3 ms·

>A right to someone else's labor is a right to enslave. And yet there is a Constitutional right to a lawyer in most criminal cases if you can’t afford one. I

>A right to someone else's labor is a right to enslave. And yet there is a Constitutional right to a lawyer in most criminal cases if you can’t afford one. I can assure you, while public defenders might not get paid well and maybe many can’t afford their student loans, they are not slaves.

lovich 8y ago
Even the right to life and liberty requires the government to have people work at jobs to maintain security. Other than an-caps, even the most rabid libertarian thinks the government should provide national security. Isn't that all forced "slave labor" by this same argument?
conanbatt 8y ago
The slaves are the tax payers in your analogy, because they pay for the public defenders. But that case is more defensible: the enforcing of the rule of law is powerful for freedom. So sacrificing some freedom to get a lot of freedom is an easy case. Health services do not relate to freedom, but to the cost of insurance. If the government can provide a cheaper healthcare then it should provider a cheaper healthcare, and citizens can choose the government's plan and it will eat out the competition. Why would the government need to ban the competition if its so good at providing insurance?
- aplummer 8y ago
  > Why would the government need to ban the competition if its so good at providing insurance? In no country ever is private healthcare and competition banned. There is a free* hospital across the street from me and I have private healthcare. It’s about acknowledging that a) it is cheaper for everyone if people with no money go to the doctor early, because a GP is 1k% less expensive to society than a hospital bed runout. This is one of the reasons healthcare in single payer countries is ~50% per capita. B) people without money don’t deserve to die because they are poor and should have basic treatments, even when it is their own fault they are poor and make bad decisions. * I pay tax which pays for the hospital
  - conanbatt 8y ago
    > In no country ever is private healthcare and competition banned. There is a free* hospital across the street from me and I have private healthcare. Thats not factually true: there are many places that ban private healthcare, including canada. Then there are other conditions that punish private disproportionately: like funding public healthcare with taxes, but private healthcare with private funds: that means a person would have to pay 2 insurances to get private services. Also single payer really means there is only 1 insurance, so yes, it bans all other insurances. > It’s about acknowledging that a) it is cheaper for everyone if people with no money go to the doctor early, because a GP is 1k% less expensive to society than a hospital bed runout. This is one of the reasons healthcare in single payer countries is ~50% per capita. There are multiple issues why healthcare in the US is more expensive than "single payer systems", and preventative medicine is a small part. > people without money don’t deserve to die because they are poor and should have basic treatments, even when it is their own fault they are poor and make bad decisions. Is this moral line of yours defined by the country? Because if you want to save people's lives, single payer systems are very expensive. Its a lot better to open immigration and bring poor people from abroad.

lovich 8y ago

Even the right to life and liberty requires the government to have people work at jobs to maintain security. Other than an-caps, even the most rabid libertarian thinks the government should provide national security. Isn't that all forced "slave labor" by this same argument?

conanbatt 8y ago

The slaves are the tax payers in your analogy, because they pay for the public defenders. But that case is more defensible: the enforcing of the rule of law is powerful for freedom. So sacrificing some freedom to get a lot of freedom is an easy case. Health services do not relate to freedom, but to the cost of insurance. If the government can provide a cheaper healthcare then it should provider a cheaper healthcare, and citizens can choose the government's plan and it will eat out the competition. Why would the government need to ban the competition if its so good at providing insurance?

aplummer 8y ago
> Why would the government need to ban the competition if its so good at providing insurance? In no country ever is private healthcare and competition banned. There is a free* hospital across the street from me and I have private healthcare. It’s about acknowledging that a) it is cheaper for everyone if people with no money go to the doctor early, because a GP is 1k% less expensive to society than a hospital bed runout. This is one of the reasons healthcare in single payer countries is ~50% per capita. B) people without money don’t deserve to die because they are poor and should have basic treatments, even when it is their own fault they are poor and make bad decisions. * I pay tax which pays for the hospital
- conanbatt 8y ago
  > In no country ever is private healthcare and competition banned. There is a free* hospital across the street from me and I have private healthcare. Thats not factually true: there are many places that ban private healthcare, including canada. Then there are other conditions that punish private disproportionately: like funding public healthcare with taxes, but private healthcare with private funds: that means a person would have to pay 2 insurances to get private services. Also single payer really means there is only 1 insurance, so yes, it bans all other insurances. > It’s about acknowledging that a) it is cheaper for everyone if people with no money go to the doctor early, because a GP is 1k% less expensive to society than a hospital bed runout. This is one of the reasons healthcare in single payer countries is ~50% per capita. There are multiple issues why healthcare in the US is more expensive than "single payer systems", and preventative medicine is a small part. > people without money don’t deserve to die because they are poor and should have basic treatments, even when it is their own fault they are poor and make bad decisions. Is this moral line of yours defined by the country? Because if you want to save people's lives, single payer systems are very expensive. Its a lot better to open immigration and bring poor people from abroad.