That would be the fact that the service would require slavery!
The government cannot force anyone to treat or cure any person or animal.
Free healthcare means EVERYONE gets help, but guess what. You NEED people to help other people! We don't have enough humans who can or want to perform medical procedures for everyone at the demands of any power.
The whole idea revolves around slavery of anything that can do the job, which means that the only time this idea will ever be good is when we create robot capable of doing so.
Even if this system was implimented and people did willing do the job, they NEED to be paid SOMETHING. If its only money, then you bet your butt it will be expensive and cause the poor to might as well die off. If not money, then it would be payment in the form of free housing, transportation, and other benefit arrangements at the cost of the tax payers dollars.
Governments have no right to force anyone to provide services to everyone or anyone within its borders, especially to those who do not wish to be apart of the program.
What do you think?
Last edited by Honda CBR 250 Rider; 12-01-2012 at 05:34 AM.
How come the rest of the civilised world can afford it, and it seems to work pretty well, where as the richest country on the planet can't? Or is that why you are the richest country on the planet, because you don't pay to look after your own citizens?
__________________
You meet the nicest people on a Honda.
How come the rest of the civilised world can afford it, and it seems to work pretty well, where as the richest country on the planet can't? Or is that why you are the richest country on the planet, because you don't pay to look after your own citizens?
Because Americans think increasing the tax by one percent will mean their country goes to damnation.
And no, it's not slavery. When I take a job I have to help my customers as well, else I would get fired. Yes, even the smelly customers that can't even refill the stapler. That's part of the job. Next to that, I think providing health care isn't just any kind of job. The managers in this sector may disagree, but as a doctor you're sworn (or should be) to uphold the Declaration of Geneva ( Declaration of Geneva - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ).
Next to that, the law doesn't require you as a person to help people, but as a service provider. When you commit yourself to providing that service, you're bound to help people and will get paid for that. How's that slavery? A civil servant is bound to help anyone regardless of who it is, are you saying having a public function is slavery too?
Some editing, for more explanation.
I'm not 100% sure how the American 'Obama care' will work. But let me explain some by dwelling on how our Dutch system works. It's a mixed market system. The government after deliberation will propose the rules of basic insurance. It's about what is in the offered basic insurance package which can not be refused to any patient by the insurers - it includes GP's and covers everything that may mean the difference between life and death, determines the 'own risk' (at the moment a minimum of 350 euro's - the threshold which patients have to pay to their insurers before the rest get's covered by the insurance), the amount of money that get's reimbursed for any given 'action' and so on). There are premium packages which are extra's to the basic package, like cosmetic surgery and other quality of life operations. Everyone by law is required to insure him or herself for the basic coverage which costs around 1200 euro's a year, but lower incomes get reimbursed by the government to cough it up. One can however refuse to take the insurance, but only on religious or ethical grounds (let's say, the equivalent of the Amish in our country).
In turn these insurances basically pay the medical care. Doctors may not refuse a patient for everything that's covered by the basic insurance. They get paid for the service they provide and so it's not slavery. They can refuse patients only on the grounds that they're full or having a waiting list (there are too few doctors) - which can be avoided by going to Belgium (which has a more fixed tariff system - but it would be too complicated to explain inter-European solidarity systems).
How come the rest of the civilised world can afford it, and it seems to work pretty well, where as the richest country on the planet can't? Or is that why you are the richest country on the planet, because you don't pay to look after your own citizens?
But what about the poor. They will suffer financially. Without money, it would be difficult for them to afford pretty much anything on their own. Ah the governments got them covered.
Ok. Lets be biased and tax the rich more for the service so the poor don't suffer as much. Thats sounds like a fair trade if you don't care about rights of equality. which the greedy do not believe in because they don't want to give up and they want to take.
Trust me, Wynne and Tyrian. I would love a world where everyone recieves the care they need and even more, but I'm taking the mind of the current population into consideration, where many would NOT be happy to give up what keeps them going.
I'm not saying they system couldn't work. I'm saying it would require serious changes to the economy and lives of many who may not want to be forced into it.
I don't know how Free Healthcare works in other countries, but you can't have free healthcare without needing someone to do the job and getting rewarded for doing so, all against their will, because if they aren't force and there aren't enough willing participants, then the system crumbles.
Not everyone is or wants to be a Doctor.
Case in point: Not enough people to provide the service = not enough to make the system work = the tax payers rebel against losses = system shut down.
Again the only way this would work best is if machines did the work. The taxes would go to the mechanics and engineers who handle the machines, which would be productive if the machines do not require too much attention to keep runnning.
Last edited by Honda CBR 250 Rider; 12-01-2012 at 06:03 AM.
It's funny how you don't seem to mind spending all that tax money on "defence", but don't want to spend any tax money in caring for the sick and needy.
I'm not saying they system couldn't work. I'm saying it would require serious changes to the economy and lives of many who may not want to be forced into it.
I don't know how Free Healthcare works in other countries, but you can't have free healthcare without needing someone to do the job and getting rewarded for doing so, all against their will, because if they aren't force and there aren't enough willing participants, then the system crumbles.
Not everyone is or wants to be a Doctor.
Case in point: Not enough people to provide the service = not enough to make the system work = the tax payers rebel against losses = system shut down.
Usually free healthcare works to the point where there is some kind of fund that pays for the healthcare. That can be either organized via private parties (like in my own country) or by a government institute (like in GB, the NHS). Actually here, doctors can also step outside the system and raise their fee's. If they're great doctors, rich patients will pay considerable sums to be treated by them and the rich patients will get reimbursed for the standard fee and have to pay for the rest by themselves.
I think you raise a valid point not so much for the doctors being 'slaves', which they aren't since one way or another, the coverage is arranged by government/private insurance, but for the poorer people to cough up the money for the insurance. You could reimburse them for the insurance, like we do here.
Over here, you pay by what you can afford. Lowest earners don't pay any tax or National Insurance (what pays for healthcare, pensions, welfare etc.) out of their pay packet. The more you earn, the more you pay. There is a private healthcare sector over here too, and NHS doctors work in that as well as the NHS. There is no way working for a health service can be described as slavery. It's the same as any other job. You work, you get paid. Most healthcare workers are paid reasonably well over here, and doctors make a hell of a lot of money. I'm sure that there are plenty of unemployed people that would jump at the chance of working in a health service.
__________________
You meet the nicest people on a Honda.
It's funny how you don't seem to mind spending all that tax money on "defence", but don't want to spend any tax money in caring for the sick and needy.
I do mind, actually. I'm already poor (as an individual) and struggling to do things I want to do in my life and would suffer more if I lived alone. Adding more losses to my income on something I may NEVER need will NOT help ME!
People are sick and needy until they are no longer sick and needy and if we lived in a world where people went on long periods with no illnesses or needs, then the services will not be needed and the money goes to waste.
I have lived over 15 years of my life without a serious illness or injury that required professional care, so I have had no NEED for healthcare.
Now I know not everyone is like me, but if the majority was, then the system would collapse or be put on reserve (which would lead to wasted money, unless it was only active when the needs for it were enough).
In the case if the program is a success, you bet your butt over population would increase and cause problem universal free healthcare could NOT handle.
Last edited by Honda CBR 250 Rider; 12-01-2012 at 06:43 AM.
Looks like the selfish, self righteous right are back on their soapbox.
Looks like the blissfully ignorant are as well.
You need to take all possibilities into consideration, BEFORE you jump on any bandwagon.
What? Do you think I live in my own home, have my own car, have a job that pays me enough to live a life I would be happy with?
NO. I live with a roomate so I'm not broke or homless every month. I only have a motorcycle because I spent over a year saving up money then decided to spend ALL OF IT (and I DO mean ALL OF IT) so that I didn't have to walk/ride a bike for LONG trips or take unreliable buses just so I get things done more easily at the cost of even MORE MONEY now that my most expensive possession require costly care that didn't exsist when I put myself through daily physical stress. I only bring home an average of $600 every 2 weeks and lose $450 a month, which THANKFULLY (considering the luck of my current situation) leaves me with enough funds to pay for BASIC needs and access to my own bare bones transportation, and a few hundred extra for saving up to EVENTUALLY be able to afford better things for myself. The word you want to look at is EVENTUALLY! This process is SLOW and the situation could be WORSE if I didn't get lucky with what I live in and who I live with.
Now imagine everyone in this situation, but living by themselves in a home that ISN'T larger than 50 square ft. and made out of crap, and how they would manage.
Answer me this: Do you want people like me to live even longer and/or more unhappy lives, just so everyone has the chance to NOT die too soon?
Back on topic. This is what I'm talking about. Taking out more could devastate many.
Last edited by Honda CBR 250 Rider; 12-01-2012 at 07:39 AM.
#1 reason why Free Healthcare is not a human right.
