Total Posts:66|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Stupidity of "Universal Health Care"

jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 8:02:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
What is Universal Health Care?

It is the violent imposition of a Health Care System on a population from the state. It doesn't seem nearly as great when you see it for what it is.

Furthermore, Universal Health Care violates every rule of economics. In the absence of a price system, there are chronic shortages and severe misallocation of health resources.

There are perverse incentives to overuse the "free" Health Care system, driving up costs, and the use of price controls to combat this simply creates shortages. Waiting times skyrocket and medical innovation falls dramatically, as the state becomes the only buyer of Pharmaceutical products. This reduces competition as existing large companies can get a monopoly on the one customer, the state. This significantly reduces innovation.

So, why would anyone be for this inefficient and violent policy?
President of DDO
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 8:16:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I disagree that it is "violent." That's a stretch, don't you think? Coming to "inefficient." UHC is inefficient if it is the only health care system available. The lack of competition may lead to inferior health care. There is however nothing wrong with UHC existing in addition to private health care. The competion between private companies will continue to exist whereas the poorer people can use the UHC ensuring that no one is left out. So, the best option is to have both UHC and private health care.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 8:21:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
As someone who lives in a country with a public health care system (Medicare) I can tell you, not having to worry about paying when I want to see a doctor is pretty sweet.
I just wish dental was covered. I need to see a dentist >_<

If my libertarian utopia ever came into fruition, it would be unnecessary BUT until that happens, I support the government doing SOMETHING to help the people...
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 8:30:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 8:21:43 PM, tvellalott wrote:
As someone who lives in a country with a public health care system (Medicare) I can tell you, not having to worry about paying when I want to see a doctor is pretty sweet.
I just wish dental was covered. I need to see a dentist >_<

If my libertarian utopia ever came into fruition, it would be unnecessary BUT until that happens, I support the government doing SOMETHING to help the people...

I think the biggest fear of most Americans is that without competition, the quality of health care will decline. I'd like to hear your input on how it is in Australia. Is there a long wait time, poor customer service, etc. If it works in Australia though, I see no reason why it wouldn't work in the United States.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 8:38:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 8:16:26 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I disagree that it is "violent." That's a stretch, don't you think? Coming to "inefficient." UHC is inefficient if it is the only health care system available. The lack of competition may lead to inferior health care. There is however nothing wrong with UHC existing in addition to private health care. The competion between private companies will continue to exist whereas the poorer people can use the UHC ensuring that no one is left out. So, the best option is to have both UHC and private health care.

We have to pay taxes to fund the program. The state violently enforces these taxes.

I also feel like I must offer a story about this idea that "competition" can exist with a Universal Health Care system.

For your other point, let me offer a quick hypothetical story. Let's say that state forces everyone, by gun, to pay a banana tax so everyone could get free bananas at the grocery store. Now, when everyone goes to the grocery store, there are other private bananas available for people to pay for there, but everyone chooses to take the bananas they were forced to pay for in advance.

Because of this, the private banana companies all went out of business, and everyone started taking the "free" state bananas (they were paid by through forced taxation).

Now, in this situation, private banana companies were allowed to sell bananas, but nobody bought them because they were forced to pay for public bananas in advance, even if they were inferior. Forcing people to pay for something and then allowing them to pay for something else on top of that is NOT competition.
President of DDO
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 8:54:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 8:38:25 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/30/2011 8:16:26 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I disagree that it is "violent." That's a stretch, don't you think? Coming to "inefficient." UHC is inefficient if it is the only health care system available. The lack of competition may lead to inferior health care. There is however nothing wrong with UHC existing in addition to private health care. The competion between private companies will continue to exist whereas the poorer people can use the UHC ensuring that no one is left out. So, the best option is to have both UHC and private health care.


We have to pay taxes to fund the program. The state violently enforces these taxes.

I also feel like I must offer a story about this idea that "competition" can exist with a Universal Health Care system.

For your other point, let me offer a quick hypothetical story. Let's say that state forces everyone, by gun, to pay a banana tax so everyone could get free bananas at the grocery store. Now, when everyone goes to the grocery store, there are other private bananas available for people to pay for there, but everyone chooses to take the bananas they were forced to pay for in advance.

Because of this, the private banana companies all went out of business, and everyone started taking the "free" state bananas (they were paid by through forced taxation).

Now, in this situation, private banana companies were allowed to sell bananas, but nobody bought them because they were forced to pay for public bananas in advance, even if they were inferior. Forcing people to pay for something and then allowing them to pay for something else on top of that is NOT competition.

Define "violent." Because, in the sense of personal assault, the police would not hurt you for tax evasion, or really any crime, including murder--resisting arrest, maybe, but when you're arrested, if you cooperate, it isn't a violent process at all.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 9:00:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 8:54:53 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/30/2011 8:38:25 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/30/2011 8:16:26 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I disagree that it is "violent." That's a stretch, don't you think? Coming to "inefficient." UHC is inefficient if it is the only health care system available. The lack of competition may lead to inferior health care. There is however nothing wrong with UHC existing in addition to private health care. The competion between private companies will continue to exist whereas the poorer people can use the UHC ensuring that no one is left out. So, the best option is to have both UHC and private health care.


We have to pay taxes to fund the program. The state violently enforces these taxes.

I also feel like I must offer a story about this idea that "competition" can exist with a Universal Health Care system.

For your other point, let me offer a quick hypothetical story. Let's say that state forces everyone, by gun, to pay a banana tax so everyone could get free bananas at the grocery store. Now, when everyone goes to the grocery store, there are other private bananas available for people to pay for there, but everyone chooses to take the bananas they were forced to pay for in advance.

Because of this, the private banana companies all went out of business, and everyone started taking the "free" state bananas (they were paid by through forced taxation).

Now, in this situation, private banana companies were allowed to sell bananas, but nobody bought them because they were forced to pay for public bananas in advance, even if they were inferior. Forcing people to pay for something and then allowing them to pay for something else on top of that is NOT competition.

Define "violent." Because, in the sense of personal assault, the police would not hurt you for tax evasion, or really any crime, including murder--resisting arrest, maybe, but when you're arrested, if you cooperate, it isn't a violent process at all.

Yes, IF you cooperate. If you don't pay taxes and refuse to cooperate... by continuing to refuse to pay taxes or go to jail... they will eventually kill you... that is violent
President of DDO
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 9:09:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 9:00:03 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/30/2011 8:54:53 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/30/2011 8:38:25 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/30/2011 8:16:26 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I disagree that it is "violent." That's a stretch, don't you think? Coming to "inefficient." UHC is inefficient if it is the only health care system available. The lack of competition may lead to inferior health care. There is however nothing wrong with UHC existing in addition to private health care. The competion between private companies will continue to exist whereas the poorer people can use the UHC ensuring that no one is left out. So, the best option is to have both UHC and private health care.


We have to pay taxes to fund the program. The state violently enforces these taxes.

I also feel like I must offer a story about this idea that "competition" can exist with a Universal Health Care system.

For your other point, let me offer a quick hypothetical story. Let's say that state forces everyone, by gun, to pay a banana tax so everyone could get free bananas at the grocery store. Now, when everyone goes to the grocery store, there are other private bananas available for people to pay for there, but everyone chooses to take the bananas they were forced to pay for in advance.

Because of this, the private banana companies all went out of business, and everyone started taking the "free" state bananas (they were paid by through forced taxation).

Now, in this situation, private banana companies were allowed to sell bananas, but nobody bought them because they were forced to pay for public bananas in advance, even if they were inferior. Forcing people to pay for something and then allowing them to pay for something else on top of that is NOT competition.

Define "violent." Because, in the sense of personal assault, the police would not hurt you for tax evasion, or really any crime, including murder--resisting arrest, maybe, but when you're arrested, if you cooperate, it isn't a violent process at all.

Yes, IF you cooperate. If you don't pay taxes and refuse to cooperate... by continuing to refuse to pay taxes or go to jail... they will eventually kill you... that is violent

But, y'see, here's the thing--unless you are SO driven by your beliefs, why would you feel entitled in that society to not only not pay taxes, but to also not go to jail? I'm by no means a legalist, but let's be honest--just because you don't like the law doesn't mean you are exempt from it. You can lobby against it, but you can't just stop doing it and expect no consequences. If you really are against it, then you go to jail. If you're against jail, then you follow the law while protesting it. If you're THAT against both, then you die, or are injured.

There are always consequences.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 9:15:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 9:09:42 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/30/2011 9:00:03 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/30/2011 8:54:53 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/30/2011 8:38:25 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/30/2011 8:16:26 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I disagree that it is "violent." That's a stretch, don't you think? Coming to "inefficient." UHC is inefficient if it is the only health care system available. The lack of competition may lead to inferior health care. There is however nothing wrong with UHC existing in addition to private health care. The competion between private companies will continue to exist whereas the poorer people can use the UHC ensuring that no one is left out. So, the best option is to have both UHC and private health care.


We have to pay taxes to fund the program. The state violently enforces these taxes.

I also feel like I must offer a story about this idea that "competition" can exist with a Universal Health Care system.

For your other point, let me offer a quick hypothetical story. Let's say that state forces everyone, by gun, to pay a banana tax so everyone could get free bananas at the grocery store. Now, when everyone goes to the grocery store, there are other private bananas available for people to pay for there, but everyone chooses to take the bananas they were forced to pay for in advance.

Because of this, the private banana companies all went out of business, and everyone started taking the "free" state bananas (they were paid by through forced taxation).

Now, in this situation, private banana companies were allowed to sell bananas, but nobody bought them because they were forced to pay for public bananas in advance, even if they were inferior. Forcing people to pay for something and then allowing them to pay for something else on top of that is NOT competition.

Define "violent." Because, in the sense of personal assault, the police would not hurt you for tax evasion, or really any crime, including murder--resisting arrest, maybe, but when you're arrested, if you cooperate, it isn't a violent process at all.

Yes, IF you cooperate. If you don't pay taxes and refuse to cooperate... by continuing to refuse to pay taxes or go to jail... they will eventually kill you... that is violent

But, y'see, here's the thing--unless you are SO driven by your beliefs, why would you feel entitled in that society to not only not pay taxes, but to also not go to jail? I'm by no means a legalist, but let's be honest--just because you don't like the law doesn't mean you are exempt from it. You can lobby against it, but you can't just stop doing it and expect no consequences. If you really are against it, then you go to jail. If you're against jail, then you follow the law while protesting it. If you're THAT against both, then you die, or are injured.

There are always consequences.

Maybe I want to keep all that is mine... I don't want to pay for things I don't want to pay for and I don't want to go to jail for not paying for things I don't want to pay for.

Maybe, I just want to live my own fuucking life and make my own damn decisions. Maybe...

What do you mean by "follow the law" while protesting it?

I don;t want to protest the state stealing from me, I just want them to not steal from me..

If someone put a gun to my head and told me to give them my car, I might refuse and get shot.

So, if the state puts a gun to my head and tells me to give them my stuff, and I refuse, I should get shot if I refuse to go to jail?
President of DDO
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 9:18:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 9:15:52 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/30/2011 9:09:42 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/30/2011 9:00:03 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/30/2011 8:54:53 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 10/30/2011 8:38:25 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/30/2011 8:16:26 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I disagree that it is "violent." That's a stretch, don't you think? Coming to "inefficient." UHC is inefficient if it is the only health care system available. The lack of competition may lead to inferior health care. There is however nothing wrong with UHC existing in addition to private health care. The competion between private companies will continue to exist whereas the poorer people can use the UHC ensuring that no one is left out. So, the best option is to have both UHC and private health care.


We have to pay taxes to fund the program. The state violently enforces these taxes.

I also feel like I must offer a story about this idea that "competition" can exist with a Universal Health Care system.

For your other point, let me offer a quick hypothetical story. Let's say that state forces everyone, by gun, to pay a banana tax so everyone could get free bananas at the grocery store. Now, when everyone goes to the grocery store, there are other private bananas available for people to pay for there, but everyone chooses to take the bananas they were forced to pay for in advance.

Because of this, the private banana companies all went out of business, and everyone started taking the "free" state bananas (they were paid by through forced taxation).

Now, in this situation, private banana companies were allowed to sell bananas, but nobody bought them because they were forced to pay for public bananas in advance, even if they were inferior. Forcing people to pay for something and then allowing them to pay for something else on top of that is NOT competition.

Define "violent." Because, in the sense of personal assault, the police would not hurt you for tax evasion, or really any crime, including murder--resisting arrest, maybe, but when you're arrested, if you cooperate, it isn't a violent process at all.

Yes, IF you cooperate. If you don't pay taxes and refuse to cooperate... by continuing to refuse to pay taxes or go to jail... they will eventually kill you... that is violent

But, y'see, here's the thing--unless you are SO driven by your beliefs, why would you feel entitled in that society to not only not pay taxes, but to also not go to jail? I'm by no means a legalist, but let's be honest--just because you don't like the law doesn't mean you are exempt from it. You can lobby against it, but you can't just stop doing it and expect no consequences. If you really are against it, then you go to jail. If you're against jail, then you follow the law while protesting it. If you're THAT against both, then you die, or are injured.

There are always consequences.

Maybe I want to keep all that is mine... I don't want to pay for things I don't want to pay for and I don't want to go to jail for not paying for things I don't want to pay for.

Maybe, I just want to live my own fuucking life and make my own damn decisions. Maybe...

What do you mean by "follow the law" while protesting it?

I don;t want to protest the state stealing from me, I just want them to not steal from me..

If someone put a gun to my head and told me to give them my car, I might refuse and get shot.

So, if the state puts a gun to my head and tells me to give them my stuff, and I refuse, I should get shot if I refuse to go to jail?

In an ideal society, no. But the word ideal is emphasized.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 9:34:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 9:19:36 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
JimTimmy, are you against all taxes?

Yes, yes I am... I am against the state
President of DDO
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 9:39:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 9:34:39 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/30/2011 9:19:36 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
JimTimmy, are you against all taxes?

Yes, yes I am... I am against the state

Then why do you live here?
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 9:39:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 9:34:39 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/30/2011 9:19:36 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
JimTimmy, are you against all taxes?

Yes, yes I am... I am against the state

Okay, but you use a lot of the things that the state provides you. Some examples would be freeways, roads, sidewalks, emergency services like police, the army etc. How would these things work without paying taxes?
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 9:40:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 9:39:27 PM, MarquisX wrote:
At 10/30/2011 9:34:39 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/30/2011 9:19:36 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
JimTimmy, are you against all taxes?

Yes, yes I am... I am against the state

Then why do you live here?

Where should I go?

The moon... I really don't have much of a choice...
President of DDO
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 9:42:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 9:39:39 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/30/2011 9:34:39 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/30/2011 9:19:36 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
JimTimmy, are you against all taxes?

Yes, yes I am... I am against the state

Okay, but you use a lot of the things that the state provides you. Some examples would be freeways, roads, sidewalks, emergency services like police, the army etc. How would these things work without paying taxes?

I have to use them... I am forced to pay for them... Just because I use the things I am forced, by gun, to pay for does not mean I endorse them

And, those are all goods and services that are demanded... They can easily be provided on a free market (I will admit that defense is a bit tougher, but can still be done)
President of DDO
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 10:06:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 8:54:53 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

Define "violent." Because, in the sense of personal assault, the police would not hurt you for tax evasion, or really any crime, including murder--resisting arrest, maybe, but when you're arrested, if you cooperate, it isn't a violent process at all.

If a robber sticks a gun in your face and demands that you hand him your wallet, would that be considered "violent"? How is this any different from taxation?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2011 3:55:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 8:02:16 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
What is Universal Health Care?

It is the violent imposition of a Health Care System on a population from the state. It doesn't seem nearly as great when you see it for what it is.

No it is not, no part of a state run health care system implies violent imposition of health care. Violent theft yes. But not medical services provided with a gun pointed to your head.

Furthermore, Universal Health Care violates every rule of economics. In the absence of a price system, there are chronic shortages and severe misallocation of health resources.

Yet is consistently shown to be more cost effective than the private sector.

There are perverse incentives to overuse the "free" Health Care system, driving up costs, and the use of price controls to combat this simply creates shortages. Waiting times skyrocket and medical innovation falls dramatically, as the state becomes the only buyer of Pharmaceutical products. This reduces competition as existing large companies can get a monopoly on the one customer, the state. This significantly reduces innovation.

I don't think there is any evidence of a reduction of innovation. Britain for instance is still a leading nation for medical research.


So, why would anyone be for this inefficient and violent policy?

Because reality shows us it is more efficient and not all violent.

In theory private health care should be better, in reality it is not. I do not know why, but not being an ideological zealot I can look at the facts and laugh at libertarians who are happy to be denied health care by expensive insurers that hate them purely for reasons of political purity.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2011 5:22:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 9:39:39 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/30/2011 9:34:39 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/30/2011 9:19:36 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
JimTimmy, are you against all taxes?

Yes, yes I am... I am against the state

Okay, but you use a lot of the things that the state provides you. Some examples would be freeways, roads, sidewalks, emergency services like police, the army etc. How would these things work without paying taxes?

Does the slave consent to his slavery by accepting his master's food?
(How they would work is very simple - free markets provide these things more efficiently, so why have an aggressive monopoly?)
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2011 5:23:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/31/2011 5:22:25 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 10/30/2011 9:39:39 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/30/2011 9:34:39 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/30/2011 9:19:36 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
JimTimmy, are you against all taxes?

Yes, yes I am... I am against the state

Okay, but you use a lot of the things that the state provides you. Some examples would be freeways, roads, sidewalks, emergency services like police, the army etc. How would these things work without paying taxes?

Does the slave consent to his slavery by accepting his master's food?

Well to an extent.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2011 5:26:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also about the tax thing - say a man is getting mugged, by a mugger who does not intend to murder or harm his victim if he co-operates (a fairly analogous example), whilst it may not be the brightest thing to do to resist, it would hardly be the action of one whom felt entitlement.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2011 5:29:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/31/2011 5:23:51 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/31/2011 5:22:25 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 10/30/2011 9:39:39 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/30/2011 9:34:39 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/30/2011 9:19:36 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
JimTimmy, are you against all taxes?

Yes, yes I am... I am against the state

Okay, but you use a lot of the things that the state provides you. Some examples would be freeways, roads, sidewalks, emergency services like police, the army etc. How would these things work without paying taxes?

Does the slave consent to his slavery by accepting his master's food?

Well to an extent.

So, slaves who have accepted food shouldn't complain about their situation, or be freed because they have consented? Or perhaps you may wish to clarify the extent here.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2011 6:03:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/31/2011 5:29:29 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 10/31/2011 5:23:51 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/31/2011 5:22:25 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 10/30/2011 9:39:39 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/30/2011 9:34:39 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/30/2011 9:19:36 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
JimTimmy, are you against all taxes?

Yes, yes I am... I am against the state

Okay, but you use a lot of the things that the state provides you. Some examples would be freeways, roads, sidewalks, emergency services like police, the army etc. How would these things work without paying taxes?

Does the slave consent to his slavery by accepting his master's food?

Well to an extent.

So, slaves who have accepted food shouldn't complain about their situation, or be freed because they have consented? Or perhaps you may wish to clarify the extent here.

The onus is not on me to clarify clear statements that you fully understood, the onus is on you to be intellectually honest.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2011 6:32:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
To say "to an extent" is quite vague. I am just asking for clarification. Are you saying that accepting "the food" legitimises slavery (or rather to what extent does it do so)?
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2011 10:15:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/31/2011 3:55:45 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/30/2011 8:02:16 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
What is Universal Health Care?

It is the violent imposition of a Health Care System on a population from the state. It doesn't seem nearly as great when you see it for what it is.

No it is not, no part of a state run health care system implies violent imposition of health care. Violent theft yes. But not medical services provided with a gun pointed to your head.

Okay, violent theft it is...

Furthermore, Universal Health Care violates every rule of economics. In the absence of a price system, there are chronic shortages and severe misallocation of health resources.

Yet is consistently shown to be more cost effective than the private sector.

No it hasn't. In evert instance, Health is shown to work very well in the absence of state intervention. When the state does run Health Care, shortages are commmonplace.

There are perverse incentives to overuse the "free" Health Care system, driving up costs, and the use of price controls to combat this simply creates shortages. Waiting times skyrocket and medical innovation falls dramatically, as the state becomes the only buyer of Pharmaceutical products. This reduces competition as existing large companies can get a monopoly on the one customer, the state. This significantly reduces innovation.

I don't think there is any evidence of a reduction of innovation. Britain for instance is still a leading nation for medical research.

Um, the US is BY far way ahead of other nations in Medical Innovation... Let me make something very clear... the US system is a mess, because of state intervenetion..

But, it does have a generally pivate delivery, which allows medical innovation to flourish more than it does in other countries


So, why would anyone be for this inefficient and violent policy?

Because reality shows us it is more efficient and not all violent.

In theory private health care should be better, in reality it is not. I do not know why, but not being an ideological zealot I can look at the facts and laugh at libertarians who are happy to be denied health care by expensive insurers that hate them purely for reasons of political purity.

What reality are you living in?

In my reality, the US system was ruined by state intervention. Things like Lasik Eye and Cosmetic surgery have seen rising quality and falling costs in the absence of state intervention.

In the reality I live in, state run health care systems have chronic shortages, lack of innovation, decaying quality, and long waiting times...
President of DDO
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2011 2:10:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/31/2011 10:36:59 AM, polticialwiz wrote:
Uiversal Healthcare is needed and will work for all americans.

lol,

I don't know why it would work... It never has and never will
President of DDO
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2011 2:30:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The healthiest nations on earth spend less on health care and have state run systems.

I know it is affront to the libertarian ideology, but it's the truth.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2011 3:08:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 9:39:27 PM, MarquisX wrote:
At 10/30/2011 9:34:39 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/30/2011 9:19:36 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
JimTimmy, are you against all taxes?

Yes, yes I am... I am against the state

Then why do you live here?

Lol "Why do you let us consistently rob you? It's your own fault for being within arms reach of me!"
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2011 3:09:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 9:39:39 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/30/2011 9:34:39 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/30/2011 9:19:36 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
JimTimmy, are you against all taxes?

Yes, yes I am... I am against the state

Okay, but you use a lot of the things that the state provides you. Some examples would be freeways, roads, sidewalks, emergency services like police, the army etc. How would these things work without paying taxes?

Would you like to debate? Resolved: That police, sidewalks, roads, etc. would not function properly or efficiently without the use of taxes.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.