See I get that argument when it comes to stuff like drug legalization: I don't want it, but that doesn't mean I have to prevent others from having it. Where it breaks down is when I have to pay for it. I won't pay for your drugs; I won't pay for your medical care. As far as I'm concerned, that's the only argument there needs to be against socialized medicine: I don't want to pay for it, I'm not going to pay for it, and you have no right to vote yourself a piece of my wallet.
Anyone does have the right to vote for it, that's how it works. People can decide it's best if everyone shares the burden of unexpected tragedy, just like people decided it's best if everyone pays for street lights, roads, police, firemen, rubbish collection and armies.
Not exactly. What people _can't_ decide is to take extra from me. Everyone uses roughly the same number of dollars of street lights, roads, policemen, firemen, etc.; there should be no difference in how much I pay compared to anyone else. Socialized medicine is a hand-out, pure and simple. No one can coerce me to pay the government so he can bribe his constituency.
"that's how it works" - compelling argument. I never thought about it like that ;).
I wouldn't say I'm against socialized "x"; I'm against government socialized "x".
You, I, and charities don't have the right to forcefully take from others (no matter how noble our stated intentions); so where does the government get this right? Aren't we all equal? Where does the government get rights that you, I, and charities don't have?
Is charities not having the right to forcefully extract donations hurting their cause? I don't think so. Voluntary donations force charities to demonstrate they will wisely use the funds. Resources aren't infinite, and if we want to care for the most people in the best way possible we have to use resources efficiently. Charities attract funds by succeeding in their mission, whereas governments attract funds by failing in their mission.
If government socialized medicine requires a majority, couldn't we just implement it voluntarily and avoid all of the negative ramifications that come with entrusting a small group of politicians with an enormous amount of power that is routinely abused to benefit themselves and large corporations?
I also wonder: Does anyone arguing for government socialized "x" actually believe in it? How much money do people give to the government beyond what is forcefully taken from them? Just a guess, but I think that number is very close to 0.
On the contrary, how much money do people voluntarily give to charities? About $410,000,000,000 last year.
"a la carte" infrastructure sounds very expensive. Where does it stop, do we shift the entire cost of handicap accessible sidewalks on to those that use it?
The obvious counterpoint is, why ought I to pay for a ramp which a guy in a wheelchair can use? I may _choose_ to do so via charity, but I ought to be able not to do so. This is why we have localized government, though. It allows you to pay for the minimum amount of stuff you don't want. If California wants healthcare for illegals and you don't, that's fine. If you want free medicine and I don't want to pay for it, that's fine. Localized government forces you to look your neighbor in the eye and explain to him why you want his money, which is a much higher bar than slurping from the federal trough. I think this is a net positive: the other side is that your neighbor will have a much harder time turning you down for something that truly matters.
Why medicine in particular? Presumably you don’t get so worked up about your tax dollars going towards paved roads or police stations. Your objections seem somewhat arbitrary
1) Plenty of people complain about progressive taxation and advocate for a flat tax.
2) Progressive tax is not arbitrary. As income increases, a higher % of spending is discretionary. Nearly all of the working class’ income goes to basic necessities. That is part of the rationale.
For an extreme example a homeless drunk spending most of their income on alcohol is paying a 40% tax for the privilege. Benefits are of course a separate issue, but few want to calculate benefits from free roads, Medicare, police, or Social Security as government welfare.
At the other end Bill Gates actual lifetime income is vastly higher than his taxable income due to the charitable tax deduction and capitals gains being deferred until sale.
You forget that profits (which drive capital value of a company up in the long run) are subject to corporate tax. On top of which capital gains tax is applied. The effective full-cycle tax rate usually exceeds highest personal income tax rates. (Wages are expenses and so are not subject to corporate taxes). The whole "rich pay less tax" thing is utter B.S.
A road is much closer to a pure public good than socialized medicine. Policemen are certainly farther, but are at least cheaper. They are also on a local level.
On the other hand, as far as I'm concerned, if I'm paying for your health care, I have a right to say what you can and can't eat. No soda, candy, cheeseburgers, alcohol, drugs, tobacco, riding motorcycles, or any other behavior _I_ deem risky. It's a gross abridgment of freedom, but you can't socialize those externalities. I personally think this is a darn stupid way to set things up, but it seem to be where we're going given the number of people walking around with their hands out.
you do already via medicare/medicaid though, and it's likely that skipping small preventative (=> cheap) procedures via being uninsured is costing you a lot when people with chronic conditions land in either of those programs due to age/poverty/disability associated with their illness
Anti tax advocates love to die on the hill. It makes literally no sense. Sorry bud, but whether you're going to be taxed by the government was settled literally thousands of years ago. You can continue to be an obstructionaist asshole, or you could be constructive and help shape the debates of where those taxes will be spent. Your choice.
You can say that about anything governments do: roads, police, schools, electrical grids, national defence... The fact is that you live in a society and benefit from so many things it provides. Additionally, society benefits from having you contribute to it.
I rarely see people with a position like yours demonstrate their commitment to fierce independence by moving out to the wilderness and surviving off the land completely on their own. Why is that?
I think it's because you take for granted all of the things society provides for you and generally attribute all of your successes to your own efforts. That is a mindset which can lead only to resentment and isolation, but maybe that's what you want?
Society - with myriad complex and resource-involving arrangements and institutions - predates the very existence of the human individual's consciousness. Your very ability to express your thoughts to yourself is the result of the activity of other members of society.
It is only quite recently in history that people (who aren't hermits going into the wilderness) have been making the "but I want to be left alone" argument. It is an unfortunate result of the concentration of property and means of production in recent centuries and the ideology it engendered and disseminated.
Would you please stop using HN for political and ideological battle? We've had to ask you this several times already. Ignoring moderation requests eventually gets your accounts banned on HN.
Was it in-appropriate under a post that was itself politically-charged? I've seen quite a lot of others advocating for political policies without censure. For instance, I saw a large number of commenters arguing about the pros and cons of UBI under a recent post about Yang's automation fears being over-blown.
That's a somewhat complicated question, because the OP in this case was probably a bad one for HN. But the short answer is yes, it was inappropriate even under a post that was itself politically charged—because sometime good submissions are politically charged. In those cases following the guidelines is even more important than usual, and also is harder than usual.
Met an RN a couple days ago, told her about my cheap healthcare plan (daily spinach and fruit smoothies, multi grain cheerios with their 9 embedded vitamins 100% daily recommended, variable protein sources with constant physical activity, lots of untreated water if possible, staying on the move and paying attention at all times so as not to get injured). We discussed socialized medicine of other nations, and she seemed to show an aversion to it. Her argument was that not as many people would want to get into medicine since they wouldn't be paid as much. She works in ER so the first thing I think of is trauma which is different than caring for a lethargic citizen decaying away because of their own habits.
But privatised healthcare generates the fear of the high medical bill, and this could incentivize people to exercise caution (pun? kinda). I personally would not prefer to give doctors all my money in the final few years of a sedentary life spent carelessly.
31 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 80.6 ms ] threadI wouldn't say I'm against socialized "x"; I'm against government socialized "x".
You, I, and charities don't have the right to forcefully take from others (no matter how noble our stated intentions); so where does the government get this right? Aren't we all equal? Where does the government get rights that you, I, and charities don't have?
Is charities not having the right to forcefully extract donations hurting their cause? I don't think so. Voluntary donations force charities to demonstrate they will wisely use the funds. Resources aren't infinite, and if we want to care for the most people in the best way possible we have to use resources efficiently. Charities attract funds by succeeding in their mission, whereas governments attract funds by failing in their mission.
If government socialized medicine requires a majority, couldn't we just implement it voluntarily and avoid all of the negative ramifications that come with entrusting a small group of politicians with an enormous amount of power that is routinely abused to benefit themselves and large corporations?
I also wonder: Does anyone arguing for government socialized "x" actually believe in it? How much money do people give to the government beyond what is forcefully taken from them? Just a guess, but I think that number is very close to 0.
On the contrary, how much money do people voluntarily give to charities? About $410,000,000,000 last year.
2) Progressive tax is not arbitrary. As income increases, a higher % of spending is discretionary. Nearly all of the working class’ income goes to basic necessities. That is part of the rationale.
For an extreme example a homeless drunk spending most of their income on alcohol is paying a 40% tax for the privilege. Benefits are of course a separate issue, but few want to calculate benefits from free roads, Medicare, police, or Social Security as government welfare.
At the other end Bill Gates actual lifetime income is vastly higher than his taxable income due to the charitable tax deduction and capitals gains being deferred until sale.
On the other hand, as far as I'm concerned, if I'm paying for your health care, I have a right to say what you can and can't eat. No soda, candy, cheeseburgers, alcohol, drugs, tobacco, riding motorcycles, or any other behavior _I_ deem risky. It's a gross abridgment of freedom, but you can't socialize those externalities. I personally think this is a darn stupid way to set things up, but it seem to be where we're going given the number of people walking around with their hands out.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I rarely see people with a position like yours demonstrate their commitment to fierce independence by moving out to the wilderness and surviving off the land completely on their own. Why is that?
I think it's because you take for granted all of the things society provides for you and generally attribute all of your successes to your own efforts. That is a mindset which can lead only to resentment and isolation, but maybe that's what you want?
That's literally my right in the Constitution through quite a few amendments.
It is only quite recently in history that people (who aren't hermits going into the wilderness) have been making the "but I want to be left alone" argument. It is an unfortunate result of the concentration of property and means of production in recent centuries and the ideology it engendered and disseminated.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
He lacked only Minnesota, the home state of his opponent. Reagan did not campaign there, he said it would not be kind.
But privatised healthcare generates the fear of the high medical bill, and this could incentivize people to exercise caution (pun? kinda). I personally would not prefer to give doctors all my money in the final few years of a sedentary life spent carelessly.