Because having the opportunity to “work your butt off to make a fortune” is a privilege. Sounds weird but its a basic fact. Most systems reproduce inequality. Meaning that children of families who do not have an academic background, have a lower income or simply migrated from a foreign country do not have the same chances in life as a child from a white academic family. If everybody would start from the same point, had the same chances and opportunities to make the most out of his life, then we could talk about the “why should everyone else be entitled to my stuff” question.
2 Likes
Solidarity is not a pipe dream. Countries with the highest population with a real universal healthcare system are probably germany (82 million) and japan (125 million people). Still, you think somebody should die because he cant afford treatment although it exists and would cure him?
The question behind this statement is one of the fundamental questions of political theory aswell as economic theory. Theres no right or wrong here. I have a different opinion but this is probably based on my euro-centric way of looking at things.
1 Like
I’m not sure that its necessarily obvious that people are entitled to anything other than what they can get themselves through moral means, without being deliberately infringed upon by another or infringing upon another.
If i want to lay on the ground in the woods all day and not raise a hand to hunt, gather, build shelter or drink water, why is it incumbent on the nearby village to make all of these things for me? I have decided not to take care of myself.
Now, if I’m trying to hunt and get water and others are actually preventing me from doing so, thats another situation.
As it is, in the US, nothing is stopping anyone from moving to my parents rural town in the midwest where they can get a job for $20 an hour in a county where rent is $300 a month and a modest home costs $45,000. People choose to stay in expensive places and not seek out these jobs ans locations. We have 2 million open jobs at this very moment.
I think that the likes of Jeff Bezos should want to give away his fortune, but to compel him at gunpoint (taxes) to give away money is no morally better than a thief in the street.
2 Likes
I am saying this without looking up any actual data but I would guess that the difference between the wealthiest and the poorest in those countries is substantially smaller than a country as large as the United States.
People don’t have a problem paying into a program like universal healthcare when they also benefit from it to a degree that is more consistent across the entire population.
Imagine if the concept of countries did not exist and the entire world was one united society. Universal healthcare would not be feasible.
And if someone comes from those low places, and still manages to make that fortune, then apparently that still applies, even despite the lower opportunity.
I’m all for helping those that are less fortunate, however I would much rather be able to have my own autonomy while deciding who it is that I help, rather than just having it be a requirement from the government.
Along those lines, there are a lot of people that have had an opportunity like I have, and they chose NOT to take that opportunity. I’m expected to pay for them too?
Sure if someone had an unequal opportunity, but what if they did? Why am I required to take care of the person that decided to not take that opportunity?
I’ll also point out that there was a country that tried a system like this(I think it was canada), however the tax rate went to somewhere around 90%. As a result nobody worked because, why would you if you only get to keep 10% of what you work for? Better to just live off of the pension you already get. It caused a crisis.
1 Like
I don’t want to get involved in the normal basement discussions but I just want to weigh in a bit here.
When it comes to healthcare the cost to get it is extreme for anyone on a low wage. I’m not talking the unemployed or people who haven’t worked hard, just people who have chosen a career that doesn’t get them lots of money. These people may have worked just as hard as others but not got as much money for it… so how fair is it to say they must poor their life savings into extending their life, maybe taking away from the money that was meant for the next generation when for others it is easily affordable or covered by the company they work for? None of us know what health issues we will get later in life and in a modern, developed society it shouldn’t be a huge factor that drives people to disregard low paying careers in the pursuit of money.
The point of universal healthcare, I feel, is not to take money away from the wealthy to people who’ve worked less but to ensure that in such a developed country there is a good standard of living for everyone. With smaller life expenses I can understand why people could get annoyed with taxes but for healthcare that can literally ruin low wage families. Whether it works in practice as I say or it’s actually just abused by a lot of unemployed people that spend their lives consuming and excess of food, alcohol and other substances then needing huge healthcare expenses I can’t say for sure. However, I think in developed countries it’s the kind of thing which should be properly considered and put into practice to some extent.
I come from the UK where we have a universal healthcare system. However, it’s not like you can just get anything done for free. If you get a problem then yes it will be covered, most likely. Small issues will not be and waiting lists for particular things can mean that private healthcare is the route to take for those. Its efficiency is always a bit topic of conversation here, but I am personally happy that we have it.
An example of where it’s good…
Just 3 months ago I suddenly got Appendicitis. Luckily, the infection was only small and my body fought it off. However, it’s the type of thing which must be operated on within 24 hours otherwise you will likely die. I just looked up the cost in the US and according to Google the average cost is $33,000. As a young man recently out from studying how am I meant to afford that all of a sudden? My parents?? Well, what if my parents are suffering from things or we have cancer in the family that my parents are already supporting so they don’t have the money? A young, healthy man like myself suddenly dying from a common infection (1 in 20 people get it) that’s a very easy procedure for a doctor to do in under 30 minutes. I would be so mad if I heard of that happening to anyone.
Screw you KD and Xyz! (I just wanted to bring this thread back to its roots 
)
I can agree that the price of health care is frankly ridiculous. In the US companies have a charter that they don’t have to share with anyone. Customers only have access to the final number that the company says that they owe.
We actually have no idea how much each part of an operation costs. They could just add on some fee somewhere just because they want to and we would be none the wiser.
Yeah it costs 33k in order to get an operation. However we have no idea the profit ratio on that number, that’s the main problem. I agree, 30 minute operation that isn’t hard. The 33k from that, we have no idea if that’a a legit 33k we have to pay or not.
The answer isn’t “universal health care”, it’s “subject hospitals to the open market where they have to compete for customers.”.
I’ll also point out that that was their choice. They chose to go into that less well paying field, and as such have chosen to deal with the risks that go with it as well.
No please sit down on a bean bag, puff the hookah and stay a while!
In the US our healthcare costs are inflated by a number of factors.
-
As Zard mentioned, our hospitals charge outrageous unsubstantiated mystery charges. We talking like $100 for a dose of advil ($3 for 100 doses at the local market). These charges are deliberately inflated, however, and you can easily reduce them by making minimum interest free medical payments for a year and then buying out the remaining debt for 40%. For example my wife broke her foot. The hospital wanted 850 bucks after insurance. We set up $70 a month interest free payment. A few months later the hospital said if we send a check for 300 the remaining would be wiped…
-
Insurance is regulated by our government with loss ratios. Buckle up kids cuz you’re going on a nerd journey. All insurance companies are limited in how much money they are allowed to make on a state by state level. Some states allow them to make more than others. Basically it breaks down that for every dollar they take from you in monthly payments, they have to spend at least 60-75% of that in administration, claims, marketing, etc. For life insurance and property and casualty its a good thing. These mortality tables are simpler, larger, and predictable (car insurance is getting worse tho). Basically the mortality tables dictate the insurance company cant screw you and make too much money on your payment. But in the cloudy surreptitious world of medical care where the costs are made up and the lives dont matter, the hospitals can charge as much as they want to the insurance company, who just adjusts premiums to maintain their government mandated maximum acceptable profit. So, for those with insurance, a $100 advil is no big deal. The insurance company pays it and jacks the premium on the back end. For those without insurance, they get that inflated $100 advil bill and its crushing.
-
We also have an insane level of red tape to get a drug to market. It costs millions to get an idea developed. 10s of millions to gain approval for clinical trials. And billions to complete those clinical trials. With so much FDA regulation it ends up costing big pharma so much to get a drug to market that they have to charge stupid money to make it worth their while.
TL;DR government regulations makes it all worse.
And yes. If i wanna be a professional potato painter thats my choice… and a bad one lol
1 Like
You guys are too serious with this, the government doesnt care 
1 Like
Well for once I found truth on the internet.
“solidarity is nice in theory”
“If Entire world was one united society”
Tell me I’m wrong Professor Oak you have a PhD, or so you say…
I’m guessing u must be from US ? Cos only Americans talk against UHC but give one of the highest agricultural subsidies …
Think of it this way:
Imagine Ash and I go in your lab and take squirtle and charmander, leaving you with bulbasaur.
How would that make you feel, as the one who put forth the majority of the work to catch them, but only gets to reap a reward equal to everyone else?
Edit: This made me realize that this actually happened, for that I apologize. That being said I will never give you squirtle (who is now a Blastoise) back, just like people will fight you tooth and nail when you try to take away/reduce welfare programs which they benefit from.
Damn I was gonna say you both did that to me. But I guess I can get more of all that Charmander and Squirtle . So it’s not a problem.
I see your point about the non-necessity to contribute for people’s health who definitely won’t be able to reciprocate ever again. But what yah gonna do with all the extra money or where can govt use all your taxes … so it normally has to be in health sector.
Unfortunately our government puts 60% of our taxes to war, 30% of our taxes to programs we disagree with, and 15% of our taxes towards things that actually benefit us, and 10% of our taxes to servicing our debt.
Thats right, 115%. Its called the fed and its magical.
2 Likes
I wonder if Janet understands overheated economy. From.what you say , your govt must not be looking into the reality situation .
Oh they see it just fine.
The magic of it all is that we can keep printing money and we just export the inflation via oil markets and war. Its called Modern Money Theory.
Its a terrible corrupt ingenious system.
Now will you please hold my big mac while I grab another beer.