Do you support universal health care? Why or why not?

[Theodarzna]

Mandating people work or give up their own livelihoods in some way/shape/form in order to blanket-care for "the good of everyone" is antithesis to my being and morals. People have an innate right to decide who and what they want to support with their efforts.

Anyone who gets into a job where they would not save peoples lives or treat people don't belong in that job. Ghouls like that can go into finance or something.

[Specialka]

The fact is that living and life requires work and effort. If you're unwilling or unable to do that, how do you expect to live?

That is the difference between civilization and barbarism.

[Felya]

That is the difference between civilization and barbarism.

Can you be more specific? I don’t want to jump on your case, when the above can go several different ways.

[Endus]

No because it's based on coercing the people who pay for most of it and it's based on coercing large parts of the medical industry. If you can justify coercion in place of voluntary contributions to a social program then basically you could justify anything such as universal basic income and arbitrarily anything else that you want.

Why can't I take all your stuff and make it my stuff?
Why can't I just kill you if you annoy me?

You're not arguing against "coercion". You're arguing against the entire fundamental concept of rule of law. The only alternative to "coercion", in the way you're misusing that word, is straight anarchy.

And in a straight anarchy, all that's really happening is that everyone else is free to coerce you however much they want, without restraint. So, real coercion, not this whining that rule of law exists in every society, which is literally all your post boils down to.

As far as mandating people to do things? Yes. Because free will and freedom are the literal most important virtues to me and a lot of americans.

Like I said; you fetishize and require a certain amount of human suffering be created in your name, for your benefit. Your position isn't based on maximizing individual freedoms for all, it's based on maximizing your personal freedoms, at the expense of others freedoms.

So you can take the idea that you're all about "free will and freedom" and stuff it. It's a lie. You just don't want anyone telling you to take your boot off people's necks. You couldn't give less of a shit about the people whose necks you're stepping on or their freedoms.

[Specialka]

Can you be more specific? I don’t want to jump on your case, when the above can go several different ways.

Caring about each other. Even in ancient time, as harsh as it could get, communities always looked out for one of its own.

[Felya]

Caring about each other. Even in ancient time, as harsh as it could get, communities always looked out for one of its own.

See... good thing I asked...

[Endus]

Also, it grants freedom too.

Over and above the universal healthcare context, it bears pointing out (apparently) that rights and freedoms aren't a natural baseline. They only exist because of governments and laws that protect those rights and freedoms.

Your right to life, say, only exists because the government A> has laws against murdering people or putting lives in jeopardy, and B> has law enforcement and courts to prosecute breaches in that law.

Without those laws and those law enforcement groups and those courts? You have no right to life. Anyone can just walk up to you and kill you and walk away and there's nothing that'll be done to them, unless (maybe) you've got family and friends who'll seek revenge on your behalf. But that's about personal vendettas, not any "right to life".

Rights and freedoms do not exist and have no meaning outside of rule of law within a governed society. All these "don't tax me, I'm all about liberty and freedom" types do not have a valid argument. Their position argues against itself.

[BeepBoo]

So you can take the idea that you're all about "free will and freedom" and stuff it. It's a lie. You just don't want anyone telling you to take your boot off people's necks. You couldn't give less of a shit about the people whose necks you're stepping on or their freedoms.

Freedom isn't something that ever comes at the expense of someone else. What you're advocating for is people to be mandated to provide others "freedom" from their own shortcomings and that's garbage, because you're necessarily hindering others freedom to compensate.

[Felya]

Freedom isn't something that ever comes at the expense of someone else.

No... freedom is not defined by your ability to harm others.

What you're advocating for is people to be mandated to provide others "freedom" from their own shortcomings and that's garbage, because you're necessarily hindering others freedom to compensate.

Oh... I didn’t realize you were in the Defund the Police camp...

[Endus]

Caring about each other. Even in ancient time, as harsh as it could get, communities always looked out for one of its own.

Seriously, we can tell, looking at stone age burials and the like, that one of the true human universals is the concept of empathy and compassion. We've found remains of individuals who were badly injured, and that injury had healed, which demonstrates that they must have been supported by their family group or tribe until they recovered, despite their clear inability to provide for their own care as a result of that injury.

Empathy and compassion. That's what these people lack, these days. They honestly couldn't care less if other people are suffering, they only care about their own personal well-being. Even if the price asked of them is essentially irrelevant, or even (in the case of universal healthcare, specifically) probably less than they're already spending for their own personal benefit. It isn't really about the cost. It's that they think that level of suffering is necessary.

[Gestopft]

"non-contributors" yeah, like amazon didn't alter the entire fucking existence of humanity for ever. Like microsoft didn't also do that. Like walmart, ford, etc. You hate that people can have ideas and do something so revolutionary that their family 10 generations from now won't have to work. Sorry that somethings are actually capable of being that valuable, unlike 99.99999% of humans.

Man, it's almost as though society creates the framework through which these companies and individuals can create that immense value. These things don't happen in a vacuum.

- - - Updated - - -

Freedom isn't something that ever comes at the expense of someone else. What you're advocating for is people to be mandated to provide others "freedom" from their own shortcomings and that's garbage, because you're necessarily hindering others freedom to compensate.

So...you're against the concept of taxes?

[Zaktar]

Freedom isn't something that ever comes at the expense of someone else.

Wow tell that to the military.

[Felya]

Man, it's almost as though society creates the framework through which these companies and individuals can create that immense value. These things don't happen in a vacuum.

There is a reason why these arguments never translate on the campaign trail. Defund Medicare, Social Security, Military and Police, is never something GOP runs on... I wonder why they don’t...

[Edge-]

Freedom isn't something that ever comes at the expense of someone else.

Your freedom from being murdered comes at the expense at someone else's right to murder you. Your freedom to own your stuff comes at the expense of someone's right to take it by force.

What you're advocating for is people to be mandated to provide others "freedom" from their own shortcomings and that's garbage, because you're necessarily hindering others freedom to compensate.

Speed limits limit my freedom to drive as fast as I would like to go to protect others in vehicles.

You literally aren't making argument here.

[Endus]

Freedom isn't something that ever comes at the expense of someone else.

Literally all freedoms come at such an expense. Every single one. You have no idea what you're even talking about, here.

What you're advocating for is people to be mandated to provide others "freedom" from their own shortcomings and that's garbage, because you're necessarily hindering others freedom to compensate.

Just absolutely false on every single level. Nothing you're saying makes the least bit of sense.

All freedoms necessarily restrict the actions of others, who are not entitled to breach that freedom any more.
All freedoms come at a financial cost, as they require legal support and enforcement, or they do not exist.
Desiring for people to suffer because of what you see as their "shortcomings" is just misanthropic brutality, not a defensible point of view.
Yes, other people's freedoms must necessarily be hindered, in any discussion of freedom and liberty. If you have a right to life, then I necessarily do not have the freedom to kill you for no reason, any more. And if I did have said freedom, you wouldn't have that right to life. There is no way to just have "all freedoms, no limitations", because the very concept of a freedom necessitates corresponding limitations.

[Felya]

Wow tell that to the military.

How about the people that built the Alaskan pipe line... how about the subsidy we have for poor ol’ oil companies, that pays them for an assume drilling failure rate, from 1920s. Shit... how about paying Trump corporation 3 dollars for a cup of water for secret service, because Trump only stays at his properties? But, healthcare is bad...

[Gestopft]

Literally all freedoms come at such an expense. Every single one. You have no idea what you're even talking about, here.

Libertarianism is the political equivalent of being utterly unable to see the forest for the trees.

[Endus]

Libertarianism is the political equivalent of being utterly unable to see the forest for the trees.

Even Libertarians understand that you need some government and protections. I can at least understand the motive of trying to minimize spending. But they approach the question from an "is this the government's role?" point of view, not a "those people SHOULD be poor, because they're INFERIOR, and need to SUFFER" one. Which is what inevitably gets posted to the forums, here, and is why I call it out.

[BeepBoo]

It's a really simple black and white line: no one has the freedom to do anything to someone else without their consent. It has absolutely nothing to do with someone being inferior and "needing" to suffer.

[Zaktar]

It's a really simple black and white line: no one has the freedom to do anything to someone else without their consent. It has absolutely nothing to do with someone being inferior and "needing" to suffer.

Except pay taxes, we have the freedom to force you to pay taxes. Or follow laws. Or... well you get the idea. Also, I hope you realize no one will force Healthcare workers to work in this system, they'll still have the option to get other jobs.