Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
But my personal health IS a public good. It enables me to remain in work and be a benefit to society. The more workers fit for work, the better.I live in Canada, with a single payer health care system, and it isn't free. I pay for it with my taxes every year. Because everyone above poverty line pays into it, costs are low to me. The government forces me to pay it, like the local government makes me pay my property tax. This way, everyone gets to use the services that were purchased using our pooled resources. When you insure your car, you benefit from other payees when you total your car. Why is health care any different?It is a right? probably not. Is it something that the richest most powerful nation on earth ought to provide to its citizenry? I would say so.
That's getting to it I suppose. So why do you think we ought to? Why is a society that simply provides things to people with no expectation of responsibility better than a society that ask its citizenry to have a level of responsibility to provide for it's own well being?
I hate to bring up Rush again because the left loves to just pick him apart but he noted that that mentality, where we do things that just feel good and right is an example of a sentiment of people who's hearts are disconnected from their brains (what makes sense vs. what feels good). It feels good to say we 'ought to provide poeple free healthcare'. But is that really what's best for the growth of a society? Is it really best that a society over time learn that it can be dependant on others for what they need rather than take responsibility for providing it to themselves?
Well, for starters, because your personal health is not a public good that is being used by other people, the way most of the things paid for by property tax, for example, are. And car insurance which covers YOUR car in the event of an accident is voluntarily paid for by the car owners. In the US, at least, the car insurance which is mandated by the government is to protect OTHER people's property from your stupidity. You're perfectly welcome to leave your own car's damaged uncovered by insurance if you want to, so long as it's not owned by someone other than you, who is then going to suffer financially for your stupidity.
I'm a tax payer. I support those who are having a rough time. I don't mind doing so, because that way I don't have to worry about having a permanent underclass perpetuate year after year. Temporary help lets people get out of ruts, and helps them help themselves. The key is in the temporary.But my personal health IS a public good. It enables me to remain in work and be a benefit to society. The more workers fit for work, the better.I live in Canada, with a single payer health care system, and it isn't free. I pay for it with my taxes every year. Because everyone above poverty line pays into it, costs are low to me. The government forces me to pay it, like the local government makes me pay my property tax. This way, everyone gets to use the services that were purchased using our pooled resources. When you insure your car, you benefit from other payees when you total your car. Why is health care any different?It is a right? probably not. Is it something that the richest most powerful nation on earth ought to provide to its citizenry? I would say so.
That's getting to it I suppose. So why do you think we ought to? Why is a society that simply provides things to people with no expectation of responsibility better than a society that ask its citizenry to have a level of responsibility to provide for it's own well being?
I hate to bring up Rush again because the left loves to just pick him apart but he noted that that mentality, where we do things that just feel good and right is an example of a sentiment of people who's hearts are disconnected from their brains (what makes sense vs. what feels good). It feels good to say we 'ought to provide poeple free healthcare'. But is that really what's best for the growth of a society? Is it really best that a society over time learn that it can be dependant on others for what they need rather than take responsibility for providing it to themselves?
Well, for starters, because your personal health is not a public good that is being used by other people, the way most of the things paid for by property tax, for example, are. And car insurance which covers YOUR car in the event of an accident is voluntarily paid for by the car owners. In the US, at least, the car insurance which is mandated by the government is to protect OTHER people's property from your stupidity. You're perfectly welcome to leave your own car's damaged uncovered by insurance if you want to, so long as it's not owned by someone other than you, who is then going to suffer financially for your stupidity.
No, your health is a good to YOU. Being forced to support you if you're a non-working leech on society is a detriment to society, but if people are not demanding that you be kept by others like a pet rat in a cage, you really don't matter to anyone but you. And don't think I don't find it VERY suspicious that the same people who are insisting that the non-productive be cosseted are also the ones who keep bleating that the personal, individual health of total strangers is a splendiferous public benefit I'm partaking in on the same level as public roads and police departments.
I'm a tax payer. I support those who are having a rough time. I don't mind doing so, because that way I don't have to worry about having a permanent underclass perpetuate year after year. Temporary help lets people get out of ruts, and helps them help themselves. The key is in the temporary.But my personal health IS a public good. It enables me to remain in work and be a benefit to society. The more workers fit for work, the better.I live in Canada, with a single payer health care system, and it isn't free. I pay for it with my taxes every year. Because everyone above poverty line pays into it, costs are low to me. The government forces me to pay it, like the local government makes me pay my property tax. This way, everyone gets to use the services that were purchased using our pooled resources. When you insure your car, you benefit from other payees when you total your car. Why is health care any different?That's getting to it I suppose. So why do you think we ought to? Why is a society that simply provides things to people with no expectation of responsibility better than a society that ask its citizenry to have a level of responsibility to provide for it's own well being?
I hate to bring up Rush again because the left loves to just pick him apart but he noted that that mentality, where we do things that just feel good and right is an example of a sentiment of people who's hearts are disconnected from their brains (what makes sense vs. what feels good). It feels good to say we 'ought to provide poeple free healthcare'. But is that really what's best for the growth of a society? Is it really best that a society over time learn that it can be dependant on others for what they need rather than take responsibility for providing it to themselves?
Well, for starters, because your personal health is not a public good that is being used by other people, the way most of the things paid for by property tax, for example, are. And car insurance which covers YOUR car in the event of an accident is voluntarily paid for by the car owners. In the US, at least, the car insurance which is mandated by the government is to protect OTHER people's property from your stupidity. You're perfectly welcome to leave your own car's damaged uncovered by insurance if you want to, so long as it's not owned by someone other than you, who is then going to suffer financially for your stupidity.
No, your health is a good to YOU. Being forced to support you if you're a non-working leech on society is a detriment to society, but if people are not demanding that you be kept by others like a pet rat in a cage, you really don't matter to anyone but you. And don't think I don't find it VERY suspicious that the same people who are insisting that the non-productive be cosseted are also the ones who keep bleating that the personal, individual health of total strangers is a splendiferous public benefit I'm partaking in on the same level as public roads and police departments.
The world is littered with examples of people who needed temporary help, and were able distinguish themselves later. Misfortunes happen, financial crashes etc. JK Rowling, for example, wrote Harry Potter while on benefits. What you propose sounds more like you want to return to the conditions Dickens wrote about. Or Upton Sinclair. Those were times where workers had no value, and their societies were highly socially unequal. Most countries rose above such barbarism. I find it odd to see America yearning to return to thatI'm a tax payer. I support those who are having a rough time. I don't mind doing so, because that way I don't have to worry about having a permanent underclass perpetuate year after year. Temporary help lets people get out of ruts, and helps them help themselves. The key is in the temporary.But my personal health IS a public good. It enables me to remain in work and be a benefit to society. The more workers fit for work, the better.I live in Canada, with a single payer health care system, and it isn't free. I pay for it with my taxes every year. Because everyone above poverty line pays into it, costs are low to me. The government forces me to pay it, like the local government makes me pay my property tax. This way, everyone gets to use the services that were purchased using our pooled resources. When you insure your car, you benefit from other payees when you total your car. Why is health care any different?
Well, for starters, because your personal health is not a public good that is being used by other people, the way most of the things paid for by property tax, for example, are. And car insurance which covers YOUR car in the event of an accident is voluntarily paid for by the car owners. In the US, at least, the car insurance which is mandated by the government is to protect OTHER people's property from your stupidity. You're perfectly welcome to leave your own car's damaged uncovered by insurance if you want to, so long as it's not owned by someone other than you, who is then going to suffer financially for your stupidity.
No, your health is a good to YOU. Being forced to support you if you're a non-working leech on society is a detriment to society, but if people are not demanding that you be kept by others like a pet rat in a cage, you really don't matter to anyone but you. And don't think I don't find it VERY suspicious that the same people who are insisting that the non-productive be cosseted are also the ones who keep bleating that the personal, individual health of total strangers is a splendiferous public benefit I'm partaking in on the same level as public roads and police departments.
We're not talking about "temporary help", though, are we? No, you're touting the wonders of Canada's single-payer health care system, which turns every single citizen into Precious, the Persian cat on a velvet cushion with a diamond collar, on the unfounded assumption that keeping them healthy whether they're willing to do so for themselves or not is some great, amorphous "public good" to everyone else.
To be blunt, I'm really not interested in having a discussion where universal government control hides behind the skirts of extreme hard cases.
The truth is, as long as I live in a society where modern, 21-century medical care is available to be procured by anyone who wishes to do so, there will be enough people with the personal responsibility and motivation to keep themselves healthy and functional to provide all the public good I can allegedly derive from such things. People who cannot be bothered to look after themselves with a governmental nanny to care for their daily needs (which would NOT include those statistically uncommon people who literally cannot care for themselves, just so you know) are not really going to be of much benefit to those around them no matter what happens.
For those "hard cases" you mention, I'd rather pay for them to sit idle playing PlayStation, than have them robbing my house, or carjacking meI'm a tax payer. I support those who are having a rough time. I don't mind doing so, because that way I don't have to worry about having a permanent underclass perpetuate year after year. Temporary help lets people get out of ruts, and helps them help themselves. The key is in the temporary.But my personal health IS a public good. It enables me to remain in work and be a benefit to society. The more workers fit for work, the better.I live in Canada, with a single payer health care system, and it isn't free. I pay for it with my taxes every year. Because everyone above poverty line pays into it, costs are low to me. The government forces me to pay it, like the local government makes me pay my property tax. This way, everyone gets to use the services that were purchased using our pooled resources. When you insure your car, you benefit from other payees when you total your car. Why is health care any different?
Well, for starters, because your personal health is not a public good that is being used by other people, the way most of the things paid for by property tax, for example, are. And car insurance which covers YOUR car in the event of an accident is voluntarily paid for by the car owners. In the US, at least, the car insurance which is mandated by the government is to protect OTHER people's property from your stupidity. You're perfectly welcome to leave your own car's damaged uncovered by insurance if you want to, so long as it's not owned by someone other than you, who is then going to suffer financially for your stupidity.
No, your health is a good to YOU. Being forced to support you if you're a non-working leech on society is a detriment to society, but if people are not demanding that you be kept by others like a pet rat in a cage, you really don't matter to anyone but you. And don't think I don't find it VERY suspicious that the same people who are insisting that the non-productive be cosseted are also the ones who keep bleating that the personal, individual health of total strangers is a splendiferous public benefit I'm partaking in on the same level as public roads and police departments.
We're not talking about "temporary help", though, are we? No, you're touting the wonders of Canada's single-payer health care system, which turns every single citizen into Precious, the Persian cat on a velvet cushion with a diamond collar, on the unfounded assumption that keeping them healthy whether they're willing to do so for themselves or not is some great, amorphous "public good" to everyone else.
To be blunt, I'm really not interested in having a discussion where universal government control hides behind the skirts of extreme hard cases.
The truth is, as long as I live in a society where modern, 21-century medical care is available to be procured by anyone who wishes to do so, there will be enough people with the personal responsibility and motivation to keep themselves healthy and functional to provide all the public good I can allegedly derive from such things. People who cannot be bothered to look after themselves with a governmental nanny to care for their daily needs (which would NOT include those statistically uncommon people who literally cannot care for themselves, just so you know) are not really going to be of much benefit to those around them no matter what happens.
The world is littered with examples of people who needed temporary help, and were able distinguish themselves later. Misfortunes happen, financial crashes etc. JK Rowling, for example, wrote Harry Potter while on benefits. What you propose sounds more like you want to return to the conditions Dickens wrote about. Or Upton Sinclair. Those were times where workers had no value, and their societies were highly socially unequal. Most countries rose above such barbarism. I find it odd to see America yearning to return to thatI'm a tax payer. I support those who are having a rough time. I don't mind doing so, because that way I don't have to worry about having a permanent underclass perpetuate year after year. Temporary help lets people get out of ruts, and helps them help themselves. The key is in the temporary.But my personal health IS a public good. It enables me to remain in work and be a benefit to society. The more workers fit for work, the better.Well, for starters, because your personal health is not a public good that is being used by other people, the way most of the things paid for by property tax, for example, are. And car insurance which covers YOUR car in the event of an accident is voluntarily paid for by the car owners. In the US, at least, the car insurance which is mandated by the government is to protect OTHER people's property from your stupidity. You're perfectly welcome to leave your own car's damaged uncovered by insurance if you want to, so long as it's not owned by someone other than you, who is then going to suffer financially for your stupidity.
No, your health is a good to YOU. Being forced to support you if you're a non-working leech on society is a detriment to society, but if people are not demanding that you be kept by others like a pet rat in a cage, you really don't matter to anyone but you. And don't think I don't find it VERY suspicious that the same people who are insisting that the non-productive be cosseted are also the ones who keep bleating that the personal, individual health of total strangers is a splendiferous public benefit I'm partaking in on the same level as public roads and police departments.
We're not talking about "temporary help", though, are we? No, you're touting the wonders of Canada's single-payer health care system, which turns every single citizen into Precious, the Persian cat on a velvet cushion with a diamond collar, on the unfounded assumption that keeping them healthy whether they're willing to do so for themselves or not is some great, amorphous "public good" to everyone else.
To be blunt, I'm really not interested in having a discussion where universal government control hides behind the skirts of extreme hard cases.
The truth is, as long as I live in a society where modern, 21-century medical care is available to be procured by anyone who wishes to do so, there will be enough people with the personal responsibility and motivation to keep themselves healthy and functional to provide all the public good I can allegedly derive from such things. People who cannot be bothered to look after themselves with a governmental nanny to care for their daily needs (which would NOT include those statistically uncommon people who literally cannot care for themselves, just so you know) are not really going to be of much benefit to those around them no matter what happens.
For those "hard cases" you mention, I'd rather pay for them to sit idle playing PlayStation, than have them robbing my house, or carjacking meI'm a tax payer. I support those who are having a rough time. I don't mind doing so, because that way I don't have to worry about having a permanent underclass perpetuate year after year. Temporary help lets people get out of ruts, and helps them help themselves. The key is in the temporary.But my personal health IS a public good. It enables me to remain in work and be a benefit to society. The more workers fit for work, the better.Well, for starters, because your personal health is not a public good that is being used by other people, the way most of the things paid for by property tax, for example, are. And car insurance which covers YOUR car in the event of an accident is voluntarily paid for by the car owners. In the US, at least, the car insurance which is mandated by the government is to protect OTHER people's property from your stupidity. You're perfectly welcome to leave your own car's damaged uncovered by insurance if you want to, so long as it's not owned by someone other than you, who is then going to suffer financially for your stupidity.
No, your health is a good to YOU. Being forced to support you if you're a non-working leech on society is a detriment to society, but if people are not demanding that you be kept by others like a pet rat in a cage, you really don't matter to anyone but you. And don't think I don't find it VERY suspicious that the same people who are insisting that the non-productive be cosseted are also the ones who keep bleating that the personal, individual health of total strangers is a splendiferous public benefit I'm partaking in on the same level as public roads and police departments.
We're not talking about "temporary help", though, are we? No, you're touting the wonders of Canada's single-payer health care system, which turns every single citizen into Precious, the Persian cat on a velvet cushion with a diamond collar, on the unfounded assumption that keeping them healthy whether they're willing to do so for themselves or not is some great, amorphous "public good" to everyone else.
To be blunt, I'm really not interested in having a discussion where universal government control hides behind the skirts of extreme hard cases.
The truth is, as long as I live in a society where modern, 21-century medical care is available to be procured by anyone who wishes to do so, there will be enough people with the personal responsibility and motivation to keep themselves healthy and functional to provide all the public good I can allegedly derive from such things. People who cannot be bothered to look after themselves with a governmental nanny to care for their daily needs (which would NOT include those statistically uncommon people who literally cannot care for themselves, just so you know) are not really going to be of much benefit to those around them no matter what happens.
For those "hard cases" you mention, I'd rather pay for them to sit idle playing PlayStation, than have them robbing my house, or carjacking me
For those "hard cases" you mention, I'd rather pay for them to sit idle playing PlayStation, than have them robbing my house, or carjacking me
Then you should do that! The issue is whether you have the right to force others to play along.
For those "hard cases" you mention, I'd rather pay for them to sit idle playing PlayStation, than have them robbing my house, or carjacking me
Then you should do that! The issue is whether you have the right to force others to play along.
And by the way, can we deal with the assumption that if you don't appease the masses by caring for them like prize Poodles, they'll automatically become ravening criminal mobs?
The need for standardize curriculum, better techniques, and more equitable funding should be obvious to anyone. I've tried to explain it but you've either closed your mind or you're not listening so I'm not going to repeat.We need to standardize curriculum, eliminate the disparity in education funding, and encourage the implementation of techniques and policies that have been proven to be effective.In short, we need to standardized curriculum and we need more equity in school funding and that will not happen without some central control at the federal level.
Yeah. That's what you keep saying. Still don't see why "we" need this.
Why? Why do we "need" this? Why do you want to force it on people via government?
Keep in mind, when you say rights, there are different definitions.But my personal health IS a public good. It enables me to remain in work and be a benefit to society. The more workers fit for work, the better.I live in Canada, with a single payer health care system, and it isn't free. I pay for it with my taxes every year. Because everyone above poverty line pays into it, costs are low to me. The government forces me to pay it, like the local government makes me pay my property tax. This way, everyone gets to use the services that were purchased using our pooled resources. When you insure your car, you benefit from other payees when you total your car. Why is health care any different?It is a right? probably not. Is it something that the richest most powerful nation on earth ought to provide to its citizenry? I would say so.
That's getting to it I suppose. So why do you think we ought to? Why is a society that simply provides things to people with no expectation of responsibility better than a society that ask its citizenry to have a level of responsibility to provide for it's own well being?
I hate to bring up Rush again because the left loves to just pick him apart but he noted that that mentality, where we do things that just feel good and right is an example of a sentiment of people who's hearts are disconnected from their brains (what makes sense vs. what feels good). It feels good to say we 'ought to provide poeple free healthcare'. But is that really what's best for the growth of a society? Is it really best that a society over time learn that it can be dependant on others for what they need rather than take responsibility for providing it to themselves?
Well, for starters, because your personal health is not a public good that is being used by other people, the way most of the things paid for by property tax, for example, are. And car insurance which covers YOUR car in the event of an accident is voluntarily paid for by the car owners. In the US, at least, the car insurance which is mandated by the government is to protect OTHER people's property from your stupidity. You're perfectly welcome to leave your own car's damaged uncovered by insurance if you want to, so long as it's not owned by someone other than you, who is then going to suffer financially for your stupidity.
It should be your responsibility to be fit and healthy enough to work, no one else's. I can see where a society has a responsibility to assist those who cannot be fit and healthy enough to work through no fault of their own, but that does not mean health care should be a right or an entitlement. Nor does it mean the gov't is the only way to provide HC for everybody either.
The costs aren't so great right now that Canada is unable to provide great single payer health care that is funded by taxpayers. Already Canadians are living longer than Americans, as a result of universal health coverage. I pay just under 600 bucks per year to cover me and the kids. It's good value, because insurance companies aren't driving the costsKeep in mind, when you say rights, there are different definitions.But my personal health IS a public good. It enables me to remain in work and be a benefit to society. The more workers fit for work, the better.I live in Canada, with a single payer health care system, and it isn't free. I pay for it with my taxes every year. Because everyone above poverty line pays into it, costs are low to me. The government forces me to pay it, like the local government makes me pay my property tax. This way, everyone gets to use the services that were purchased using our pooled resources. When you insure your car, you benefit from other payees when you total your car. Why is health care any different?That's getting to it I suppose. So why do you think we ought to? Why is a society that simply provides things to people with no expectation of responsibility better than a society that ask its citizenry to have a level of responsibility to provide for it's own well being?
I hate to bring up Rush again because the left loves to just pick him apart but he noted that that mentality, where we do things that just feel good and right is an example of a sentiment of people who's hearts are disconnected from their brains (what makes sense vs. what feels good). It feels good to say we 'ought to provide poeple free healthcare'. But is that really what's best for the growth of a society? Is it really best that a society over time learn that it can be dependant on others for what they need rather than take responsibility for providing it to themselves?
Well, for starters, because your personal health is not a public good that is being used by other people, the way most of the things paid for by property tax, for example, are. And car insurance which covers YOUR car in the event of an accident is voluntarily paid for by the car owners. In the US, at least, the car insurance which is mandated by the government is to protect OTHER people's property from your stupidity. You're perfectly welcome to leave your own car's damaged uncovered by insurance if you want to, so long as it's not owned by someone other than you, who is then going to suffer financially for your stupidity.
It should be your responsibility to be fit and healthy enough to work, no one else's. I can see where a society has a responsibility to assist those who cannot be fit and healthy enough to work through no fault of their own, but that does not mean health care should be a right or an entitlement. Nor does it mean the gov't is the only way to provide HC for everybody either.
For example, there are fundamental rights that is those that are listed in US constitution as interpreted by the courts. There are also rights specified in state constitutions such as a right to public education which exist in many state constitutions. There are rights as expressed in state laws such a parents rights, patient rights, and right to privacy.
Then there are also rights that pertain to a particular issue or group such as labor rights, LGBT rights, disability rights, prisoner rights, etc... These rights may be defined in or through interpretation of federal and state constitutions or laws. And then there are inalienable rights, such as the right to live or right to protect yourself,...
The right to professional free healthcare will happen but it's years in the future, probably about the time when most of the population is job sharing and the government is paying 80% of the healthcare costs. I don't see this as avoidable. The advances in life saving and life extension healthcare are going to be so expensive, essential no one is going to be able to pay for it except the government which of course means a much larger portion of GDP is going to go healthcare.
The Canadian healthcare system is much more efficient than in the US and a lot cheaper. However, it does have drawbacks such as long wait times for less serious problems. Of course that varies a lot but can be pretty annoying particular for people in the US who are use to seeing their doctor in 24 hours.The costs aren't so great right now that Canada is unable to provide great single payer health care that is funded by taxpayers. Already Canadians are living longer than Americans, as a result of universal health coverage. I pay just under 600 bucks per year to cover me and the kids. It's good value, because insurance companies aren't driving the costsKeep in mind, when you say rights, there are different definitions.But my personal health IS a public good. It enables me to remain in work and be a benefit to society. The more workers fit for work, the better.I live in Canada, with a single payer health care system, and it isn't free. I pay for it with my taxes every year. Because everyone above poverty line pays into it, costs are low to me. The government forces me to pay it, like the local government makes me pay my property tax. This way, everyone gets to use the services that were purchased using our pooled resources. When you insure your car, you benefit from other payees when you total your car. Why is health care any different?
Well, for starters, because your personal health is not a public good that is being used by other people, the way most of the things paid for by property tax, for example, are. And car insurance which covers YOUR car in the event of an accident is voluntarily paid for by the car owners. In the US, at least, the car insurance which is mandated by the government is to protect OTHER people's property from your stupidity. You're perfectly welcome to leave your own car's damaged uncovered by insurance if you want to, so long as it's not owned by someone other than you, who is then going to suffer financially for your stupidity.
It should be your responsibility to be fit and healthy enough to work, no one else's. I can see where a society has a responsibility to assist those who cannot be fit and healthy enough to work through no fault of their own, but that does not mean health care should be a right or an entitlement. Nor does it mean the gov't is the only way to provide HC for everybody either.
For example, there are fundamental rights that is those that are listed in US constitution as interpreted by the courts. There are also rights specified in state constitutions such as a right to public education which exist in many state constitutions. There are rights as expressed in state laws such a parents rights, patient rights, and right to privacy.
Then there are also rights that pertain to a particular issue or group such as labor rights, LGBT rights, disability rights, prisoner rights, etc... These rights may be defined in or through interpretation of federal and state constitutions or laws. And then there are inalienable rights, such as the right to live or right to protect yourself,...
The right to professional free healthcare will happen but it's years in the future, probably about the time when most of the population is job sharing and the government is paying 80% of the healthcare costs. I don't see this as avoidable. The advances in life saving and life extension healthcare are going to be so expensive, essential no one is going to be able to pay for it except the government which of course means a much larger portion of GDP is going to go healthcare.
Keep in mind, when you say rights, there are different definitions.But my personal health IS a public good. It enables me to remain in work and be a benefit to society. The more workers fit for work, the better.I live in Canada, with a single payer health care system, and it isn't free. I pay for it with my taxes every year. Because everyone above poverty line pays into it, costs are low to me. The government forces me to pay it, like the local government makes me pay my property tax. This way, everyone gets to use the services that were purchased using our pooled resources. When you insure your car, you benefit from other payees when you total your car. Why is health care any different?That's getting to it I suppose. So why do you think we ought to? Why is a society that simply provides things to people with no expectation of responsibility better than a society that ask its citizenry to have a level of responsibility to provide for it's own well being?
I hate to bring up Rush again because the left loves to just pick him apart but he noted that that mentality, where we do things that just feel good and right is an example of a sentiment of people who's hearts are disconnected from their brains (what makes sense vs. what feels good). It feels good to say we 'ought to provide poeple free healthcare'. But is that really what's best for the growth of a society? Is it really best that a society over time learn that it can be dependant on others for what they need rather than take responsibility for providing it to themselves?
Well, for starters, because your personal health is not a public good that is being used by other people, the way most of the things paid for by property tax, for example, are. And car insurance which covers YOUR car in the event of an accident is voluntarily paid for by the car owners. In the US, at least, the car insurance which is mandated by the government is to protect OTHER people's property from your stupidity. You're perfectly welcome to leave your own car's damaged uncovered by insurance if you want to, so long as it's not owned by someone other than you, who is then going to suffer financially for your stupidity.
It should be your responsibility to be fit and healthy enough to work, no one else's. I can see where a society has a responsibility to assist those who cannot be fit and healthy enough to work through no fault of their own, but that does not mean health care should be a right or an entitlement. Nor does it mean the gov't is the only way to provide HC for everybody either.
For example, there are fundamental rights that is those that are listed in US constitution as interpreted by the courts. There are also rights specified in state constitutions such as a right to public education which exist in many state constitutions. There are rights as expressed in state laws such a parents rights, patient rights, and right to privacy.
Then there are also rights that pertain to a particular issue or group such as labor rights, LGBT rights, disability rights, prisoner rights, etc... These rights may be defined in or through interpretation of federal and state constitutions or laws. And then there are inalienable rights, such as the right to live or right to protect yourself,...
The right to professional free healthcare will happen but it's years in the future, probably about the time when most of the population is job sharing and the government is paying 80% of the healthcare costs. I don't see this as avoidable. The advances in life saving and life extension healthcare are going to be so expensive, essential no one is going to be able to pay for it except the government which of course means a much larger portion of GDP is going to go healthcare.
I too suffer from a chronic condition, but I can see my doc whenever I want to. If I can wait until the next day, I can drop in at emergency (I have asthma). I have never had to wait a long time, for anything medically necessary. Being such a large country, those in rural areas have it harder to access care, but I'm sure that is true there too. I don't know anyone who has waited long for necessary care. Elective or cosmetic procedures can take more time, as more urgent cases take precedence. Nobody is bankrupted because they can't afford hospital bills, but hospitals should be shot for their expensive parking fees. Those guys are sharks, lolThe Canadian healthcare system is much more efficient than in the US and a lot cheaper. However, it does have drawbacks such as long wait times for less serious problems. Of course that varies a lot but can be pretty annoying particular for people in the US who are use to seeing their doctor in 24 hours.The costs aren't so great right now that Canada is unable to provide great single payer health care that is funded by taxpayers. Already Canadians are living longer than Americans, as a result of universal health coverage. I pay just under 600 bucks per year to cover me and the kids. It's good value, because insurance companies aren't driving the costsKeep in mind, when you say rights, there are different definitions.But my personal health IS a public good. It enables me to remain in work and be a benefit to society. The more workers fit for work, the better.Well, for starters, because your personal health is not a public good that is being used by other people, the way most of the things paid for by property tax, for example, are. And car insurance which covers YOUR car in the event of an accident is voluntarily paid for by the car owners. In the US, at least, the car insurance which is mandated by the government is to protect OTHER people's property from your stupidity. You're perfectly welcome to leave your own car's damaged uncovered by insurance if you want to, so long as it's not owned by someone other than you, who is then going to suffer financially for your stupidity.
It should be your responsibility to be fit and healthy enough to work, no one else's. I can see where a society has a responsibility to assist those who cannot be fit and healthy enough to work through no fault of their own, but that does not mean health care should be a right or an entitlement. Nor does it mean the gov't is the only way to provide HC for everybody either.
For example, there are fundamental rights that is those that are listed in US constitution as interpreted by the courts. There are also rights specified in state constitutions such as a right to public education which exist in many state constitutions. There are rights as expressed in state laws such a parents rights, patient rights, and right to privacy.
Then there are also rights that pertain to a particular issue or group such as labor rights, LGBT rights, disability rights, prisoner rights, etc... These rights may be defined in or through interpretation of federal and state constitutions or laws. And then there are inalienable rights, such as the right to live or right to protect yourself,...
The right to professional free healthcare will happen but it's years in the future, probably about the time when most of the population is job sharing and the government is paying 80% of the healthcare costs. I don't see this as avoidable. The advances in life saving and life extension healthcare are going to be so expensive, essential no one is going to be able to pay for it except the government which of course means a much larger portion of GDP is going to go healthcare.
I'm in the US and I have some pretty intense healthcare problems and I see several doctors on a regular basis. Most of the time when I have a problem, I just call the doc describe my symptoms and she or he sends me to the lab for some diagnostic tests and a day or so later I have a prescription. That works well for me because I see these doctors several times a year and are thus very familiar with my problems. Every time I have a problem, I would hate to have to go to the doctor. I wonder how that would be handled Canada.
To me there is a certain dignity in rights. They are an expression of our fundamental and mutual humanity. There is nothing dignified in having a sick populace. Nobody is served by it.Keep in mind, when you say rights, there are different definitions.But my personal health IS a public good. It enables me to remain in work and be a benefit to society. The more workers fit for work, the better.I live in Canada, with a single payer health care system, and it isn't free. I pay for it with my taxes every year. Because everyone above poverty line pays into it, costs are low to me. The government forces me to pay it, like the local government makes me pay my property tax. This way, everyone gets to use the services that were purchased using our pooled resources. When you insure your car, you benefit from other payees when you total your car. Why is health care any different?
Well, for starters, because your personal health is not a public good that is being used by other people, the way most of the things paid for by property tax, for example, are. And car insurance which covers YOUR car in the event of an accident is voluntarily paid for by the car owners. In the US, at least, the car insurance which is mandated by the government is to protect OTHER people's property from your stupidity. You're perfectly welcome to leave your own car's damaged uncovered by insurance if you want to, so long as it's not owned by someone other than you, who is then going to suffer financially for your stupidity.
It should be your responsibility to be fit and healthy enough to work, no one else's. I can see where a society has a responsibility to assist those who cannot be fit and healthy enough to work through no fault of their own, but that does not mean health care should be a right or an entitlement. Nor does it mean the gov't is the only way to provide HC for everybody either.
For example, there are fundamental rights that is those that are listed in US constitution as interpreted by the courts. There are also rights specified in state constitutions such as a right to public education which exist in many state constitutions. There are rights as expressed in state laws such a parents rights, patient rights, and right to privacy.
Then there are also rights that pertain to a particular issue or group such as labor rights, LGBT rights, disability rights, prisoner rights, etc... These rights may be defined in or through interpretation of federal and state constitutions or laws. And then there are inalienable rights, such as the right to live or right to protect yourself,...
And then there are things that aren't rights at all, but get labeled so by proponents of the welfare state:
The right to professional free healthcare will happen but it's years in the future, probably about the time when most of the population is job sharing and the government is paying 80% of the healthcare costs. I don't see this as avoidable. The advances in life saving and life extension healthcare are going to be so expensive, essential no one is going to be able to pay for it except the government which of course means a much larger portion of GDP is going to go healthcare.
The attempt to label various services as "rights" is disingenuous propaganda. It's a lever on the common, and correct, understanding that government's primary mission statement is to protect our rights - above all other state interests. But the real goal has nothing to do with rights, some people just want government to control health care, even if it must violate our rights to do so.
Good question. But note: the right to free speech can be interpreted to mean only that the government shall not undertake measures to limit your free speech. Now suppose that every time you tried to speak, someone else stopped you from doing so -- say, by standing next to you with a bullhorn, or bombing your newspaper, or rioting outside your editorial office when you print a cartoon they don't like. Do you have the "right" to demand that the government protect your free speech?
We certainly feel we have the right to demand that the government protect us from criminals, for example. But should we? Do we have a "right" to pursue our lives unmolested by criminal predators?
Also note that on the "right to bear arms", again, this is a kind of negative limitation on the government, not a positive demand that they provide you with arms to bear. However, if someone tried to take away your guns, you would expect the government to ... well, at least to come and carry away their corpse.
So ... are there any "rights" at all which require that the government do something, as opposed to refrain from doing something?
To me there is a certain dignity in rights. They are an expression of our fundamental and mutual humanity. There is nothing dignified in having a sick populace. Nobody is served by it.
I presume rights are to be decided by the electorate, through the enactment of legislation and/or constitutional amendmentTo me there is a certain dignity in rights. They are an expression of our fundamental and mutual humanity. There is nothing dignified in having a sick populace. Nobody is served by it.
Hmm.. ok, well, how do you define rights? When Jefferson claimed that the purpose of government was to secure rights, what did he mean?
