Socialised Medicine Yaaaaaaaayyyy

[Svartalf]

And the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy in the US is...

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

medical bills.

And guess what, that's exactly what bankruptcy is for, so that one can discharge crippling debts that would, in an earlier age, have landed one in debtor's prison.

Having to declare bankruptcy is hardly the end of the world. You can actually get credit easier after a bankruptcy because creditors know you can't file again for seven years.

How does the fact that someone was unprepared to deal with medical bills (probably because they really wanted that 60-inch LED HDTV) justify dunning everyone else in society for their medical bills? Prudence dictates that the individual should plan carefully for such catastrophic events and if necessary purchase an insurance policy with their own money to cover that peril.

How about those of us who have a non-debilitating medical condition that doesn't qualify as a disability, but that no for-profit insurance company will get near?

You mean like my asthma/allergies/respiratory deficit (not quite failure though when it really kickss in, it feels dangerously close to it)?

[FBM]

And the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy in the US is...

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

medical bills.

And guess what, that's exactly what bankruptcy is for, so that one can discharge crippling debts that would, in an earlier age, have landed one in debtor's prison.

Having to declare bankruptcy is hardly the end of the world. You can actually get credit easier after a bankruptcy because creditors know you can't file again for seven years.

How does the fact that someone was unprepared to deal with medical bills (probably because they really wanted that 60-inch LED HDTV) justify dunning everyone else in society for their medical bills? Prudence dictates that the individual should plan carefully for such catastrophic events and if necessary purchase an insurance policy with their own money to cover that peril.

How about those of us who have a non-debilitating medical condition that doesn't qualify as a disability, but that no for-profit insurance company will get near?

You mean like my asthma/allergies/respiratory deficit (not quite failure though when it really kickss in, it feels dangerously close to it)?

Yep. Or ITP. Like that.

[mistermack]

The best argument Seth can muster is, ''it will come to an end''.

Rather like the christian ''you will get your reward in heaven''. Impossible to disprove, but just as unlikely.
The difference is, in the present, in the real world, everyone has very good cover in the UK.
Whereas, in the US, millions have no cover, millions and million and millions have beloved family members who have no cover, and probably hundreds of millions have to worry about losing their cover, if life takes a wrong turn.

What a shithouse.

[Seth]

How about those of us who have a non-debilitating medical condition that doesn't qualify as a disability, but that no for-profit insurance company will get near?

You mean like me? Well, I try to take care of myself and I shop wisely for medical care, which saves me thousands over what it would cost for insurance, if I could get insurance. And I put up with the annoying but non-fatal symptoms that I can't afford to treat.

Sometimes life just sucks. That's no excuse for stealing from other people I'm afraid, which is why I don't, but socialists do...to a man.

[Seth]

The best argument Seth can muster is, ''it will come to an end''.

It will. The fundamental laws of economics make this a certainty.

Rather like the christian ''you will get your reward in heaven''. Impossible to disprove, but just as unlikely.

It's not only not impossible to disprove, it's ridiculously simple to prove and it's been proven many times over.

The difference is, in the present, in the real world, everyone has very good cover in the UK.

Except the ones that don't and die waiting for a test or procedure, or end up drinking water from flowerpots in the hospital because of the crap medical care they get.

Whereas, in the US, millions have no cover, millions and million and millions have beloved family members who have no cover, and probably hundreds of millions have to worry about losing their cover, if life takes a wrong turn.

Poor planning promotes piss poor performance. When I was young people put money aside for medical needs on a regular basis. The very reason that health care is so expensive today is the law of supply and demand and the overburdening of the health care system by people with "insurance" who waste valuable resources on trivialities because they've paid for their HMO coverage and BY GOD they are going to get their money's worth even if it means making an ER run for a splinter. Back when people had to pay cold, hard cash on the barrelhead they were more careful and prudent and they treated minor ailments and injuries themselves, thus reducing demand on the medical care system, which kept prices for both service and supplies low.

Nowadays the incessant demand for treatment of pissant medical annoyances, combined with government meddling has caused severe shortages in supplies and care and so the price for both continues to climb, and climb, and climb because that's how economies work. And it only gets much, much worse under socialized medicine where government inefficiency, bureaucracy and corruption take a huge bite out of the health-care dollars all taxpayers are dunned for...and people still get crap care no matter how much money the government throws at the problem.

What a shithouse.

At least we have indoor flush toilets here. Over there you'll be shitting in the Thames soon enough.

[FBM]

How about those of us who have a non-debilitating medical condition that doesn't qualify as a disability, but that no for-profit insurance company will get near?

You mean like me? Well, I try to take care of myself and I shop wisely for medical care, which saves me thousands over what it would cost for insurance, if I could get insurance. And I put up with the annoying but non-fatal symptoms that I can't afford to treat.

In an emergency, one doesn't have the luxury of shopping around for medical care. It was an emergency that bankrupted me, and I'm pretty sure that's a common occurrence among those 68% (IIRC) of people who file for bankruptcy due to medical bills.

Sometimes life just sucks. That's no excuse for stealing from other people I'm afraid, which is why I don't, but socialists do...to a man.

Yeah, bankruptcy sucks for both the bankrupt individual and his/her family as well as for the taxpayers. Accepting legal public assistance is not stealing, last time I checked.

[Seth]

How about those of us who have a non-debilitating medical condition that doesn't qualify as a disability, but that no for-profit insurance company will get near?

You mean like me? Well, I try to take care of myself and I shop wisely for medical care, which saves me thousands over what it would cost for insurance, if I could get insurance. And I put up with the annoying but non-fatal symptoms that I can't afford to treat.

In an emergency, one doesn't have the luxury of shopping around for medical care.

Life's a bitch sometimes isn't it?

It was an emergency that bankrupted me, and I'm pretty sure that's a common occurrence among those 68% (IIRC) of people who file for bankruptcy due to medical bills.

So what? The price you pay for not planning ahead and saving up for medical needs is that if you have a sudden problem that you can't pay for you have to declare bankruptcy. The whole purpose of bankruptcy proceedings is to make sure that you are truly unable to pay your debts and that you're not just scamming the system and forcing other people to pay for your problems, which is exactly what happens when you declare bankruptcy.

The stigma is there quite deliberately, as is the provision against declaring bankruptcy again within seven years.

If I have to pay for your medical emergency, which I do as a function of bankruptcy, which shifts those costs to consumers by way of higher prices for their medical care, then I damned sure want you to understand what a gift you've been given and I damned sure want to make sure that it's unpleasant but not fatal for you to shirk your debts. This is because nobody owes you a damned thing, and it's the generosity and charity of the public as a whole that allows you to declare bankruptcy in the first place rather than sending you to penal servitude to pay off your debts. So I have no problem with you having to liquidate your non-essential holdings as a condition of being granted bankruptcy because it has the beneficial effect of instructing you to take greater care in the future to provide for yourself by stripping you of the fripperies and perks of living when you default on your debts.

What outrages me are the dependent-class fucks who think that they can demand that I pay for their medical care while they still enjoy their flat-screen TV, air conditioning and automobiles (plural).

So it's unfortunate that your medical problem outstripped your savings, but how is that my problem? You should be thankful that you aren't languishing in a debtor's prison and that society is compassionate enough to assume the burden of your debts voluntarily by allowing you to declare bankruptcy.

Sometimes life just sucks. That's no excuse for stealing from other people I'm afraid, which is why I don't, but socialists do...to a man.

Yeah, bankruptcy sucks for both the bankrupt individual and his/her family as well as for the taxpayers. Accepting legal public assistance is not stealing, last time I checked.

It is if the public assistance you accept is taken from taxpayers against their will, which is usually the case. Just because it's a taxman doing the strong-arm work for you doesn't make it any less a theft.

[FBM]

Well, you choose to live in a country where most of the people most of the time are willing to pay taxes for what they see as the general good, and where most people most of the time don't begrude their tax dollars going to support those in unfortunate circumstances, and therefore don't consider it to be stealing. Life's a bitch sometimes, isn't it?

[Seth]

Well, you choose to live in a country where most of the people most of the time are willing to pay taxes for what they see as the general good, and where most people most of the time don't begrude their tax dollars going to support those in unfortunate circumstances, and therefore don't consider it to be stealing. Life's a bitch sometimes, isn't it?

And taxes paid voluntarily are not being stolen. So why can't you be satisfied with what people are willing to give voluntarily? Why do you support the initiation of force by proxy to satisfy your needs and desires?

[FBM]

Well, you choose to live in a country where most of the people most of the time are willing to pay taxes for what they see as the general good, and where most people most of the time don't begrude their tax dollars going to support those in unfortunate circumstances, and therefore don't consider it to be stealing. Life's a bitch sometimes, isn't it?

And taxes paid voluntarily are not being stolen. So why can't you be satisfied with what people are willing to give voluntarily? Why do you support the initiation of force by proxy to satisfy your needs and desires?

Because there are real freeloaders who would love to only take without contributing. Tax evaders should be punished simply because their behavior is deleterious to society. When everyone contributes according to the law, there should be enough to take care of those in real need. That helps society as a whole, as well as individuals within it.

[Seth]

Well, you choose to live in a country where most of the people most of the time are willing to pay taxes for what they see as the general good, and where most people most of the time don't begrude their tax dollars going to support those in unfortunate circumstances, and therefore don't consider it to be stealing. Life's a bitch sometimes, isn't it?

And taxes paid voluntarily are not being stolen. So why can't you be satisfied with what people are willing to give voluntarily? Why do you support the initiation of force by proxy to satisfy your needs and desires?

Because there are real freeloaders who would love to only take without contributing.

Do you mean the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers, who pay less than 3 percent of income tax collected?

Tax evaders should be punished simply because their behavior is deleterious to society.

We're not talking about tax evasion, I'm asking what your moral and ethical argument in support of the initiation of force by proxy to take money from others to be redistributed to you to satisfy your needs is.

When everyone contributes according to the law, there should be enough to take care of those in real need. That helps society as a whole, as well as individuals within it.

Utilitarian argument. This sort of argument can be used to justify literally any sort of oppression, like, for example, exterminating Jews helps society as a whole.

You're not making a very compelling moral or ethical argument in support of organized theft by proxy.

[FBM]

Do you mean the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers, who pay less than 3 percent of income tax collected?

I include the freeloaders among them as well as those among the top earners.

We're not talking about tax evasion, I'm asking what your moral and ethical argument in support of the initiation of force by proxy to take money from others to be redistributed to you to satisfy your needs is.

The tax evasion problem is a justification for the use of force, since it is a criminal act. Elsewhere, it is both moral and ethical for a US citizen to abide by the US Constitution, including Article I, Section 8, Clause 1.

Utilitarian argument. This sort of argument can be used to justify literally any sort of oppression, like, for example, exterminating Jews helps society as a whole.

Fallacy fallacy and slippery slope argument.

You're not making a very compelling moral or ethical argument in support of organized theft by proxy.

And you're not making a very compelling argument that enforcing the Constitution constitutes theft by proxy.

[Seth]

Do you mean the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers, who pay less than 3 percent of income tax collected?

I include the freeloaders among them as well as those among the top earners.

Do you mean the top 50 percent of taxpayers who pay 97 percent of all income taxes, or just the top 5 percent who pay 53.8 percent of all income taxes?

We're not talking about tax evasion, I'm asking what your moral and ethical argument in support of the initiation of force by proxy to take money from others to be redistributed to you to satisfy your needs is.

The tax evasion problem is a justification for the use of force, since it is a criminal act.

Evasion. The question is how do you justify NOT calling the collection of money to be transferred to you by the initiation of force by proxy a "criminal act?"

Elsewhere, it is both moral and ethical for a US citizen to abide by the US Constitution, including Article I, Section 8, Clause 1.

Evasion and appeal to common practice. How do YOU justify forcible redistribution of wealth from one individual to another in order to meet the needs of the latter? I suspect that you can't, and you know you can't, just as no socialist can, so you're turning to evasion and obfuscation in order to preserve your ego.

Utilitarian argument. This sort of argument can be used to justify literally any sort of oppression, like, for example, exterminating Jews helps society as a whole.

Fallacy fallacy and slippery slope argument.

And yet true nonetheless. A utilitarian argument is nothing more than saying "well, that's the way it is so that's the way it should be," which is a very weak intellectual argument.

You're not making a very compelling moral or ethical argument in support of organized theft by proxy.

And you're not making a very compelling argument that enforcing the Constitution constitutes theft by proxy.

I'm not making that argument, I'm asking you to justify your position that forcible redistribution of wealth from one person to another to meet the latter's needs or desires is morally and ethically acceptable. You're evading answering the question by resorting to an appeal to common practice.

[FBM]

You appeal to the Second Amendment when it comes to gun rights, I'll appeal to Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 when the issue is the legality of taxation. If my argument is invalid here, then so is yours there.

[Seth]

You appeal to the Second Amendment when it comes to gun rights, I'll appeal to Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 when the issue is the legality of taxation. If my argument is invalid here, then so is yours there.

Evasion. We're discussing your moral and ethical arguments in support of forcible redistribution of wealth by proxy from one person to another to meet the latter's needs or desires, not the 2nd Amendment.

Do you have any moral or ethical argument in support of your position?