen anything brought up in the US, ever, that any health care economists would call a threat to the availability of fee-for-service medicine.

taxing me to pay for the healthcare of others limits my ability to purchase my own healthcare.

Originally Posted by jockeys

taxing me to pay for the healthcare of others limits my ability to purchase my own healthcare.

So, who would you say is paying for the emergency care of the indigent in the US RIGHT NOW?? The US taxpayer along with health insurance customers!! Many believe its cheaper to stop making believe we're not paying for this, and to buy these folks the proper preventative care.

Originally Posted by ScottS

Many believe its cheaper to stop making believe we're not paying for this, and to buy these folks the proper preventative care.

i believe it is cheaper still to stop providing such care entirely. if you are not contributing to society, i fail to see why society must contribute to you.

Originally Posted by jockeys

i like buying my own healthcare. i can choose how much to spend, and where, and i can choose what services and goods i wish to consume. i should be free to purchase healthcare i don't need, and free to not purchase healthcare if i do need it.

But once you need it, you will not be able to get it because your illness already exists.
That would be like insuring your car after you crash it. Medical insurance is no different.

Originally Posted by jockeys

it's my body, and it's my choice. the only freedom i demand is the freedom to buy what i want, and not have my money taken via threat of force and given to those who did not earn it, to reward their irresponsibility.

But you have to pay taxes for an army that you might not like either.
You pay for roads you might not use
You pay for libraries you may not frequent.

Governmental spending by definition is for the public interest, and you are forced to pay taxes. this is no different.
Btw the irresponsibility card is a straw man argument. Yes there are cases where someone irresponsible ends up costing money. But contrary to what you think, that is not the majority of the cases.

The only irresponsible thing to do would not to be take medical insurance. Care to make your entire family homeless if you need complicated surgery? Because that would happen without it.
and no matter how responsible and prudent you are, the smallest accidents can create large costs.
Socialized health care means everyone pays (it is not free by any means).

And as I said before: my full coverage with dental plan is still cheaper than your reasonable coverage without dental, despite the fact that I am also contributing for those less fortunate.
so how exactly would you lose by switching to mine?
You'd come out ahead, just like everyone else.

Originally Posted by Bruno

But once you need it, you will not be able to get it because your illness already exists.
That would be like insuring your car after you crash it. Medical insurance is no different.

except that i choose to purchase insurance even though i usually don't need it. i have done this my entire adult life, but it has been a choice. i can opt out. state run medicine... you can't opt out.

Originally Posted by Bruno

so how exactly would you lose by switching to mine?
You'd come out ahead, just like everyone else.

I'd be giving up a measure of my personal freedom. I realize that security is more important to some people than liberty, but I'm not one of them. I want the freedom of a government that nannies me as little as possible. armies are one thing... that the gov't manages them is non-optimal, but I will agree it is a necessary evil. after all, a country is a country geographically... you need to defend the entire thing, hence a national military. there are many examples of successful private-sector (toll) roads where I live, and there are also private sector, pay as you go libraries. (bookstores) you list these examples as supportive, but I don't care for them either. additionally, (here at least) most roads and libraries are state, city or county managed, and not federally managed. this is a huge difference.

as an aside, I have anecdotal evidence that gov't managed healthcare in it's current form (medicare, medicaid) is vastly inferior to private healthcare purchases. that's the great thing about the private sector... if you are willing to pay more, you can usually get something better. (less wait time, nicer doctor, better medicines, etc.) I like being able to buy healthcare from an excellent doctor in a clean office than have to go to the slum clinics downtown where medicaid subscribers have to go.

Originally Posted by ScottS

So, who would you say is paying for the emergency care of the indigent in the US RIGHT NOW?? The US taxpayer along with health insurance customers!! Many believe its cheaper to stop making believe we're not paying for this, and to buy these folks the proper preventative care.

I am paying for the care of these non-contributing members of society, that is true, it is also true that I am only doing so under great duress and the treat of imprisonment.

If given the option of handing this part of my wealth over to the government I would not do so. I feel there are far more deserving people out there than those whom the government in its folly would chose to help. For instance a gentleman in my church needed help after a medical emergency in his family I CHOSE to help him out he contributes to my community and I value what he offers enough that when in need he received what I could afford to give.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Governmental spending by definition is for the public interest, and you are forced to pay taxes. this is no different.
Btw the irresponsibility card is a straw man argument. Yes there are cases where someone irresponsible ends up costing money. But contrary to what you think, that is not the majority of the cases.

I take issue with this statement.

It should read:

Government spending should be for the public interest.

There are innumerable examples where governments spend money only for its own aggrandizement, or for the specific interests of individuals without considering the interests of the public at all. We won't even bring the inefficiency argument into it.

Originally Posted by jockeys

additionally, (here at least) most roads and libraries are state, city or county managed, and not federally managed. this is a huge difference.

Sorry for the OT, but I don't understand.
How is state government any different from federal government?
I mean, I understand the difference, but why would state managed be much better than federally managed?