Re: O.T. Fast Food Bans:

Stephen Farrow wrote:
Briarroot wrote:
Stephen Farrow wrote:
Briarroot wrote:
Stephen Farrow wrote:

I just find it somewhat amusing that most of the invective against state-funded universal healthcare in this thread comes from people who have never actually experienced living with it for themselves, and therefore don't know how it works on a day-to-day level.


Amusing? How it works?


Tell me if I've got it wrong: your taxes pay for your neighbor's medical needs and his pay for yours.

Yes. It's called living in a civilised society. There is such a thing as social responsibility


I heartily agree, but "social responsibility" should *never* be enforced by governments. Charity ceases to be an act of compassion when it is coerced by force of arms. That's what governments do - use force to accomplish their goals. That's what they're good at and that's what they are supposed to do, but they are *not* supposed to apply force to social issues.

I think that when people abdicate their responsibilities to themselves and their fellows and place those responsibilities in the hands of governments, what they are really doing is saying: "we don't want to do this, *you* do it!" They don't seem to understand that by this act they not only surrender some of their responsibilities, they also lose some of their liberties.


- and personally I am more than happy to pay for
it (and I'm very happy with the level of medical care members of my family receive from the NHS).


This is revealing. What I observe is: you are getting health care services now that you think you could not have afforded without government intervention.

Wrong.

You are "happy to pay" the increased tax burden because you evidently feel the health care you're receiving is worth more than the increased taxes you're paying.

Wrong.

I mean, if you felt the reverse were true, you would be unhappy. The logical conclusion is that someone else in the system *is* unhappy for the very reason that they feel they are paying more in increased taxes than *their* medical care is actually worth.

Wrong.


LOL!

My, what convincing logic! Such illuminating arguments! I can see you really *know* what you're talking about. <chuckle!>

In all seriousness, let's play with your first assertion for a bit. You claim that since I haven't lived under a National Health care System, I can't possibly have any idea what it might be like; but let's turn the argument around. Since I *have* lived under a free-enterprise based health care system I know what that's like, and I approve of it. To parallel what you said about your system, I'm happy paying for my own medical needs and I wouldn't want to change simply because some people can't afford the level of care that I can. Some people haven't worked as hard as I have nor have been as frugal as I have. I deserve my level of medical care because I *earned* it. There are many who are wealthier than I am but I don't begrudge them their ability to spend more than I on <whatever>; that would be both foolish and selfish of me. Those who wish to take from me what I have earned because they have not exercised equal diligence *are* being both foolish and selfish, and the politicians who buy their votes by promising to give them some of the fruits of my labor are as guilty of theft as if they had actually held me up at gunpoint - for that is precisely what taxation is. That is the fundamental flaw in Socialism, it can only be achieved by force.

If you're willing to settle for the chimera of 'free' health care, why not the more essential needs of human existence? Why not food, shelter and clothing as well? Why just medical care? Not everyone can afford the level of housing you enjoy, why don't you volunteer to pay higher taxes so your neighbors can all be equally well housed? Not everyone can afford a reliable automobile, why don't you campaign to raise taxes so you can all have nice cars? Not everyone is as wise as you are when it comes to lifestyle choices, why *not* work toward banning junk food and risky sports? After all, everyone will benefit, right? If the law works to make everyone healthier and safer, then why not?

Now let's address my previous question. Your childish refusal to answer me notwithstanding, your NHS is paid for by taxation. If it did not exist, your taxes would be lower. You say that you are happy about his state of affairs which leads me to one of the following conclusion:

A) You think the extra taxes you're paying for NHS are *less* than you would be paying if you purchased medical services in the private sector; or

B) You think the extra taxes you're paying for NHS are *more* than you would be paying if you purchased medical services in the private sector; or

C) You think the extra taxes you're paying for NHS are about equivalent to what you would be paying if you purchased medical services in the private sector; or

D) You don't really know or care one way or another.


In any case, your circular logic: "unless you have personal experience of <a thing>, you can't know what it's like" is a sophomoric attempt to deny the possibility of counter argument, and flies in the face of experience gained from 3000 years of Western civilization.

Regards,

Tim Parker ... McClelland's Royal Cajun Special in a basket billiard


--
"Man will always be Man. We tried so hard to create a society that was equal, where there'd be nothing to envy your neighbor. But there's always something to envy: a smile; a friendship; something you don't have and want to appropriate. In this world, even a Soviet one, there will always be rich and poor; rich in gifts - poor in gifts, rich in love - poor in love." - Comrade Commissar Danilov in "Enemy at the Gates"
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: tea and ignorance
    ... are considered more patriotic than grousing about paying up. ... That encompasses all federal taxes, ... of it goes toward defense programs and health expenditures, ... Security, Medicare, Medicaid and insurance for children whose parents ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: OT: Michael Moore video
    ... ain't paying for it. ... their health insurance, their employer is paying for it. ... competition cuz the customer does not care how much doctor A charges, ...
    (rec.arts.theatre.musicals)
  • Re: Spilled milk and OT: The US Mail.
    ... know it has to be paid for either by taxes or directly. ... just the rich paying for the poor. ... good health and thus not "need" insurance. ...
    (rec.food.cooking)
  • Re: Spilled milk and OT: The US Mail.
    ... know it has to be paid for either by taxes or directly. ... just the rich paying for the poor. ... good health and thus not "need" insurance. ...
    (rec.food.cooking)
  • Re: What do you think of Hilarys "American Health Choices Plan"?
    ... idea, Don't care ... I don't want to be paying for someone else insurance since I already ... have health insurance. ...
    (soc.retirement)
Loading