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

[Elegiac]

But not everyone benefits equally from it.

Which you've already stated you don't think an issue, so clearly it's more a function of you wanting certain people to benefit more than others. Zzzz.

Not sure this is the route you want to go when arguing with me. I'm all for privatizing fire safety work like it was before it became socialized. You want fire protection? Pay your monthly fire protection dues, or have it be part of your insurance plan, which adjusts its premiums based on the actual cost and value of what you're insuring.

There was a reason this system was abandoned pretty much universally, and it's because it's a circus. Only the clowns have an interest in keeping it going.

[BeepBoo]

Which you've already stated you don't think an issue, so clearly it's more a function of you wanting certain people to benefit more than others. Zzzz.

Oh really? Where exactly did I say I'm fine with certain portions of the population benefitting more from government programs than others?

There was a reason this system was abandoned pretty much universally, and it's because it's a circus. Only the clowns have an interest in keeping it going.

Mhmm.

[Antiganon]

100% aware.


Correct, but hopefully their decision and risk doesn't end up impacting me if it does turn out to be serious and ends up costing even MORE in the long run. If you gamble and lose, it's 100% on you. yes, this goes for companies, too, and no, I hate the bailouts our gov't tosses to them. I'd rather they sink.


You seem to be confused about the things I care about. Not every "problem" needs to be systematically fixed. I really REALLY prefer to push as much of that onto individuals as possible.

Here's a hint: if we suddenly lost a large percentage of a certain group of desperate people, there wouldn't be as many people willing to work bag checker/burger flipper jobs, so their market value would go up and they could effectively negotiate such things. The problem is we never let that side of the scale balance itself naturally because "muh morals."

You are aware that a capitalist economy is driven by consumer spending, right? That their spending is where business makes money? That business making money is what allows for economic growth? That if the business extracts money from consumers without injecting that money back into the economy via taxes and/or wages, the economy stagnates? That the sick are unable to work and earn and spend? That the poor are unable to spend?

Forget morality, the goal of capitalism is YoY growth. If you kill off or bankrupt a portion of your potential customer base you can't grow as much.

Universal healthcare produces equal or better outcomes, for more people, with lower expenditure, resulting in more money kept by the taxpayer. A large, healthy, non-bankrupt population results in more consumer spending, which is good for business.

There is no reasonable argument to be made against it. The only argument to be made is "Well it will be corrupt!" or "Well the government is inefficient!" or "Death panels!" all of which are already a thing under private insurance, except you pay through the nose both in premiums and at point of service for the privilege.

[BeepBoo]

Forget morality, the goal of capitalism is YoY growth.

This is where you're wrong. The goal of capitalism isn't just endless unbridled growth. The point of capitalism is freedom and perfect assignment of value based solely on the balance of supply and demand. It doesn't care if a market falls or fails. Capitalism in-and-of-itself does not assume any particular goal.

[Elegiac]

Oh really? Where exactly did I say I'm fine with certain portions of the population benefitting more from government programs than others?

Was referring to your shtick about how unequal distribution of outcomes is fine because Social Darwinism or whatever.

And go figure people with cancer benefit more immediately from the hospital's oncology wing than people who don't have cancer. Fortunately most of us aren't like 5 and are capable of understanding concepts like long term benefit, commonwealth, or social security so we're fine dropping money towards said cancer wing even if we don't have cancer today or never end up having cancer.

[Antiganon]

But not everyone benefits equally from it. Potential benefit != actual realized benefit.

But that's just it, I would have been paying in for a long time at that point. besides that, insurance works because it's a bunch of people working to risk mitigate on the OFF CHANCE that something happens to them. Do you think any auto-insurance company would insure someone who was guaranteed to have a car accident versus just a risk of having one? The way you people want health care and health insurance to work isn't risk mitigation, it's cost spreading.


Yep.


Not sure this is the route you want to go when arguing with me. I'm all for privatizing fire safety work like it was before it became socialized. You want fire protection? Pay your monthly fire protection dues, or have it be part of your insurance plan, which adjusts its premiums based on the actual cost and value of what you're insuring.

See now I understand. You want to live in a society where there are essentially zero taxes and the individual is responsible for everything.

Unfortunately the US is not, and will never be, such a place. I'd suggest you look elsewhere.

[Zan15]

But not everyone benefits equally from it. Potential benefit != actual realized benefit.

But that's just it, I would have been paying in for a long time at that point. besides that, insurance works because it's a bunch of people working to risk mitigate on the OFF CHANCE that something happens to them. Do you think any auto-insurance company would insure someone who was guaranteed to have a car accident versus just a risk of having one? The way you people want health care and health insurance to work isn't risk mitigation, it's cost spreading.


Yep.


Not sure this is the route you want to go when arguing with me. I'm all for privatizing fire safety work like it was before it became socialized. You want fire protection? Pay your monthly fire protection dues, or have it be part of your insurance plan, which adjusts its premiums based on the actual cost and value of what you're insuring.

"but not everyone benefits equally...." Damn i did not know you were pro socialist/communist?

Not a single program does everyone benefit equally, But everyone does benefit.
So you want to basically abolish everything and privatize it....making sure that even less people benefit equally from those programs.


You want them to pay monthly fire protection dues...... or as normal people call it, Taxes. You understand privatization of this is most area's would result in insane "fire protection dues" or no fire protection at all.

You think that little county in Kansas is going to be able to afford fire service? You know how much equipment cost? Salaries? Insurance?

Why pay for fire service, just up your homeowners instead for full replacement.


Health insurance works because it spreads the risk over 160 million people. Without it, it would be impossible for the vast majority of this country to even do something as simple as have a child.

[Elegiac]

This is where you're wrong. The goal of capitalism isn't just endless unbridled growth. The point of capitalism is freedom and perfect assignment of value based solely on the balance of supply and demand. It doesn't care if a market falls or fails. Capitalism in-and-of-itself does not assume any particular goal.

The sole "goal" that can be ascribed to capitalism is the profit motive which actually does imply endless growth if you think about it for more than a few minutes.

[Antiganon]

This is where you're wrong. The goal of capitalism isn't just endless unbridled growth. The point of capitalism is freedom and perfect assignment of value based solely on the balance of supply and demand. It doesn't care if a market falls or fails. Capitalism in-and-of-itself does not assume any particular goal.

I'm not talking about any specific market or business, I'm talking about the economy in aggregate. Capitalism is about generating YoY economic growth in terms of GDP.

[BeepBoo]

Was referring to your shtick about how unequal distribution of outcomes is fine because Social Darwinism or whatever.

Ah, right, so nothing about government programs. The difference is, when it comes to government, I'm 100% against anything that disproportionately benefits any particular individual.

And go figure people with cancer benefit more immediately from the hospital's oncology wing than people who don't have cancer. Fortunately most of us aren't like 5 and are capable of understanding concepts like long term benefit, commonwealth, or social security so we're fine dropping money towards said cancer wing even if we don't have cancer today or never end up having cancer.

You assume I wouldn't pay to use roads or to fund libraries, etc. 100% not true. I just wouldn't obligate other people to ALSO do the same thing. But, more specifically to your cancer scenario: if I go to a hospital (which is inherently private in my example) and that hospital wants to have a machine to perform a procedure, but that machine doesn't make enough money to cover it's cost, they probably roll that cost into the entire rest of their service. now, if I disagree with that and don't want to pay for it, I can go look elsewhere, but... really... what do you think the chances of me finding a place that doesn't use a model like that and is also still a good hospital are?

So, where exactly was government needed to get the same result in this case?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not talking about any specific market or business, I'm talking about the economy in aggregate. Capitalism is about generating YoY economic growth in terms of GDP.

Again, you're mistaken.

[Elegiac]

Ah, right, so nothing about government programs. The difference is, when it comes to government, I'm 100% against anything that disproportionately benefits any particular individual.

Which really seems to imply the only time you're okay with disproportionate individual benefit is when there's no real accountability to society at large.

You assume I wouldn't pay to use roads or to fund libraries, etc. 100% not true.

I mean I'd believe you if y'all didn't turn into NIMBYs the minute road tolling is suggested, nor do I believe you've ever set foot in a public library after elementary school.

I just wouldn't obligate other people to ALSO do the same thing.

Why do you obligate others not to piss on your porch?

I mean just because you wouldn't do it doesn't mean they don't think it's an appropriate place to piss.

But, more specifically to your cancer scenario: if I go to a hospital (which is inherently private in my example) and that hospital wants to have a machine to perform a procedure, but that machine doesn't make enough money to cover it's cost, they probably roll that cost into the entire rest of their service. now, if I disagree with that and don't want to pay for it, I can go look elsewhere, but... really... what do you think the chances of me finding a place that doesn't use a model like that and is also still a good hospital are?

So, where exactly was government needed to get the same result in this case?

It's almost as if the metaphor completely sailed over your head.

The hospital is society and the oncology wing is a public assistance program, sweetheart.

[ParanoiD84]

It's pretty sweet to have.

[Antiganon]

Again, you're mistaken.

The point of capitalism is to generate additional capital through economic activity. To say otherwise is to completely misunderstand the purpose of the system as a whole.

Free markets are not synonymous with capitalism. They often work together, but they are not remotely one and the same.

[BeepBoo]

I mean I'd believe you if y'all didn't turn into NIMBYs the minute road tolling is suggested, nor do I believe you've ever set foot in a public library after elementary school.

When have I ever said I was against road tolls, exactly? The only thing I have against them is the inefficiency of having to stop at a toll booth, but the idea of paying for usage isn't something I'm against at all.

Why do you obligate others not to piss on your porch?

You see the difference there, between STOPPING someone from doing something and forcing them to do something? Big distinction. Big difference. Also, I'm all for people obligating others to do whatever they want when it involves their own property. Stores are free to censor speech, ban guns, etc.

I mean just because you wouldn't do it doesn't mean they don't think it's an appropriate place to piss.

Luckily, I own it and am thus in complete control and have sole discretion. That's the beauty of ownership. You get to be the king of things you own.

The hospital is society and the oncology wing is a public assistance program, sweetheart.

Not the same thing in the slightest. "Society" isn't "government" and "government" shouldn't be a service/goods provider.

- - - Updated - - -

The point of capitalism is to generate additional capital through economic activity. To say otherwise is to completely misunderstand the purpose of the system as a whole.

Capitalism isn't something with a goal or purpose, it is an ideology and philosophy surrounding economics, nothing more.

noun
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

To try and ascribe a goal to it is like trying to say something like an atom has a motivation. It doesn't. It simply has laws it abides and functions however it functions without a care for the results.

[Antiganon]

Capitalism isn't something with a goal or purpose, it is an ideology and philosophy surrounding economics, nothing more.

noun
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

To try and ascribe a goal to it is like trying to say something like an atom has a motivation. It doesn't. It simply has laws it abides and functions however it functions without a care for the results.

Do you not understand what "for profit" means?

[Endus]

The point of capitalism is to generate additional capital through economic activity. To say otherwise is to completely misunderstand the purpose of the system as a whole.

Free markets are not synonymous with capitalism. They often work together, but they are not remotely one and the same.

In fact, a free market is antithetical to the interests of capitalists. Diametrically opposed, something they will wield any influence and power they have to eliminate. A free market is the capitalist's worst enemy.

The idea that capitalists would support and protect a free market is so astonishingly dumb I have a hard time believing anyone actually thinks that way. Even Adam Smith recognized that such a system would require regulation of the markets, to protect the interests of consumers from the interests of producers.

[Elegiac]

When have I ever said I was against road tolls, exactly? The only thing I have against them is the inefficiency of having to stop at a toll booth, but the idea of paying for usage isn't something I'm against at all.

In theory. As said, I don't believe you would in practice.

You see the difference there, between STOPPING someone from doing something and forcing them to do something?

I see a stupid semantic distinction, yes. Which ties into my next point regarding private property as a concept:

Luckily, I own it and am thus in complete control and have sole discretion. That's the beauty of ownership. You get to be the king of things you own.

You mean like how society and its main executive organ, the government, actually owns everything because they have the monopoly of force and the entire system of private property only exists as recognized by its authority? That kind of kingship?

Not the same thing in the slightest. "Society" isn't "government" and "government" shouldn't be a service/goods provider.

*facepalm*

Law and administration are literally services. So yes, even a stripped down "small government" is still a service provider.

[Endus]

Capitalism isn't something with a goal or purpose, it is an ideology and philosophy surrounding economics, nothing more.

noun
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

To try and ascribe a goal to it is like trying to say something like an atom has a motivation. It doesn't. It simply has laws it abides and functions however it functions without a care for the results.

It's pretty damned funny that 1> you went with a dictionary definition rather than a more-complete definition, and 2> that dictionary definition identified the goal or purpose of a capitalist economy directly, completely contradicting your entire point.

Luckily, I own it and am thus in complete control and have sole discretion. That's the beauty of ownership. You get to be the king of things you own.

That's . . . not ownership. What you're describing is sovereignty. Buying a house does not make your house a sovereign entity under your rule. It's an agreement you make with your government, and remains under that government's rule throughout.

Sovereignty and ownership are entirely unrelated concepts. I really don't know how you've confused the two.

[BeepBoo]

In theory. As said, I don't believe you would in practice.

Fuck off with your slights and subtle character attacks that just barely skirt the rules.

I see a stupid semantic distinction, yes. Which ties into my next point regarding private property as a concept:

Lol. Two things that are entirely different (stopping behavior versus forcing action) is not semantical.

Law and administration are literally services. So yes, even a stripped down "small government" is still a service provider.

I've never been for complete anarchy or removal of government, but I'm not going to keep caveating literally every post I ever have with you on any such topic talking about governance (this is like the 10th time now). Just accept that I have some level of governance I'm willing to accept as a necessary evil and that it stops immediately once it goes past law enforcement and judicial stuff. Government is necessary, but should be as absolutely small, unbiased, and uncaring about any particular group as possible.

[Elegiac]

Fuck off with your slights and subtle character attacks that just barely skirt the rules.

Saying that an ideology predicated on naked self interest makes people more likely to do self interested things like want something for nothing isn't a character attack, it's basic logic.

Lol. Two things that are entirely different (stopping behavior versus forcing action) is not semantical.

It is when either entails a use of force to produce a desired change in behavior; it's as inane as the imaginary distinction between spanking your child and slapping your spouse.

I've never been for complete anarchy or removal of government

That's nice, but it's a non sequitur.

The government is in fact a service provider and the analogy about the hospital oncology wing and public assistance still holds. Get a better argument.