Should people without health insurance, etc. be allowed to die?

[Quetzlsacatanango]

@ HeyYou

 

I hate to break it to you dude, but Katrina wasn't handled by FEMA at all. I guess this isn't quite off topic, since FEMA is kind of like a universal disaster insurance for those who choose to live in areas at risk of natural disasters. But as for a single charity that could have helped, that's a tall order. Of course there is the National Guard that would have been able to assist, (not a charity, but better than FEMA.) I forget the exact number of new trailers that were donated, a pretty large number, that were completely refused because they didn't meet some arbitrary FEMA standards. That organization gets in the way of help getting to disaster victims, and they're also broke. Additionally, asking for one charity that could have fixed Katrina is an unrealistic thing to ask for. It would be several charities, several churches, several volunteers from several nearby communities that would be a part of the massive effort.The real question that should be asked is why we think that the government should be charged with the task of taming mother nature so that we can live in high risk areas?

Also, who's to say what Quetz does or does not care about where his money goes. This isn't a debate about subsidies or our terrible foreign policy, this is a debate about UHC.

 

Word. If you care to start threads on those subjects you will probably find I am against all those things.

[kvnchrist]

 

 

 

 

That is the preparation I spoke of in my very first post. If and when the day comes that I need help that I can't afford I certainly won't expect you or someone else who has prepared better than I to pick up the bill.

 

 

I've found that people can't be judged by what they do or say when they are on top of the world, but when their world has spiraled out of control, their true character is revealed. Say what you will today, but tomorrow is just around the corner

[HeyYou]

@ HeyYou

 

I hate to break it to you dude, but Katrina wasn't handled by FEMA at all. I guess this isn't quite off topic, since FEMA is kind of like a universal disaster insurance for those who choose to live in areas at risk of natural disasters. But as for a single charity that could have helped, that's a tall order. Of course there is the National Guard that would have been able to assist, (not a charity, but better than FEMA.) I forget the exact number of new trailers that were donated, a pretty large number, that were completely refused because they didn't meet some arbitrary FEMA standards. That organization gets in the way of help getting to disaster victims, and they're also broke. Additionally, asking for one charity that could have fixed Katrina is an unrealistic thing to ask for. It would be several charities, several churches, several volunteers from several nearby communities that would be a part of the massive effort.The real question that should be asked is why we think that the government should be charged with the task of taming mother nature so that we can live in high risk areas?

Also, who's to say what Quetz does or does not care about where his money goes. This isn't a debate about subsidies or our terrible foreign policy, this is a debate about UHC.

 

you could leave off the "insurance" part about fema, and have a more accurate description of it. :D Your tax dollars go there as well.

 

Gotta hint for ya, there ISN'T any single charity, or even a collection of them, that would have the finances to help the victims of even one large scale natural disaster. If the government doesn't get involved, they are on their own.

 

National guard is ALSO paid for by your tax dollars.

 

The question on where else your tax dollars goes follows directly on your 'redistribution of wealth' theme. "Your money" is going to causes that you do not support. Similar in that vein to UHC.

 

The government is in no way going to be able to 'tame' mother nature. That just ain't gonna happen. Now, just WHY they spend billions of dollars to enable folks to live in areas that really shouldn't be populated by humans at all...... well, that's another topic entirely. Long list of cities built in places that they just shouldn't be in..... and we have seen very nice demonstrations as to why.... but, we still spend billions rebuilding them each time.

 

The idea of government, and how they spend tax money, is to give the most benefit, for the most people, at the lowest cost. How is UHC NOT a HUGE benefit to our society as a whole?

[marharth]

It is quite INvalid.

When cops are hired, I get something for my money. Response to calls, a more orderly society, etc. I think it could be done differently,but that is another subject for another thread.

What do I get for my money when Aunt Nelly gets that new liver she can't afford on her own?

When you pay for UHC, you get something from your money as well. Less disease, more people able to work, a system that will ensure you are taken care of if you get sick.

 

Are you saying a UHC system won't benefit you in any way? Seriously?

 

Also hate to break it to you, but charity can not be relied on to save your life.

[Sepherose]

I'll put it this way: As soon as someone brought up the idea of taxation being theft, this whole thread switched rails, so now, other examples of your tax money being spent without your consent are perfectly reasonable to make. Quetz, it IS a valid point to bring up a comparison to police and UHC if, for example, a nasty disease popped up that is usually quite preventable and became a nasty contagion due to lack of health care for someone that caught it first. Take spinal meningitis for example. There are two forms, bacterial and viral. Viral our bodies can actually fight off, the bacterial form requires that you get antibiotics, and both are highly contagious. So yes, you do get something for your money in that particular situation, you just don't see it readily.

 

EDIT: I almost forgot, there is the Black Plague as well. And before you attempt to say that it wouldn't be possible for it to show up again, we had about a dozen cases on our coast over this last year. If it can show up like that and no one really knows how, I'd much rather have UHC in place than the mindset of "Well, you don't have insurance, no medicine for you!".

Edited September 19, 2011 by Sepherose

[Quetzlsacatanango]

It is quite INvalid.

When cops are hired, I get something for my money. Response to calls, a more orderly society, etc. I think it could be done differently,but that is another subject for another thread.

What do I get for my money when Aunt Nelly gets that new liver she can't afford on her own?

When you pay for UHC, you get something from your money as well. Less disease, more people able to work, a system that will ensure you are taken care of if you get sick.

 

Are you saying a UHC system won't benefit you in any way? Seriously?

Seriously. I already have insurance, which I pay for, through my job which I chose to take as it had health insurance as an employment benefit.

Also hate to break it to you, but charity can not be relied on to save your life.

Then why are you arguing for it? That's what UHC is- charity. It's just "charity by force" instead of through voluntary contribution. If you are receiving subsidized health care, you are receiving charity, period.

 

I'll put it this way: As soon as someone brought up the idea of taxation being theft, this whole thread switched rails, so now, other examples of your tax money being spent without your consent

Never said any such thing. Nowhere in this thread have I ever mentioned an issue with how taxes are spent. My issue is with how they are collected - involuntarily. You guys keep repeating that "you don't like how your taxes are spent", like you are hoping that repetition will turn it into what I said, but it will never be so. That would truly be a fruitless argument.

are perfectly reasonable to make. Quetz, it IS a valid point to bring up a comparison to police and UHC

 

Reasonable to make is not the same as an apt analogy. Local police departments supported through tax dollars (you choose to live there. in this hypothetical libertarian utopia, there would also be areas you could live that didn't have public police), are in no way analogous to socialized medicine that I have to be dead to escape. I say dead instead of left the country because the IRS seems to make no distinction these days. And if it comes to it that you have to give up your US citizenship in order to escape the long gaze of Big Brother, then the US as it was founded is already gone anyway.

[marharth]

 

Then why are you arguing for it? That's what UHC is- charity. It's just "charity by force" instead of through voluntary contribution. If you are receiving subsidized health care, you are receiving charity, period.

 

Seriously. I already have insurance, which I pay for, through my job which I chose to take as it had health insurance as an employment benefit.

 

Never said any such thing. Nowhere in this thread have I ever mentioned an issue with how taxes are spent. My issue is with how they are collected - involuntarily. You guys keep repeating that "you don't like how your taxes are spent", like you are hoping that repetition will turn it into what I said, but it will never be so. That would truly be a fruitless argument.

UHC is not charity. Charity chooses who they help and who they do not help. That's not how UHC works. The problem with charity is they can not be relied on to help everyone.

 

What if there is a illness you get due to others without insurance coming into contact with you? Your private insurance company could help you, yes. But it could be completely preventable.

 

Government can not run if people choose to pay taxes or not.

[HeyYou]

On Tax collection: The 16th amendment says:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:

 

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises...but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States...

 

So, congress has the power to collect taxes, nowhere does it say that you have the right to say where they are spent. Aside from your elected representative, that's it. So, this particular bit of text says that tax collection is perfectly legal, congress has a constitutional RIGHT to collect it.

 

 

 

[Quetzlsacatanango]

 

Then why are you arguing for it? That's what UHC is- charity. It's just "charity by force" instead of through voluntary contribution. If you are receiving subsidized health care, you are receiving charity, period.

 

Seriously. I already have insurance, which I pay for, through my job which I chose to take as it had health insurance as an employment benefit.

 

Never said any such thing. Nowhere in this thread have I ever mentioned an issue with how taxes are spent. My issue is with how they are collected - involuntarily. You guys keep repeating that "you don't like how your taxes are spent", like you are hoping that repetition will turn it into what I said, but it will never be so. That would truly be a fruitless argument.

UHC is not charity. Charity chooses who they help and who they do not help. That's not how UHC works. The problem with charity is they can not be relied on to help everyone.

Yes, it is. It's a handout managed by the governmentm.

 

What if there is a illness you get due to others without insurance coming into contact with you? Your private insurance company could help you, yes. But it could be completely preventable.

 

Government can not run if people choose to pay taxes or not.

It couldn't run like it does today. Argue with me that that would be a bad thing.

 

On Tax collection: The 16th amendment says:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:

 

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises...but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States...

 

So, congress has the power to collect taxes, nowhere does it say that you have the right to say where they are spent. Aside from your elected representative, that's it. So, this particular bit of text says that tax collection is perfectly legal, congress has a constitutional RIGHT to collect it.

 

Never said it was illegal, though many people make a good case that the income tax is unconstitutional. I said it's immoral, which has nothing to do with the law. Congress doesn't have rights, period. It has powers. Powers and rights are obviously not the same thing.

Again, I NEVER said anything about how the money is spent, only how it's collected. Sheesh I wonder why I bother posting, no one reads.

[Sepherose]

Never said it was illegal, though many people make a good case that the income tax is unconstitutional. I said it's immoral, which has nothing to do with the law. Congress doesn't have rights, period. It has powers. Powers and rights are obviously not the same thing.

Again, I NEVER said anything about how the money is spent, only how it's collected. Sheesh I wonder why I bother posting, no one reads.

 

I beg to differ with this:

 

I am not against safety nets in principle. I am against being forced to pay for them. They should be financed through private charities. If the charities aren't able to support them, it is a pretty good indication that it is not an important issue to the public.

 

So you think stealing from others to pay for things you can't afford is ok?

 

I agree that some people need help. There are charities for that. If I want to help them, I will donate, by choice, to the charity that helps them. There is no way I should be responsible for giving money to some faceless stranger that for whatever reason can't take care of themselves.

 

I see no reason why I should be forced to give you my money because you made poor decisions.

 

The very idea that a stupid person has a right to a certain standard of living, involuntarily subsidized by those less stupid, quite literally makes me want to puke.

 

All of these were in the context of talking about taxes and how they are spent. All of these quotes indicate you do in fact have a problem with how they are spent, and one indicates that it is theft, ergo, illegal in your eyes. The last quote of yours I find particularly disturbing. It is essentially saying that anyone who can't contribute and those who don't contribute, fall into the same category. I agree that if one refuses to contribute there should be something done about it, but if one is incapable due to mental or physical defect, they should not be forced to live in the refuse. A certain quality of living is our right as human beings, the US government touts this routinely, as do many other nations. UHC would be a step towards that, and it could greatly improve quality of life for many by more easily controlling the spread of pathogens through the population. If funding for war were cut, a portion of that could easily go to paying for a UHC system. There have been many tax paying Americans that have spoken out against their taxes being spent on war, is your argument any more valid than theirs? There have also been many tax paying Americans that have wanted a UHC system, but their argument is no less valid than yours. A middle ground needs to be struck in a situation like this, and too many people are looking at it in black and white, when it is a much more complicated issue than that.

 

Also, this is fairly interesting.

 

I'm pretty sure UHC would be cheaper.