Our government is getting very greedy. They just take, take, take, spend, spend, spend. "Hey Joe, you go work hard, make money, but I'll take some of it, because Tim doesn't want to work. And I'll take some of it and buy some weapons." i just think it's totally wrong, and unnecessary. So I was thinking of a good alternative. Capitalism seems like the safest bet. If you want somebody to find your stolen purse, who would work harder? A police station trying to protect their reputation so they would make more business, or a police station who just wants to get back to their workout equipment, and are getting paid anyway? If you want to fund some sort of movement, go ahead, you shouldn't be FORCED to in this so called "free country." I just don't see the downside. If you lose ur job, then it'll still be easier to live because you won't have to pay taxes and you're not taking money from other hard workers. (If you don't want bills, then don't use the appliances or such) I mean, it just seems like the right way to live, where YOU are in charge of your own life. Why should these guys get to have authority over you?
If you want to help people, YOU help people. I'll help people when I can help them. I shouldn't be forced to live a ****ty life, paycheck to paycheck, because people want me to pay for their healthcare.
NoName, are you even looking at what we're saying?
It's not more expensive to have socialized healthcare. You aren't going to be forced to live a crappy life, because you'll have healthcare too. You aren't going to be paying for your own healthcare costs in addition to paying the tax for the socialized healthcare coverage...you'll just be covered by the tax.
How much do we have to show you? All of your arguments are against a strawman. We have data proving these socialized systems work, and far better than ours. You won't wait longer, you won't pay more, you won't be screwed over, and you aren't paying for anyone else's healthcare anymore than you're paying for your own already, except people who can't otherwise afford healthcare or simply weren't covered are now able to receive proper treatment. Yet you somehow keep thinking you're right by arguing that none of this is true, all because you've got some huge problem with the word socialism.
No, were they before they started? And we can always change it.
Also guys, we cannot rely on the government to provide for us. It just gives them all the more power. With a Socialist government, they force us at gunpoint to pay for other people's welfare. What the heck is up with that? I mean, we might as well be Communist.
Also guys, we cannot rely on the government to provide for us.
It's not the government providing for us, it's the government taking a pooling of resources and distributing them in the exact same fashion we build roads, fund police departments, fire stations, parks and whatever else. Insurance agencies aren't profitable except when they charge high rates or have a very large following so that the risk is lowered.
With a Socialist government, they force us at gunpoint to pay for other people's welfare. What the heck is up with that? I mean, we might as well be Communist.
It's the exact same reason for taxing with public schools. Even if you don't have kids, you pay for the school in the area. Why? So that we don't have a bunch of ignorant twerks growing up into the workforce. It improves everyone's life in the long run.
What the heck is up with people not understanding that everyone getting better healthcare for individually less is not only more sustainable, but will improve happiness, decrease crime rates, increase productivity and decrease fiscal troubles?
Oh wait, there's the word socialist in it! THEY WANT TO TAKE YOUR MONEY FOR THOSE LAZY *******S WHO WON'T WORK OR GET HIGH PAYING JOBS TO AFFORD THINGS. THEY SHOULD DIE.
I'm curious, let's say we had a completely capitalistic healthcare system where you pay your own way. What happens to those who can't? It seems this idea of not having any support is based on the concept that those who use it are just being lazy. What of the people who would truly have no other option but to receive help from others to receive healthcare or die because they couldn't pay for it even in a highly competitive field?
Also do you think such people are the minority, that most receiving benefits are just being lazy?
These people were forced to pay prices that were ridiculously raised, and I say forced because these items were those that went from desirable items to necessities.
[So we are on the same page, I am talking about those that were at the heart of Katrina]
This is why the discussion of "Free market" vs. "Moral obligation" is brought up, at that point what these people had to pay (lest they desired further suffering/death) were viewed as mere extortion by people.
Then, of course, there is the argument that although it is a free market, and those in the market may set the prices as they see fit, it was not really a "free market" on the consumer's end, since they did not have the free choice of if they wanted the item or not.
It's not more expensive to have socialized healthcare. You aren't going to be forced to live a crappy life, because you'll have healthcare too. You aren't going to be paying for your own healthcare costs in addition to paying the tax for the socialized healthcare coverage...you'll just be covered by the tax.
Wrong.
Either my employer, or myself, will have to pay for my healthcare.
My employer can't afford to pay for everyone's healthcare - therefore I'll have to pay for some of it.
Yes. I will have to pay for it.
Then, of course, there is the argument that although it is a free market, and those in the market may set the prices as they see fit, it was not really a "free market" on the consumer's end, since they did not have the free choice of if they wanted the item or not.
You can't claim lack of freedom in a market when someone can't dictate the price of something that isn't even their property.
And, as I said before, there were zero moral issues when it came to the price of goods after Katrina. You're completely ignoring supply and demand.
If the prices of goods remained the same, yet the demand went up, then people are going to buy more of said good. Since supply is limited, this means less people with end up with more of the good.
You need prices to go up. This prevents people from buying too much of said good, leaving that good for everyone else. Yes, the poor who needs said good will have to pay more money. But it's better than them obtaining no good at all - because someone else bought all the goods out due to fixed pricing.
You're already paying for it, in one way or another. If your employer is providing it, that means they're buying it for you. That money they are paying for the insurance premiums exists, it's just being re-appropriated to each individual person. No more money is being paid overall, but everyone is paying less because everyone is contributing instead of just a few.
If the prices of goods remained the same, yet the demand went up, then people are going to buy more of said good. Since supply is limited, this means less people with end up with more of the good.
Except that's not how it works in reality. Certain people have more money than others and can afford to buy more at the higher price demanded. This means people without the money are left without any to buy. A real moral fix would be rationing during an emergency, whereby everyone enough for what they need and those with lots of money can't buy it all up.
If everyone had the exact same amount of money as everyone else, then what you'd be saying would be correct. However, not everyone makes the same amount of money, and not everyone can afford what others can. When it comes to goods like healthcare, not being able to afford it literally means life or death quite often, and greatly impacts happiness/productivity. It benefits everyone, including you, to put healthcare under a socialized system where people can't take advantage of the fact that healthcare is a good you have to purchase regardless of the price.
What I described is precisely what happens. People who plan on buying in bulk have to more carefully consider how much of a good they really need.
What about the poor? Rarely are people too poor to buy what they need. And there are so many charities out there that these people are often cared for.
It's hardly an issue at all. Yes, it does cause people to spend even more, after they already lost so much. But as I said before, at least they're able to obtain goods.
And rationing doesn't work because you need to know exactly what the supply is and how many people there are who need said good. If you're not careful, you either won't allow people to obtain enough, or you allow them to obtain too much.
The master regulator is the free market! It's not perfect, but it works better than anything else out there. Pricing efficiently dictates demand, and to say it doesn't is ludicrous. Yes, some people might have so much money that higher prices won't deter them from buying in bulk - but MOST people aren't that rich. MOST people are going to weigh cost and need.
The master regulator is the free market! It's not perfect, but it works better than anything else out there. Pricing efficiently dictates demand, and to say it doesn't is ludicrous. Yes, some people might have so much money that higher prices won't deter them from buying in bulk - but MOST people aren't that rich. MOST people are going to weigh cost and need.
However, that's only true when it's voluntary to buy a good. It doesn't work out that way for everything.
For example, the fire department. Imagine if you had to pay the entire cost individually for them to come put out your house if it caught on fire. Imagine if it worked like a business - they have a number of people they're covering. In order to be profitable, their entire client base needs to pay off the fire station, the firemen's salaries, the firemen's equipment, and any/all other costs. Except what do you do when someone's house next to yours is on fire? Let it burn down because they aren't covered? Well, forgoing the entire discussion on the immorality of that, your house is at danger of catching too. So, it'd be best really to put out the neighbor's fire before it spreads. But wait! They haven't been paying for it, so now are you going to charge them in full?
The point is, healthcare is a public good. It's too expensive for the individual to realistically afford, but when everyone is paying partially that isn't true. Healthcare is needed by everyone, and not getting it isn't really an option. Free market doesn't work when the consumers -must- purchase.
Healthcare is something that can compete in a market. Fire departments can't. You can shop around for better healthcare, whereas you don't have that luxury with fire departments. There are only a few instances where you are rushed to a hospital.
I'm okay with the burden of cost being shifted for emergencies, that is, when someone must be worked on asap. But when you have time to shop around for the treatment that works for you, there's no reason a hospital can't become competitive. Of course, the word "competitive" reminds people of rat race, people doing whatever they can to win. But in a free-market, competition works differently.
Healthcare is too expensive, but we need to figure out why it's so expensive instead of shifting the burden of cost.
But when you have time to shop around for the treatment that works for you,
And what if there's no treatment that works for you that's affordable? What if you can't find any coverage because you have a condition that no one will cover, because they would lose money covering you? Did you watch that first video EmperorPalpatine provided?
Healthcare is too expensive, but we need to figure out why it's so expensive instead of shifting the burden of cost.
We know why it's expensive. The cost of training doctors is high, because it takes a long time. The cost of the equipment used is high, because of the materials used and high development costs of those. The cost of the hospital building is high, because in order to be competitive they must offer a wide range of services. And most of all, the cost is high because doctors, hospital owners, and insurance companies want to make money, and they know you're going to have to buy healthcare, plus insurance isn't profitable unless the person never actually uses what they're paying for.
I don't know how many times I have to say this, but it's less expensive in a socialistic system because the burden of cost is shifted among everyone. The risk factors are distributed, so that when someone actually has to cash in to get treatment, the premiums don't go up for everyone else, because on average more people are healthy than not. When you try to individualize it, you're playing the odds more.
Go watch Emperor's video. If you already have, then go watch it again, because you clearly didn't pay attention at all.
We know why it's expensive. The cost of training doctors is high, because it takes a long time. The cost of the equipment used is high, because of the materials used and high development costs of those. The cost of the hospital building is high, because in order to be competitive they must offer a wide range of services. And most of all, the cost is high because doctors, hospital owners, and insurance companies want to make money, and they know you're going to have to buy healthcare, plus insurance isn't profitable unless the person never actually uses what they're paying for.
Then lets fix these problems. Right here. The ones you mentioned.
Lets figure out why education is so ridiculously expensive. Why the machines cost so much. Why there isn't competition between hospitals and why insurance companies don't compete more fiercely.
Prices are high, so it's a cost issue. Forcing everyone to pay for insurance won't decrease the prices at all. Let's find a real solution, not a band aid.
Your goal is to make sure everyone is covered - no matter what the cost. My goal is to decrease the cost, therefore everyone can afford coverage.
