5 ms·

The same claim you have to public funds raised via taxes? The conversation in my country is not about "claims on others' money" or other such matters of pure p

The same claim you have to public funds raised via taxes? The conversation in my country is not about "claims on others' money" or other such matters of pure principle, but rather what produces humane outcomes. Having a medical safety net for everyone is kind of taken for granted here - a poor-to-middling option, but far preferable to a you're-(mostly)-on-your-own system like in the US. One principle from an ethics class in school comes back to me: before we were born, while we were behind the "veil of ignorance", if we didn't know what sort of family we'd be born in, what rules would we prefer in life? If you didn't know what sort of family background or medical conditions you'd have in your life, would you prefer social insurance or take your chances? I'd definitely prefer insurance for everyone, because then I'd have a fighting chance if I were born to poor parents. > But everyone dies, regardless of how much they deserve it. So why shouldn't we try to reduce it happening? Your comment seems to be saying this state of affairs is somehow more desirable than the alternative...that it's better that the guy died than other people be forced to pay taxes to insure him. That kind of boggles my mind, to be honest.

sp332 14y ago
Reduce what happening? Dying? I'm pretty sure the death rate will remain 100% even if you were willing to spend $1B to "prevent" it. Everyone dies. I'm not saying that the guy should die instead of using other people's money to postpone death. I'm saying that he has no more right to that money than those other people do. You're talking as if there is an infinite amount of money to be spent on this one person. But spending money on this guy takes it away from other people. The world doesn't revolve around this one guy, you know? Someone has to make the decision: how much money is it worth to postpone my death for a while? And if I arbitrarily decide that one more breath is worth all the money in the world, that doesn't automatically mean that I now get to spend all the money in the world on it. Even with "universal health care" there are limits. Also, all the money that gets paid out by the state has to be paid in first by taxpayers. Moving responsibility to the state doesn't magically make health care cheaper, or free. On average, the taxpayers are still paying for all their health care.
- creamyhorror 14y ago
  > I'm pretty sure the death rate will remain 100% You and I know this is a complete red herring. When we talk about preventing deaths, we're talking about delaying deaths and lengthening lives toward their natural lifespans. > Someone has to make the decision: how much money is it worth to postpone my death for a while? And if I arbitrarily decide that one more breath is worth all the money in the world, that doesn't automatically mean that I now get to spend all the money in the world on it. Even with "universal health care" there are limits. Absolutely true. That's why every insurance system - public or private - has rationing, whether you call it that or not. I don't get why you bring up this point, when it clearly doesn't detract from the usefulness of public health insurance at all. Having everyone insured just means more people will live longer lives and/or endure less pain. > Also, all the money that gets paid out by the state has to be paid in first by taxpayers. Moving responsibility to the state doesn't magically make health care cheaper, or free. On average, the taxpayers are still paying for all their health care. Sure. I didn't say anything about social insurance making it cheaper. But it is a fact that healthcare's a lot cheaper mostly anywhere besides the US of A. I remember seeing comparison tables showing that US health outcomes per dollar are much poorer than elsewhere, so you guys are clearly getting a raw deal. (edit: Let's not forget that lots of diseases don't get stopped in their early stages because the sufferers don't have insurance, so they end up in heavy debt due to the high cost of a cure or late treatment. Prevention or early treatment would probably save money, and would also give these people significantly longer lives. Surely that's something worth paying for.) If you're against wealth redistribution (or whatever they like to call it), just come right out and say it. Don't tiptoe around the issue with irrelevant points.
  - sp332 14y ago
    If you're against wealth redistribution (or whatever they like to call it), just come right out and say it. Yes, that is my point. If you're sick that doesn't give you a unilateral claim to take other people's money. In fact this story is a pretty good example: He got healthcare way beyond what a sane government program would mandate (held his job for a full year, paid for an MRI etc). And it was paid for "socially". But it is a fact that healthcare's a lot cheaper mostly anywhere besides the US of A. Yes, the US healthcare system is screwed up. But I don't understand the knee-jerk "universal healthcare" reactions.

sp332 14y ago

Reduce what happening? Dying? I'm pretty sure the death rate will remain 100% even if you were willing to spend $1B to "prevent" it. Everyone dies. I'm not saying that the guy should die instead of using other people's money to postpone death. I'm saying that he has no more right to that money than those other people do. You're talking as if there is an infinite amount of money to be spent on this one person. But spending money on this guy takes it away from other people. The world doesn't revolve around this one guy, you know? Someone has to make the decision: how much money is it worth to postpone my death for a while? And if I arbitrarily decide that one more breath is worth all the money in the world, that doesn't automatically mean that I now get to spend all the money in the world on it. Even with "universal health care" there are limits. Also, all the money that gets paid out by the state has to be paid in first by taxpayers. Moving responsibility to the state doesn't magically make health care cheaper, or free. On average, the taxpayers are still paying for all their health care.

creamyhorror 14y ago
> I'm pretty sure the death rate will remain 100% You and I know this is a complete red herring. When we talk about preventing deaths, we're talking about delaying deaths and lengthening lives toward their natural lifespans. > Someone has to make the decision: how much money is it worth to postpone my death for a while? And if I arbitrarily decide that one more breath is worth all the money in the world, that doesn't automatically mean that I now get to spend all the money in the world on it. Even with "universal health care" there are limits. Absolutely true. That's why every insurance system - public or private - has rationing, whether you call it that or not. I don't get why you bring up this point, when it clearly doesn't detract from the usefulness of public health insurance at all. Having everyone insured just means more people will live longer lives and/or endure less pain. > Also, all the money that gets paid out by the state has to be paid in first by taxpayers. Moving responsibility to the state doesn't magically make health care cheaper, or free. On average, the taxpayers are still paying for all their health care. Sure. I didn't say anything about social insurance making it cheaper. But it is a fact that healthcare's a lot cheaper mostly anywhere besides the US of A. I remember seeing comparison tables showing that US health outcomes per dollar are much poorer than elsewhere, so you guys are clearly getting a raw deal. (edit: Let's not forget that lots of diseases don't get stopped in their early stages because the sufferers don't have insurance, so they end up in heavy debt due to the high cost of a cure or late treatment. Prevention or early treatment would probably save money, and would also give these people significantly longer lives. Surely that's something worth paying for.) If you're against wealth redistribution (or whatever they like to call it), just come right out and say it. Don't tiptoe around the issue with irrelevant points.
- sp332 14y ago
  If you're against wealth redistribution (or whatever they like to call it), just come right out and say it. Yes, that is my point. If you're sick that doesn't give you a unilateral claim to take other people's money. In fact this story is a pretty good example: He got healthcare way beyond what a sane government program would mandate (held his job for a full year, paid for an MRI etc). And it was paid for "socially". But it is a fact that healthcare's a lot cheaper mostly anywhere besides the US of A. Yes, the US healthcare system is screwed up. But I don't understand the knee-jerk "universal healthcare" reactions.