Libertarians would stand by and watch someone die rather than help someone caught in a bad spot. I suppose if someone gets a flat tire and they need a jack you'd laugh and drive off?

Views: 570

Comment by Unseen on September 15, 2011 at 12:06am

@Jim   The ideal model for an insurance company is to have a body of subscribers who never get ill. Of course, that isn't possible, so they concentrate on making as much money as they can by cherry picking. The primary genius behind and insurance company is its main flaw. By googling around you'll find out how the profit motive works in practice. Happily collecting premiums month after month, when you make a claim, they pay it. Unless it is a very large claim. In that case, it gets sent to a department that looks at the contract to see if the insured made even the smallest of white lies. Or a mistake. That will allow them to void the contract and not pay the claim. If that doesn't work, then they start delaying payment. Delay, delay, delay. Obviously, if they delay payments or deny paying for treatments, this hastens the insured off the face of the earth, and voila, they are no longer a liability. The plain fact is that covering people once they get ill is dreadfully unprofitable, and the company's first duty is NOT to the insured, but to the stockholders. Which is wacky, even if those opposed to national healthcare won't admit it.

Comment by Anonymous on September 15, 2011 at 12:31am

@Kris: You are often calling foul on no specific point, yet when you do you've been dead wrong each time.

Look, if you want me to take you seriously, don't spout nonsense.  Saying it's nothing more than an ideology doesn't make it true.  As it stands, it's not true.  

Definition of Ideology from wikipedia:

An ideology is a set of ideas that constitutes one's goals, expectations, and actions.

Please tell me how universal health care does not fit the definition of ideology? You weren't just spouting out nonsense, were you? Don't you have a set of ideas in how you expect universal health care would meet your specific goals?

 

Then you have the boldness to say,

You can believe that all you want, but you've shown no evidence of it here.  The conversation has been kept at a very cursory level thus far.  I have yet to offer you any emotional reasons for supporting universal healthcare.  I really haven't gone into the issue at depth at all yet because you insist on asking silly questions that show a lack of understanding on how universal healthcare works and what the potential options available are

Bold yet unintelligent.  Did I not list you a set of 3 premises, in which you completely ignored? You choose not to argue these points, then start hypocritically throw out insults that have only apply to yourself. Then you purport to be based on evidence but have not shared one iota.

 

Sorry to break it to you, but universal health care is not a premise. It is a hopeful outcome, an ideology.  You have shared no premises, and you have completely avoided mine. And until you can actually bring up a valid talking point, you're just making noise. If it has been held at a cursory level, it is your fault not mine.

Comment by Anonymous on September 15, 2011 at 4:11am

@Kris, after reading your last response. I really just have nothing left to say to you on this subject.

 

Can someone actually base a reasoning/premise for mandating universal health care?

Comment by Phil Tibbs on September 15, 2011 at 11:32am

If you wish to share your property to help provide health care, then do so. Don't try convincing someone with a gun to come force any of my friends or family to donate to your ideology.

 

I'm not sure what a gun has to do with this discussion, but your comment isn't in keeping with the way our country was founded...  Your Our taxes aren't just for things that only you want.  It's not fair to use our money to fund only conservative programs and not worry about anything else. 

 

Our country has spent billions of dollars rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan, but many of our politicians balk at spending tax revenue on the health and "general welfare" of our own citizens.

 

 

 

Comment by Anonymous on September 15, 2011 at 4:42pm

I'm not sure what a gun has to do with this discussion, but your comment isn't in keeping with the way our country was founded...

@Phil, hate to break it to you but the government has the guns with a license to kill. And if you wish not to fund any government backed ideology (aka universal health care), the government will pursue you. If stand firm in defending your liberty and property, they will take away your right to life.  Why? Because someone you don't even know decided without your consent that you should be responsible for their lifestyle, employment and purchasing decisions.

 

I'm no republican, I'm no democrat. However, I respect democrats funding any of their precious ideological programs without using the government as their muscle.  The same goes for republicans. I for one support a multitude of programs financially and/or with my time.  But for me to say just because I think Wikipedia, Charity: water, Make a WishHabitat for Humanity are fantastic organizations built on ideologies that I believe in doesn't mean that I should be influencing a Goon such as the Government to force you in supporting them too.  Once you force ideologies upon others you go from charity to oppression. No matter how great your charity seems.

Our country has spent billions of dollars rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan, but many of our politicians balk at spending tax revenue on the health and "general welfare" of our own citizens

Sorry but "You scratch my back, and I will scratch your back" politics is just adding to the chaos. Just because you allow republicans some of their oppressive programs (such as warmongering and foreign nation-building), in return for some of your oppressive programs to be passed seems to be based more on collusion and  than on fair governing principles.

Your Our taxes aren't just for things that only you want.  It's not fair to use our money to fund only conservative programs and not worry about anything else.

You are absolutely correct, it is not fair (or Just) to use "their" money for only conservative programs.  They shouldn't be for what I only want, they shouldn't be for what you only want either.  If Lady Justice wasn't wearing a blindfold, you'd see you are making her cry. Then again, without a blindfold she couldn't be lady justice. From Wikipedia:

The blindfold represents objectivity, in that justice is or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favor, regardless of identity, money, power, or weakness; blind justice and impartiality.

Note the objectivity part I bolded and underlined. Ideologies are based on subjectivity. This is why Republicans support one set, and Democrats support another. Is it fair/just to force your subjective views on others? Universal health care does.

Comment by Anonymous on September 15, 2011 at 4:46pm

Again, I ask.  Can someone actually base a reasoning/premise for mandating universal health care?

Comment by Arcus on September 15, 2011 at 5:11pm

Well, Bismarck used the argument that it would avoid a violent overthrow of the government by disenfranchised workers ending in a dictatorship of the proletariat. Another long list of arguments can be found in a field of study called Health economics, but I guess having to open a textbook would be a lot to ask from libertarians.

For someone who either didn't pay attention or failed civics class, there's a lot of pretension of knowledge.

----

As a side note, the plans for the British NHS was dropped over Germany during the WW2 as propaganda. It was described to Hitler as "Far superior than ours in every way."

Comment by Anonymous on September 15, 2011 at 6:20pm

Well, Bismarck used the argument that it would avoid a violent overthrow of the government by disenfranchised workers ending in a dictatorship of the proletariat. Another long list of arguments can be found in a field of study called Health economics, but I guess having to open a textbook would be a lot to ask from libertarians.

For someone who either didn't pay attention or failed civics class, there's a lot of pretension of knowledge.

@Arcus, I'll sum this up. Your talking points are that you assume i failed or didn't pay attention in civics class. Wrong. I'm too lazy to open up a text book to learn for myself. Wrong. Who is being pretentious? Then your premise is that we should hearken to fear mongering of a foreign political leader that died one hundred years ago. Predicted on what objective evidence? Correct me if I am wrong, but is there one country that went into civil war based on health care reform? In my opinion using fear for public policy is a lazy, dishonest and manipulative. You know that "feeling" that has provoked our country into countless messes in the first place. Fear does not provoke critical thought, but supersedes it with our instinct of fight or flight. You should have learned this lesson from the theists.

 

I guess I am looking at this all wrong though. I did just find out that I failed civics and don't understand health economics.  It is the government's fault anyways, I now understand that i don't have responsibility for myself. I'll just join the ranks of free loaders and just turn to the almighty government god that with a wave of its magical wand we will no longer have to take personal responsibility for our lifestyles, education, commodities (ie health care), employment and thought.

Comment by Gaytor on September 15, 2011 at 7:06pm

Anonymous, I'm bothered by your freeloading of education. I'm bothered by your freeloading of FBI services, CIA, Military, Roads, National Parks, Fire Departments, EMS, Animal Control, etc etc etc. Freeloading. What a great argument. Offers to pay taxes for a service not only for myself but to cover others, and I'm a freeloader. Good one. 

From it's inception, this country wanted to care for others. I'll point it out again. We had socialized medicine for Mariners and required that the purchase it, even if the weren't from America. Link It has a historical basis and was instituted to protect the people's welfare.

Your position has no basis historically. You have no basis constitutionally as the general welfare is provided for. You have no basis morally as people are dying. The whole of your argument is to protect your money over life. We are a nation that has come together to form a "more perfect union" and your premise does not support that. You seek only what's good for Anonymous and hurl insults like "freeloaders" at those seeking to care for others. You suggest that with wanting to provide HC for others we want to take your free-thought. One doesn't follow the other. You've spend too many years listening to those influenced by McCarthy fear mongering and not looking at how healthcare is done in other countries. Tell me what is wrong with Germany or Japan's healthcare system and how ours is currently superior? Seriously. Give me a reason why ours is better for the population.

Comment by Anonymous on September 15, 2011 at 8:26pm

@Gaytor @Kris and @Arkus,

I would love to carry this debate, you have challenged me in the way I think in many ways. But I think I nailed the base premise. And to continue this conversation I have to first ask you this question.

 

Who is responsible for my choices?

My answer: Only me.

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

Events

Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service