6 ms·

> Health care is already free of charge in most of the modern world This is completely and utterly incorrect. It's not free. Doctors and nurses are getting pai

by snitko 12y ago

> Health care is already free of charge in most of the modern world This is completely and utterly incorrect. It's not free. Doctors and nurses are getting paid. Equipment is purchased. Drugs are prescribed. Who is paying for it? Taxpayers. Therefore it's not free. What you meant to say is that now everyone has an access to healthcare. But when you think about it, is it truly a pinnacle of humanity if good things (treating people) are achieved by doing bad things (stealing from people by threatening them with jail time and confiscation if they refuse to pay taxes)? Is it truly a pinnacle of humanity that we treat people yet simultaneously we also kill thousands of people in wars using the same tax money? Is it really okay that I have to subsidize a treatment of a smoker who ignored health advice for a number of years? Or a fast food consumer who ate at McDonalds every day and now has diabetes? Why should I subsidize their treatment and not spend more money on my kids, for example? You have no moral right to claim I OWE these people money. You can kindly ask me to help them out, but if I refuse, you shall not be able to jail me and confiscate my property.

GregorStocks 12y ago
But it is free of charge, which is what the post you're replying to actually said.
- chrismeller 12y ago
  No, it's not, which is what the post you're replying to actually said. You are paying for it, somehow, even if you are not paying an invoice every time you go to the doctor. The money is not simply created out of thin air, the doctors and nurses do not work for free out of the goodness of their hearts. If, as the original comment suggests, no one should have to "work to survive" in any way, where is the motivation for anyone to do it? The students are already hiding so they don't have to compete for jobs in a tight job market, what's to encourage them ever to do so? At some point you run out of people working and paying those taxes so that everyone else can live for free.
  - rtpg 12y ago
    Why is it taken as a necessity that everyone needs to work?
    - chrismeller 12y ago
      It is the default nature of human existence. If you do not work to find food, you starve. The things we work to "find" ("buy", now) have changed, but the imperative is the same. I think the real question is why do you think it is not a necessity for you to work, while others do?
      - ArkyBeagle 12y ago
        But production of goods is on rails. And accelerating. We have small legions of Zero Marginal Product workers. Some of these folks are people with whom I used to work. There, as they say but for the grace of $DEITY... Can't shoot 'em. But it's a pretty safe bet they can't work, at least not in a manner that is an improvement over digging holes and filling them back up.
bryanlarsen 12y ago
Are you a subsistence farmer? If so, society owes you nothing. You live in a society that was built over thousands of years to allow you to earn your fabulous income. Without it, you'd have nothing. You owe all of your income to society; you're just lucky that society has decided that you work harder when you're allowed to keep some of it.
- snitko 12y ago
  Can't tell if you are trolling or being serious.
  - bryanlarsen 12y ago
    I'm responding to one reductio ad absurdum with another reductio ad absurdum.
    - snitko 12y ago
      Saying something is absurd doesn't make it so. I'm usually willing to explain my position and to back it up with both logic and evidence. I think when you say "taxation is theft" people have a knee jerk reaction. But I don't think it's wise to disregard an argument simply because it doesn't comply with your worldview. I personally am always willing to change my opinion given that someone provides enough logic and evidence and I'd expect the same from other people. But nobody ever convinced anybody else their ideas are good by applying force and threats. If taxes were a good idea, you wouldn't need IRS.
      - majormajor 12y ago
        > If taxes were a good idea, you wouldn't need IRS. This is less logic than a catchphrase without real meaning. Turn it around: "if property rights were a good idea, you wouldn't need fences, locks, laws, police..." Taxes, in many places today, are not created by force and threats. They're created through legal process with the consent of the population. One could argue that the need for a threat of force to make sure the entire population complies reflects a fundamental flaw in the chosen fundraising method... however, requiring unanimity will get you nowhere in terms of having a functioning society. Some decisions are hard but necessary.
coldtea 12y ago
>But when you think about it, is it truly a pinnacle of humanity if good things (treating people) are achieved by doing bad things (stealing from people by threatening them with jail time and confiscation if they refuse to pay taxes)? Yes. Health for all trumps the badness of paying taxes for all.
- snitko 12y ago
  What if there are other (and better) ways of achieving the same thing, but without state and taxation? Would you consider them?
  - intopieces 12y ago
    I would not consider them. The system of taxation has worked for centuries and will continue to work. The potential benefits of the 'other and better ways' are outweighed by the cost of experimenting. Let us not re-invent the wheel.
    - snitko 12y ago
      Slavery was also prevalent in most of the world until the 19-th century. Was it a good idea too? The difference is in quality of the heist, not the nature of it: both slaves and taxpayers are robbed off the fruits of the labor. And how did you calculate exactly that potential benefits of any new ideas would be outweighed by the cost of experimenting with them?
      - coldtea 12y ago
        >The difference is in quality of the heist, not the nature of it: both slaves and taxpayers are robbed off the fruits of the labor. If you consider the government as an enemy entity, like a slave-owner yes. If you consider the government as people you put into place as representatives, according to how the majority compromised to be governmed, to handle common affairs (and that can do a good or a bad job at it), then no. If people thought taxes are that bad considering what they need to have in return, they'd vote somebody who promises to abolish them then.
rayiner 12y ago
> But when you think about it, is it truly a pinnacle of humanity if good things (treating people) are achieved by doing bad things (stealing from people by threatening them with jail time and confiscation if they refuse to pay taxes)? Calling taxation "stealing" is an odd bit of cognitive dissonance. On one hand, you embrace the law's distinction between mere dispossession and "stealing" but reject the law's distinction between "stealing" and taxation. You embrace the right of the collective to create property rights but not their right to subject those property rights to taxation.
- snitko 12y ago
  Property rights is not a state invention. It's a concept. It wasn't invented by a bureaucrat. What state does is it provides a service of enforcing those rights for the taxes I pay. However, I cannot choose another service provider because state holds a monopoly in this regard. Even if I somehow manage to hire expensive private protection, I still have to pay the state for the service I no longer use. Therefore, they are forcing me to pay. It's extortion at best.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    Without governments, your rights in the state of nature are to wield whatever weapon you can lay your hands on or to run as fast as you can so as to avoid having what you call "property" sliced out of your hands, fingers still attached, by whatever armed gang takes a fancy to it. I'm sure stone-aged people huddled in caves hiding from axe-wielding mobs did indeed dream of "property" and a place where they'd have a "right" to it. So, sure, the state didn't "invent" property rights. They merely enable them.
    - scott_s 12y ago
      I fully endorse your point. However, if we're going to go back to a time before governments, then I think we have to go back to before agriculture, when humans were hunter-gatherers that lived in tribes of around 60 or so. Within such tribes, I imagine that "property" was a relatively fluid concept, much as it is in families now. However, based on my understanding, the situation between tribes was such that there's no point in even using a concept like "property." Encountering a person from another tribe was a life-threatening event, let alone property. This, however, is in support of your point: government is how large groups of humans are able to live together and cooperate. The things provided through government and the rule-of-law do not come free, nor are they the default state.
gorbachev 12y ago
If by doing "bad things" (uh), we prevent more bad things or worse things from happening, then I'm going to advocate for "bad things". As a thought experiment, why don't you think of what would happen if healthcare wasn't heavily subsidized by Governments? I'll even make it easier for you...just compare various quality of life statistics between countries where there is quality healthcare provided to citizens by the Government (no, US doesn't qualify...Scandinavian countries do) and a country where the Government doesn't do that (US states that chose to participate in ACA Medicaid expansion qualify).
Scoundreller 12y ago
I understand "free of charge" to not mean "free", but rather no charge to the consumer at the point of service/care. It doesn't preclude some other funding model. I'd argue that "access" refers to availability, free of charge or not. In other words, access to health care is quite possibly the highest in the USA. For $$$ I could get virtually any borderline necessary procedure available performed tomorrow, a level of access not available in most of the rest of the world.
sergiotapia 12y ago
Christ, people like you are the reason the US is still doesn't have national free healthcare. I would gladly let the government take 40% of my paycheck if it meant any and all illnesses were covered 100% free of charge for every american citizen.
- chrismeller 12y ago
  In freelance hourly-rate estimates, I factor in 37% for taxes... So the combined US and state governments already take 40% of my paycheck.
- aianus 12y ago
  And if I wouldn't? Why should your philosophy trump mine to the point where you forcibly take my money to fund it?
  - judk 12y ago
    Let's end fuding for the massively more expensive wars of amusement before we fret over funding for health care.
    - chrismeller 12y ago
      Ahh, but if we ended all those wars and cut taxes to reflect the massively-decreased spending, how many more people could just afford their own healthcare? The US has trouble paying for everything it does already, so something's got to give. Until it's one, it's got to be the other.
PhasmaFelis 12y ago
> But when you think about it, is it truly a pinnacle of humanity if good things (treating people) are achieved by doing bad things (stealing from people by threatening them with jail time and confiscation if they refuse to pay taxes)? Yes. Yes, obviously that's pretty much the definition of a healthy, mutually-supportive society, at least if you don't resort to stupid rhetorical tricks to try to paint clawing, desperate selfishness as a virtue. And yes, before you ask, I would be delighted to shoulder a dramatically increased tax burden if I knew it meant that people I care about (and complete strangers) who are physically and mentally ill would no longer have to live and die at the whim of a suspicious and unforgiving bureaucracy. If the government could guarantee me that, I would be fucking ecstatic. I would be singing as I signed the IRS check. So forgive me if I don't find "fuck you, got mine" to be an emotionally compelling argument.
- logicchains 12y ago
  >And yes, before you ask, I would be delighted to shoulder a dramatically increased tax burden if I knew it meant that people I care about (and complete strangers) who are physically and mentally ill would no longer have to live and die at the whim of a suspicious and unforgiving bureaucracy. Do you give much money to charity? If we assume many people are like you, and desire to help those who are sick, why aren't voluntary charities sufficient; why does the government have to take money from anyone regardless of whether or not they want to give it?
  - PhasmaFelis 12y ago
    For one thing, the government is in a better position than the average charitable citizen to determine how best to distribute money. Individuals mean well, but we only see a tiny part of the national situation, and we're prone to emotional effects. I'm not saying the government we have does a good job of this, but, for example, in the US we have disability programs that mean that disabled people with no other means of support often, eventually, get enough money to at least help them get by. If we instead relied on individual charity to handle disability, you'd have one sad photogenic white girl getting millions while thousands of equally-disabled people got nothing and starved to death.
ArkyBeagle 12y ago
"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." - Oliver Wendell Holmes.

by snitko 12y ago

GregorStocks 12y ago

But it is free of charge, which is what the post you're replying to actually said.

chrismeller 12y ago
No, it's not, which is what the post you're replying to actually said. You are paying for it, somehow, even if you are not paying an invoice every time you go to the doctor. The money is not simply created out of thin air, the doctors and nurses do not work for free out of the goodness of their hearts. If, as the original comment suggests, no one should have to "work to survive" in any way, where is the motivation for anyone to do it? The students are already hiding so they don't have to compete for jobs in a tight job market, what's to encourage them ever to do so? At some point you run out of people working and paying those taxes so that everyone else can live for free.
- rtpg 12y ago
  Why is it taken as a necessity that everyone needs to work?
  - chrismeller 12y ago
    It is the default nature of human existence. If you do not work to find food, you starve. The things we work to "find" ("buy", now) have changed, but the imperative is the same. I think the real question is why do you think it is not a necessity for you to work, while others do?
    - ArkyBeagle 12y ago
      But production of goods is on rails. And accelerating. We have small legions of Zero Marginal Product workers. Some of these folks are people with whom I used to work. There, as they say but for the grace of $DEITY... Can't shoot 'em. But it's a pretty safe bet they can't work, at least not in a manner that is an improvement over digging holes and filling them back up.

bryanlarsen 12y ago

Are you a subsistence farmer? If so, society owes you nothing. You live in a society that was built over thousands of years to allow you to earn your fabulous income. Without it, you'd have nothing. You owe all of your income to society; you're just lucky that society has decided that you work harder when you're allowed to keep some of it.

snitko 12y ago
Can't tell if you are trolling or being serious.
- bryanlarsen 12y ago
  I'm responding to one reductio ad absurdum with another reductio ad absurdum.
  - snitko 12y ago
    Saying something is absurd doesn't make it so. I'm usually willing to explain my position and to back it up with both logic and evidence. I think when you say "taxation is theft" people have a knee jerk reaction. But I don't think it's wise to disregard an argument simply because it doesn't comply with your worldview. I personally am always willing to change my opinion given that someone provides enough logic and evidence and I'd expect the same from other people. But nobody ever convinced anybody else their ideas are good by applying force and threats. If taxes were a good idea, you wouldn't need IRS.
    - majormajor 12y ago
      > If taxes were a good idea, you wouldn't need IRS. This is less logic than a catchphrase without real meaning. Turn it around: "if property rights were a good idea, you wouldn't need fences, locks, laws, police..." Taxes, in many places today, are not created by force and threats. They're created through legal process with the consent of the population. One could argue that the need for a threat of force to make sure the entire population complies reflects a fundamental flaw in the chosen fundraising method... however, requiring unanimity will get you nowhere in terms of having a functioning society. Some decisions are hard but necessary.

coldtea 12y ago

snitko 12y ago
What if there are other (and better) ways of achieving the same thing, but without state and taxation? Would you consider them?
- intopieces 12y ago
  I would not consider them. The system of taxation has worked for centuries and will continue to work. The potential benefits of the 'other and better ways' are outweighed by the cost of experimenting. Let us not re-invent the wheel.
  - snitko 12y ago
    Slavery was also prevalent in most of the world until the 19-th century. Was it a good idea too? The difference is in quality of the heist, not the nature of it: both slaves and taxpayers are robbed off the fruits of the labor. And how did you calculate exactly that potential benefits of any new ideas would be outweighed by the cost of experimenting with them?
    - coldtea 12y ago
      >The difference is in quality of the heist, not the nature of it: both slaves and taxpayers are robbed off the fruits of the labor. If you consider the government as an enemy entity, like a slave-owner yes. If you consider the government as people you put into place as representatives, according to how the majority compromised to be governmed, to handle common affairs (and that can do a good or a bad job at it), then no. If people thought taxes are that bad considering what they need to have in return, they'd vote somebody who promises to abolish them then.

rayiner 12y ago

> But when you think about it, is it truly a pinnacle of humanity if good things (treating people) are achieved by doing bad things (stealing from people by threatening them with jail time and confiscation if they refuse to pay taxes)? Calling taxation "stealing" is an odd bit of cognitive dissonance. On one hand, you embrace the law's distinction between mere dispossession and "stealing" but reject the law's distinction between "stealing" and taxation. You embrace the right of the collective to create property rights but not their right to subject those property rights to taxation.

snitko 12y ago
Property rights is not a state invention. It's a concept. It wasn't invented by a bureaucrat. What state does is it provides a service of enforcing those rights for the taxes I pay. However, I cannot choose another service provider because state holds a monopoly in this regard. Even if I somehow manage to hire expensive private protection, I still have to pay the state for the service I no longer use. Therefore, they are forcing me to pay. It's extortion at best.
- tptacek 12y ago
  Without governments, your rights in the state of nature are to wield whatever weapon you can lay your hands on or to run as fast as you can so as to avoid having what you call "property" sliced out of your hands, fingers still attached, by whatever armed gang takes a fancy to it. I'm sure stone-aged people huddled in caves hiding from axe-wielding mobs did indeed dream of "property" and a place where they'd have a "right" to it. So, sure, the state didn't "invent" property rights. They merely enable them.
  - scott_s 12y ago
    I fully endorse your point. However, if we're going to go back to a time before governments, then I think we have to go back to before agriculture, when humans were hunter-gatherers that lived in tribes of around 60 or so. Within such tribes, I imagine that "property" was a relatively fluid concept, much as it is in families now. However, based on my understanding, the situation between tribes was such that there's no point in even using a concept like "property." Encountering a person from another tribe was a life-threatening event, let alone property. This, however, is in support of your point: government is how large groups of humans are able to live together and cooperate. The things provided through government and the rule-of-law do not come free, nor are they the default state.

gorbachev 12y ago

If by doing "bad things" (uh), we prevent more bad things or worse things from happening, then I'm going to advocate for "bad things". As a thought experiment, why don't you think of what would happen if healthcare wasn't heavily subsidized by Governments? I'll even make it easier for you...just compare various quality of life statistics between countries where there is quality healthcare provided to citizens by the Government (no, US doesn't qualify...Scandinavian countries do) and a country where the Government doesn't do that (US states that chose to participate in ACA Medicaid expansion qualify).

Scoundreller 12y ago

I understand "free of charge" to not mean "free", but rather no charge to the consumer at the point of service/care. It doesn't preclude some other funding model. I'd argue that "access" refers to availability, free of charge or not. In other words, access to health care is quite possibly the highest in the USA. For $$$ I could get virtually any borderline necessary procedure available performed tomorrow, a level of access not available in most of the rest of the world.

sergiotapia 12y ago

Christ, people like you are the reason the US is still doesn't have national free healthcare. I would gladly let the government take 40% of my paycheck if it meant any and all illnesses were covered 100% free of charge for every american citizen.

chrismeller 12y ago
In freelance hourly-rate estimates, I factor in 37% for taxes... So the combined US and state governments already take 40% of my paycheck.
aianus 12y ago
And if I wouldn't? Why should your philosophy trump mine to the point where you forcibly take my money to fund it?
- judk 12y ago
  Let's end fuding for the massively more expensive wars of amusement before we fret over funding for health care.
  - chrismeller 12y ago
    Ahh, but if we ended all those wars and cut taxes to reflect the massively-decreased spending, how many more people could just afford their own healthcare? The US has trouble paying for everything it does already, so something's got to give. Until it's one, it's got to be the other.

PhasmaFelis 12y ago

> But when you think about it, is it truly a pinnacle of humanity if good things (treating people) are achieved by doing bad things (stealing from people by threatening them with jail time and confiscation if they refuse to pay taxes)? Yes. Yes, obviously that's pretty much the definition of a healthy, mutually-supportive society, at least if you don't resort to stupid rhetorical tricks to try to paint clawing, desperate selfishness as a virtue. And yes, before you ask, I would be delighted to shoulder a dramatically increased tax burden if I knew it meant that people I care about (and complete strangers) who are physically and mentally ill would no longer have to live and die at the whim of a suspicious and unforgiving bureaucracy. If the government could guarantee me that, I would be fucking ecstatic. I would be singing as I signed the IRS check. So forgive me if I don't find "fuck you, got mine" to be an emotionally compelling argument.

logicchains 12y ago
>And yes, before you ask, I would be delighted to shoulder a dramatically increased tax burden if I knew it meant that people I care about (and complete strangers) who are physically and mentally ill would no longer have to live and die at the whim of a suspicious and unforgiving bureaucracy. Do you give much money to charity? If we assume many people are like you, and desire to help those who are sick, why aren't voluntary charities sufficient; why does the government have to take money from anyone regardless of whether or not they want to give it?
- PhasmaFelis 12y ago
  For one thing, the government is in a better position than the average charitable citizen to determine how best to distribute money. Individuals mean well, but we only see a tiny part of the national situation, and we're prone to emotional effects. I'm not saying the government we have does a good job of this, but, for example, in the US we have disability programs that mean that disabled people with no other means of support often, eventually, get enough money to at least help them get by. If we instead relied on individual charity to handle disability, you'd have one sad photogenic white girl getting millions while thousands of equally-disabled people got nothing and starved to death.

ArkyBeagle 12y ago

"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." - Oliver Wendell Holmes.