3 ms·

> I always chuckle when I hear about "free" education, "free" healthcare, etc. Somebody is paying for it. That's because you probably choose to misinterpret wh

> I always chuckle when I hear about "free" education, "free" healthcare, etc. Somebody is paying for it. That's because you probably choose to misinterpret what is meant. If you genuinely don't know, I find this quite astonishing, but let me explain; As someone with "free" healthcare as a citizen of an EU country, I never think it is free as in literally costs nothing and nor do my left-wing American friends advocating for "free". It's "free" at the point of use, paid via our tax dollars, to which I contribute. The U.S. spends more on its current healthcare than the "free" one would cost them. You can think of "free" healthcare as giving you freedom from being sick, rather than in terms of cost. Would you rather spend money on "free" healthcare or tanks? Because it's going to be one of these.

geomark 8y ago
I suppose you might convince yourself to think of it that way. As long as you don't mind the fact that you are subsidizing the large number of people for whom it is literally free because they pay but a tiny portion of their actual cost. A certain amount of that would be fine with me since I do feel a duty to support the less fortunate, although being forced to do it and having it done by a large and inefficient bureaucracy makes me resist at every opportunity. I am more of a pay-my-own-way kind of person, which I do. And I prefer to put the money directly into the hands of people whom I know need it, which I do.
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  > you are subsidizing the large number of people for whom it is literally free In every system, be it the justice system, a social system, or the free market, you're going to have a percentage of people taking advantage of it. That is no argument for not having it in the first place. That's an argument for reasonable laws and regulations. As for the people who do not temporarily have a job due to say family circumstances, or even permanently due to illness or disability, I have no problems whatsoever with it being "free" for them. > because they pay but a tiny portion of their actual cost You do the exact same thing. Your taxes do not solely pay for the roads and bridges you cross on your way to work, nor the police or firefighters that are on call to help you out, not for the regulators that ensure the food you buy is safe... In some way or another, we're mutually subsidizing each other somewhat via taxes. And taxes will be collected. So the only question is where they should go? Be it private military contractors, or helping someone with their cancer treatment? I'd opt for the second option every time. > I am more of a pay-my-own-way kind of person, which I do. No, you just like to tell yourself that to feel better. As part of a nation state, there's a whole bunch of not "pay you own way" that you rely on every single day. I realize why you'd need to convince yourself that you're entirely "your own man", but that doesn't change the fact that is it false. There are plenty of places in the world where you can pretty much opt out of the system and go at it all yourself. I suspect you wouldn't like it that much, but it exists. There is a whole other discussion as to whether taxes are the right way to do it and what debt are we really paying for, which is interesting in itself, but my argument is that assuming taxes will be collected anyway, at least I'd prefer to spend them on things like healthcare, education etc., than say excessive military spending. P.S. Even posting your comment here on HN required resources that you did not pay for, (servers, programmers, electricity, free software).
- scarface74 8y ago
  You’ve been paying for healthcare for the uninsured forever - just inefficiently. Hospitals are required to treat anyone who comes in to stabilize them - you pay for that through some combination of higher insurance if you are insured - the hospital jacks up prices - or some cities fund the hospitals.

geomark 8y ago

I suppose you might convince yourself to think of it that way. As long as you don't mind the fact that you are subsidizing the large number of people for whom it is literally free because they pay but a tiny portion of their actual cost. A certain amount of that would be fine with me since I do feel a duty to support the less fortunate, although being forced to do it and having it done by a large and inefficient bureaucracy makes me resist at every opportunity. I am more of a pay-my-own-way kind of person, which I do. And I prefer to put the money directly into the hands of people whom I know need it, which I do.

AsyncAwait 8y ago
> you are subsidizing the large number of people for whom it is literally free In every system, be it the justice system, a social system, or the free market, you're going to have a percentage of people taking advantage of it. That is no argument for not having it in the first place. That's an argument for reasonable laws and regulations. As for the people who do not temporarily have a job due to say family circumstances, or even permanently due to illness or disability, I have no problems whatsoever with it being "free" for them. > because they pay but a tiny portion of their actual cost You do the exact same thing. Your taxes do not solely pay for the roads and bridges you cross on your way to work, nor the police or firefighters that are on call to help you out, not for the regulators that ensure the food you buy is safe... In some way or another, we're mutually subsidizing each other somewhat via taxes. And taxes will be collected. So the only question is where they should go? Be it private military contractors, or helping someone with their cancer treatment? I'd opt for the second option every time. > I am more of a pay-my-own-way kind of person, which I do. No, you just like to tell yourself that to feel better. As part of a nation state, there's a whole bunch of not "pay you own way" that you rely on every single day. I realize why you'd need to convince yourself that you're entirely "your own man", but that doesn't change the fact that is it false. There are plenty of places in the world where you can pretty much opt out of the system and go at it all yourself. I suspect you wouldn't like it that much, but it exists. There is a whole other discussion as to whether taxes are the right way to do it and what debt are we really paying for, which is interesting in itself, but my argument is that assuming taxes will be collected anyway, at least I'd prefer to spend them on things like healthcare, education etc., than say excessive military spending. P.S. Even posting your comment here on HN required resources that you did not pay for, (servers, programmers, electricity, free software).
scarface74 8y ago
You’ve been paying for healthcare for the uninsured forever - just inefficiently. Hospitals are required to treat anyone who comes in to stabilize them - you pay for that through some combination of higher insurance if you are insured - the hospital jacks up prices - or some cities fund the hospitals.