3 ms·

If I came from a family that had generated a significant amount of wealth (my family was low-middle class), and I had never used the public health, education,

by jexah 8y ago

If I came from a family that had generated a significant amount of wealth (my family was low-middle class), and I had never used the public health, education, transportation, or welfare systems, I would be pissed if the government started robbing me at gunpoint, to provide a service that, in all likelyhood, neither my family nor descendants would ever use. You need to remember that healthcare and education taxes are literal robbery on the rich, who never have, and never will use those services. I'm going to say something that is controversial, and I myself haven't decided is fact, so please don't interpret it that way. Most people who work hard and are smart, can get themselves out of the lower class, regardless of their start in life (assuming they are in a first world Western country). For reference, I live in Australia and I pay a Medicare levy (public healthcare tax). I do not have private insurance and regularly use public healthcare services. Additionally, I have been on welfare in the past. I do not believe that public health care is a Bad Thing (c), but I believe that robbing from those that have never used the services is deeply immoral. I am not arguing for or against public healthcare. This is a difficult problem to solve. Im just trying to tell you that the decisions and opinions are not necessarily hate fuelled. If you went outside and spoke to those who disagree with you, and listened, you would see that there are reasons besides hate, that people vote the way they do. If you can see my perspective and agree with what I've written in this comment (it's a hard problem, and I'm not arguing whether healthcare is bad or not), perhaps you would consider mailing your state rep about considering a healthcare plan that is only available to the lowest earning in society, and is funded by those who required the services in the past and have "made it". Perhaps something similar to an education loan in Australia (government pays for your education, you owe them the fee plus 30% (fixed, not annual interest), paid out of a fixed % of your salary whenever you earn more than a certain amount). While this went through my head, I just thought about the idea of bank loans for medical expenses. Why is this not a thing? The person gets their healthcare (human life value) and then they pay the bank back over time, and don't have to rob other people (anti-theft value). I am absolutely sure that I'm not the first to come up with this idea, what down-sides does this have, such that it hasn't been considered as a viable solution?

mnm1 8y ago
Rich people don't use roads? What do they teleport nowadays? Rich people can't get sick? Serially? So when a rich person comes into the emergency room and the treatment costs ten million dollars but they only have coverage for five is it ok to let them die? By your reasoning it seems to be a dilemma. Rich people don't go to schools either? A ton of public school enrollment records beg to disagree. Anyway, rich people are generally not the majority that's voting against healthcare. People who are literally one job loss, accident, or injury away from homelessness outnumber them greatly (aka pretty much everyone in the lower and middle classes in America). The perspective of the rich is clear: profit off of and exploit everyone else. The perspective of the non rich who are anti healthcare is not.
- jexah 8y ago
  I specifically avoided the example of roads, because, yes, everybody uses roads, and so everybody should be taxed to pay for them. My point was that people shouldn't have to pay for a service that they have never, and will never use. It is immoral to force somebody to buy a product or service against their will. Be it health insurance, education services, or whatever else. By the way, I never said anybody should die. If you had actually read my comment, you would see at least one potential solution to the problem. If somebody with 5m gets sick and the medical bills cost 10m, then they could theoretically get a medical loan which they pay back over time. They might be paying it back for the rest of their life, but at least they're not dead. I don't have statistics that indicate one way or another about the majority of people voting against public healthcare being those that need it the most. It doesn't really make sense to me, but I'm not arguing that point so I won't debate that. I don't know what is considered middle class in America, but in Australia, 120k household income before tax is considered basically the bottom of the middle class. I could afford private health insurance in a single income family working as a cashier. So I would question the validity of the middle class being "People who are literally one job loss, accident, or injury away from homelessness".

by jexah 8y ago

mnm1 8y ago

Rich people don't use roads? What do they teleport nowadays? Rich people can't get sick? Serially? So when a rich person comes into the emergency room and the treatment costs ten million dollars but they only have coverage for five is it ok to let them die? By your reasoning it seems to be a dilemma. Rich people don't go to schools either? A ton of public school enrollment records beg to disagree. Anyway, rich people are generally not the majority that's voting against healthcare. People who are literally one job loss, accident, or injury away from homelessness outnumber them greatly (aka pretty much everyone in the lower and middle classes in America). The perspective of the rich is clear: profit off of and exploit everyone else. The perspective of the non rich who are anti healthcare is not.

jexah 8y ago
I specifically avoided the example of roads, because, yes, everybody uses roads, and so everybody should be taxed to pay for them. My point was that people shouldn't have to pay for a service that they have never, and will never use. It is immoral to force somebody to buy a product or service against their will. Be it health insurance, education services, or whatever else. By the way, I never said anybody should die. If you had actually read my comment, you would see at least one potential solution to the problem. If somebody with 5m gets sick and the medical bills cost 10m, then they could theoretically get a medical loan which they pay back over time. They might be paying it back for the rest of their life, but at least they're not dead. I don't have statistics that indicate one way or another about the majority of people voting against public healthcare being those that need it the most. It doesn't really make sense to me, but I'm not arguing that point so I won't debate that. I don't know what is considered middle class in America, but in Australia, 120k household income before tax is considered basically the bottom of the middle class. I could afford private health insurance in a single income family working as a cashier. So I would question the validity of the middle class being "People who are literally one job loss, accident, or injury away from homelessness".