Universal Healthcare? Can it work? I'm doubtful...

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While this would happen probably, it still would require me to pay for national healthcare (which I wouldnt use) and then for my own private care. Like you said, like public/private schools.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. But we do this for just about everything the govt provides -- none of it is user-based. So why the outrage when it comes to health care, and such less outrage for other govt spending?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because everything else is already in place, and people are much more resistant to a change than to an existing discomfort.

[MiloMinderbinder]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Better for whom?

A lot of people who *aren't* wealthy can get "Advanced" care today, and probably couldn't under a (more) nationalized/socialized system.

If you don't think enough people are getting minimum care, you can always donate to a clinic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why can't a person who gets care today get care if a national system is in place? Will there be so little demand for private medical care? Seems as though there are lots of private schools and the ability to start your own school if you want. Not that I disagree with you, your assertion just isn't obvious to me without further explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course their will be private alternatives, even if they are black market ones. The point is, though, that government intervention will so massively distort the market that private alternatives are likely to be prohibitively expensive for most people.

Imagine if the government decided to make free "average" cars available. Something like a honda civic. Decent, but not the most extravagant thing.

Now, which car do you think will be more impacted sales-wise by this:

1) Ford Taurus

2) Mercedes S-Class.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honda Civic > Ford Taurus so everyone wins

[MiloMinderbinder]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While this would happen probably, it still would require me to pay for national healthcare (which I wouldnt use) and then for my own private care. Like you said, like public/private schools.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. But we do this for just about everything the govt provides -- none of it is user-based. So why the outrage when it comes to health care, and such less outrage for other govt spending?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because everything else is already in place, and people are much more resistant to a change than to an existing discomfort.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not a very good argument then. So if the govt has 15 major "socialist" programs, then come #16 -- "ZOMG! SOCIALISM!1! SLAVERY!!!111!!!"

And you wonder why people start to tune these types of responses out? And why they do little to advance an intellectually honest, open debate?

[owsley]

You just said people shouldn't criticize the state because its been wrong so many times before. Wow.

[MiloMinderbinder]

[ QUOTE ]
You just said people shouldn't criticize the state because its been wrong so many times before. Wow.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I didn't. I said people should be consistent. I'm for an AC society and against most everything the state does. My previous posts in this thread were directed at those on the right who scream about Universal Health Care but are silent about Universal Drug Enforcement, Universal Park Caretakers, Universal Road Builders, Universal War Machine, Universal Savings & Loan, Universal Drug Testing, and the myriad of other "universal" socialist programs that are supported by right wing leaders, pundits, and posters. Why pvn came to their defense is his own business.

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Imagine if the government decided to make free "average" cars available. Something like a honda civic. Decent, but not the most extravagant thing.

Now, which car do you think will be more impacted sales-wise by this:

1) Ford Taurus

2) Mercedes S-Class.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honda Civic > Ford Taurus so everyone wins

[/ QUOTE ]

The government wouldn't provide cars. Riding the bus
would be free.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While this would happen probably, it still would require me to pay for national healthcare (which I wouldnt use) and then for my own private care. Like you said, like public/private schools.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. But we do this for just about everything the govt provides -- none of it is user-based. So why the outrage when it comes to health care, and such less outrage for other govt spending?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because everything else is already in place, and people are much more resistant to a change than to an existing discomfort.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not a very good argument then. So if the govt has 15 major "socialist" programs, then come #16 -- "ZOMG! SOCIALISM!1! SLAVERY!!!111!!!"

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I agree. But that's the fact of the matter. You see it here all the time, people believe that whatever the status quo is is automatically justified by virtue of being the status quo and that anyone who disagrees automatically recieves the burden of proof. They refuse to examine the status quo for its moral legitimacy.

Andathar has been big on this weak stance lately. It's basically a corollary to might makes right. We're already here, it's up to you to convince us to leave you alone. An offshoot of this is the "work within the system for change" line. If you get beat up by a gang, you should join the gang then try to convince them to stop beating people up.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While this would happen probably, it still would require me to pay for national healthcare (which I wouldnt use) and then for my own private care. Like you said, like public/private schools.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. But we do this for just about everything the govt provides -- none of it is user-based. So why the outrage when it comes to health care, and such less outrage for other govt spending?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because everything else is already in place, and people are much more resistant to a change than to an existing discomfort.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not a very good argument then. So if the govt has 15 major "socialist" programs, then come #16 -- "ZOMG! SOCIALISM!1! SLAVERY!!!111!!!"

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I agree. But that's the fact of the matter. You see it here all the time, people believe that whatever the status quo is is automatically justified by virtue of being the status quo and that anyone who disagrees automatically recieves the burden of proof. They refuse to examine the status quo for its moral legitimacy.

Andathar has been big on this weak stance lately. It's basically a corollary to might makes right. We're already here, it's up to you to convince us to leave you alone. An offshoot of this is the "work within the system for change" line. If you get beat up by a gang, you should join the gang then try to convince them to stop beating people up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Black people should try becoming members of the Klan to try and reduce the numbers of lynchings. Rather than saying violence is wrong.

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]

Black people should try becoming members of the Klan to try and reduce the numbers of lynchings. Rather than saying violence is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude we know you think it's wrong. We disagree. There's not a lot more to discuss. Trying to turn every thread about government into a moral discussion is being like those christians who go around porn sites posting about how god hates you looking at naked women.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Black people should try becoming members of the Klan to try and reduce the numbers of lynchings. Rather than saying violence is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude we know you think it's wrong. We disagree. There's not a lot more to discuss. Trying to turn every thread about government into a moral discussion is being like those christians who go around porn sites posting about how god hates you looking at naked women.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not like that at all, since nobody here is "going around" to this site. We're already here! This isn't a "statist" site that is being invaded. Plus, repeitition works, judging from the number of posters here who have been increasingly supportive of voluntaryist views.