[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by blu tack)
So do you think no one should pay taxes? You could make this argument for anything - 'Why should I have a duty to pay for education (through my taxes) when I dont have kids', 'Why should I have a duty to pay for the military when I don't support the war'.

I find it gross that people would deny others the right to healthcare based on ability to pay, when no one is going bankrupt over paying for others' healthcare and it just comes out of our taxes.

Yes, I am completely against taxation because I believe in the non-coercive axiom.

[coastbeats]

(Original post by Aramiss18)
According to whom? Most of Europe and all developed nations provide healthcare for their citizens. Except the US which prefers to keep good company with the likes of Libya, Brazil and Russia.

source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Un...ealth_care.svg

They aren't free market - more like Keynesian communism. They also probably have budget deficits 10 times larger than their Real GDP.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by Fusion)
We're discussing the allocation of healthcare so I'm making a comparison between two different systems in developed and fairly culturally similar nations.

Who would support a system that cost nearly double for LESS? (assuming similar performance indicators which isn't true). That's blind idealism over pragmatism. Obama was voted in to change their healthcare system.

If you think the US healthcare system is in any way a part of a free market, you know hardly anything about it.

Google medicare and medicaid.

[in_jeopardy]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
I do - but I believe this is only a duty of non-interference. A duty to leave people to their own devices. A duty to allow people to make their own choices about what they buy, what they do and what they want in life.

This is incompatible with taxation spent on things like healthcare, in my view.

You imply then that people are making a choice to die should helthcare be withheld from them, so poor people are simply ignorant and deserve their fate?

They're just worthless ne'er-do-wells, and society is better off without them?

[in_jeopardy]

(Original post by coastbeats)
They aren't free market - more like Keynesian communism. They also probably have budget deficits 10 times larger than their Real GDP.

What a load of *******s. Make real points.

[Aramiss18]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
I do - but I believe this is only a duty of non-interference. A duty to leave people to their own devices. A duty to allow people to make their own choices about what they buy, what they do and what they want in life.

This is incompatible with taxation spent on things like healthcare, in my view.

Please hear me out on this.

But in the system you advocate the poor have none of those freedoms because of the economic paradigm a free market enforces. The poor are forced to live a life of wage-slavery because they have no freedom to grow their own food or build their own house etc etc because everything is owned by someone else.

In order for this to work you must equalise opportunity and that is why some things like healthcare and education must be implemented by the state. Their has to be a compromise. In order for this to happen their must be tax. An overbearing Stalinist state is no more restricting than an overbearing free-market.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by in_jeopardy)
You imply then that people are making a choice to die should helthcare be withheld from them, so poor people are simply ignorant and deserve their fate?

They're just worthless ne'er-do-wells, and society is better off without them?

Er, no, I imply that people shouldn't be compelled to pay for healthcare.

I don't decide my beliefs by looking at end results - I decide them by abiding by principles I believe to be right, and I consider the right to be free from the application of force (id est to not bethreatened with imprisonment for non-payment of taxes) to be inviolable so long as the non-coercive axiom is satisfied.

[Cable]

(Original post by in_jeopardy)
You imply then that people are making a choice to die should helthcare be withheld from them, so poor people are simply ignorant and deserve their fate?

They're just worthless ne'er-do-wells, and society is better off without them?

Oh, don't be so overdramatic. I'm sure loads of people want a BMW M5. Yet if they can't afford it, then they can't buy it. End of.

Likewise, if you cannot directly afford healthcare for life/death situation, then yes the person will have to die.

But that's unlikely to happen or will only happen on few occasions. Why? Because the prices will be as cheap as possible due to competition. If someone struggles to afford the price, they can ask relatives/friends/neighbours to help them out and chip in some money. If this isn't convenient, then charities can help them out.

[in_jeopardy]

(Original post by Aramiss18)
Please hear me out on this.

But in the system you advocate the poor have none of those freedoms because of the economic paradigm a free market enforces. The poor are forced to live a life of wage-slavery because they have no freedom to grow their own food or build their own house etc etc because everything is owned by someone else.

In order for this to work you must equalise opportunity and that is why some things like healthcare and education must be implemented by the state. Their has to be a compromise. In order for this to happen their must be tax. An overbearing Stalinist state is no more restricting than an overbearing free-market.

Stop saying everything I say but better >_>

[coastbeats]

(Original post by in_jeopardy)
What a load of *******s. Make real points.

Go join the green party and start protesting about how life isn't fair because some people worked to be successful.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by Aramiss18)
Please hear me out on this.

But in the system you advocate the poor have none of those freedoms because of the economic paradigm a free market enforces. The poor are forced to live a life of wage-slavery because they have no freedom to grow their own food or build their own house etc etc because everything is owned by someone else.

In order for this to work you must equalise opportunity and that is why some things like healthcare and education must be implemented by the state. Their has to be a compromise. In order for this to happen their must be tax. An overbearing Stalinist state is no more restricting than an overbearing free-market.

I don't agree with you, I'm afraid.

I don't think the poor are poor because of some sort of oppression; they're poor because they are unskilled or unable to compete in a free market. I think it's right that people that have talents, skills and abilities are free to thrive and I don't think those people should be unfairly burdened by having to support that those that aren't.

[in_jeopardy]

(Original post by Cable)
Oh, don't be so overdramatic. I'm sure loads of people want a BMW M5. Yet if they can't afford it, then they can't buy it. End of.

Likewise, if you cannot directly afford healthcare for life/death situation, then yes the person will have to die.

But that's unlikely to happen or will only happen on few occasions. Why? Because the prices will be as cheap as possible due to competition. If someone struggles to afford the price, they can ask relatives/friends/neighbours to help them out and chip in some money. If this isn't convenient, then charities can help them out.

So to get rid of the nececity of people relying on other people for heathcare, they should... rely on other people?

Wonderful.

[blu tack]

(Original post by Cable)
Oh, don't be so overdramatic. I'm sure loads of people want a BMW M5. Yet if they can't afford it, then they can't buy it. End of.

Likewise, if you cannot directly afford healthcare for life/death situation, then yes the person will have to die.

But that's unlikely to happen or will only happen on few occasions. Why? Because the prices will be as cheap as possible due to competition. If someone struggles to afford the price, they can ask relatives/friends/neighbours to help them out and chip in some money. If this isn't convenient, then charities can help them out.

My God, that's naive, and an all round horribly immoral position.

[LETSJaM]

(Original post by Cable)
But the US healthcare isn't free market or close to free market. I has huge amounts of gov't interference (e.g. Medicare and Medicaid). These are paid by taxes.

Yeah, but in the UK if you're dirt poor you don't have to worry about shelling out tens of thousands for an operation that you desperately need.

<3 x

[in_jeopardy]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
I don't agree with you, I'm afraid.

I don't think the poor are poor because of some sort of oppression; they're poor because they are unskilled or unable to compete in a free market. I think it's right that people that have talents, skills and abilities are free to thrive and I don't think those people should be unfairly burdened by having to support that those that aren't.

Yes, the burden of taxation is keeping people poor, they jsut need to be free to realise their potential.

We can have a wonderful system where everyone earns more than everyone else, and everything is avaliable to everyone by magic.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by LETSJaM)
Yeah, but in the UK if you're dirt poor you don't have to worry about shelling out tens of thousands for an operation that you desperately need.

<3 x

So?

It's not fair to force someone else to pay for something simply because you can't afford it.

I wouldn't rob my neighbour because I wanted X good/service that I couldn't afford.

[Fusion]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
If you think the US healthcare system is in any way a part of a free market, you know hardly anything about it.

Google medicare and medicaid.

US healthcare is much much more free market driven than the UK.....

[blu tack]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
I don't agree with you, I'm afraid.

I don't think the poor are poor because of some sort of oppression; they're poor because they are unskilled or unable to compete in a free market. I think it's right that people that have talents, skills and abilities are free to thrive and I don't think those people should be unfairly burdened by having to support that those that aren't.

Not everyone has the same opportunities to succeed, simply by an accident of birth. It's ridiculously naive to say that everyone has the same chances in life and therefore if you don't succeed (read: have money) then it's all your fault.

It makes me legitimately sad to see that people believe this, and use it to justify allowing people to die because they don't have money. I honestly can't comprehend how anyone can think that's okay.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by in_jeopardy)
Yes, the burden of taxation is keeping people poor, they jsut need to be free to realise their potential.

We can have a wonderful system where everyone earns more than everyone else, and everything is avaliable to everyone by magic.

I don't think everyone has the right to what they want. They've got the right to ask for it, but if someone doesn't want to provide it, they can't have it.

I think of it this way; I have the right to go to Tesco and try to buy a steak. But if Tesco don't want me in their shop, I no longer have the right to go to Tesco. I no longer have the right to buy a steak.

People have the negative right to all goods and services, but nobody can rightfully be bound to provide them to someone.

[coastbeats]

(Original post by in_jeopardy)
So to get rid of the nececity of people relying on other people for heathcare, they should... rely on other people?

Wonderful.

I think you've misunderstood the person's argument. Treat healthcare as a good, a product like an ipod nano. Try and forget the results of having that good but why it should be provided by the government. Are you going to say that governments should provide ipods to people because if they don't have one they will not be happy or receive the positive affects an ipod could give.

It's flawed to state the affects of NOT providing something for someone. Healthcare, unlike ipods, is a sensitive case and so people think that they can change the argument as a result.