Health Care for Everyone

[Famine]

Which is free to under 16s, pregnant women, the unemployed and (I think) over 65s

Sure I said that...

Are there not? Do we not have the right to life?

Just as the right to free speech is not the right to have a platform from which to speak or protection from criticism or the consequences or speaking, the right to life is not the protection from death.

Right to life means that you may have the freedom to exist without interference that would end that life, not that you may have free access to anything that prolongs your existence.

If the government passes laws around access to healthcare, does that not become a right?

No, it becomes law. Laws may protect rights or they may deny recognition of rights, but the rights continue regardless.

 

[daan]

And the antibiotics - you pay a prescription charge (unless you're unemployed, pregnant or a child).

Or live in Scotland. We get "free" prescriptions now.

 

[ScouserInExile]

Sure I said that...

I meant the dental bit.

 

[FoolKiller]

See, this is how I see universal healthcare. It's the job of the government to look after it's citizens. When you strip away all the outer layers of foreign policy and so on, the government is just there to serve the people. Part of that should be making sure they are healthy.

There has to be a limit to how you serve the people. To never set a limit is to go for economic ruin. There is no limit to how you can serve the people. However, the government's job to serve or protect is violated the moment you give to some who put nothing in by charging more to those who do pay in. How are they serving the financially stable or successful by forcing them to pay for others? How is that protecting their property rights? How is it different from theft?

Not sure how social security (wellfare?) works in the US, but they do supply that here in the UK. My wife's step sister is a good example of this. Neither she or her boyfriend have jobs and haven't had them for as long as I can remember but the have a house that is heated and lit, they clothe and feed themselves and the two kids and it's all paid for by the government. Granted, despite what certain tabloids would have you believe, they have very little in the way of luxuries but they have those essentials of life that you mentioned.

That is not the same as what I was describing. Does everyone receive the same benefits as your wife's step sister? Do you get the food she does, the shelter, etc? That would be the same as your healthcare plan. Just as your healthcare plan gives every single citizen a minimum of healthcare coverage, and you can buy more if you want, why doesn't everyone receive a weekly box of food? Surely food is far more important than healthcare.

And out of curiosity, when was the last time your wife's step sister tried getting a job, improving her education, or generally bettering her situation in life?

Yes, but essentially everyone uses it, that's why it's universal. Most of us use it from before the day we were born and will continue to use it until the day we die. So, while some benefit more than others, we all get something out of the nhs, even if it's just a trip to the doctors and some prescription medication every once in a while.

Why is it those who put in the least benefit the most? How is that fair? In my private group plan I at least know everyone has paid in as much as I have and has the exact benefits I do.

 

[ScouserInExile]

There has to be a limit to how you serve the people. To never set a limit is to go for economic ruin. There is no limit to how you can serve the people. However, the government's job to serve or protect is violated the moment you give to some who put nothing in by charging more to those who do pay in. How are they serving the financially stable or successful by forcing them to pay for others? How is that protecting their property rights? How is it different from theft?

How is any tax different from theft? I don't get to choose what my tax money is spent on and I disagree with some of what it's used for, but there are times when the good of others has to take priority over my own wants.

That is not the same as what I was describing. Does everyone receive the same benefits as your wife's step sister? Do you get the food she does, the shelter, etc? That would be the same as your healthcare plan. Just as your healthcare plan gives every single citizen a minimum of healthcare coverage, and you can buy more if you want, why doesn't everyone receive a weekly box of food? Surely food is far more important than healthcare.

I see your point on this one, I could actually afford to pay for my own healthcare, whereas the step sister in law can't, healthcare isn't means tested like housing / unemployment benefits are because, like you say, healthcare isn't an absolute need.

And out of curiosity, when was the last time your wife's step sister tried getting a job, improving her education, or generally bettering her situation in life?

Ha. Never. She had her first kid when she was 18 and had another just under 6 years later. Which, coincidentally, is when the rules say she would have to get a job or have he benefits cut, which won't happen for another 6 years now she has another child.

Realistically, she's trapped on benefits now. Since she gets pretty much everything she needs provided for her, she would need to get a decent paying job before it'd be worth her while. She can't be made to go on any form of training and I'm sure she said it would affect her money if she did it voluntarily. And she has no qualifications and as good as no work experience, so the best she could hope for is a minimum wage mcjob.

Same with her fella.

Why is it those who put in the least benefit the most? How is that fair? In my private group plan I at least know everyone has paid in as much as I have and has the exact benefits I do.

Life isn't fair, really. As with benefits, people who have contributed nothing get more than those who have paid in. But in a civilised, enlightened society we can't just cast these people adrift. A man greater than I said "the true measure of a society can be found in how it treats it's most vulnerable members"

 

[Danoff]

Street lights, and privately owned security lights, are a symptom of a problem you don't want in your area. I like seeing my motion sensor light (installed because we forget to turn it off too often) come on, only to find an animal walking by.

I like street lights mostly because of the animals. Street lights make hitting a deer with your car much less likely. And I used to walk my dogs at night where mountain lions and coyotes are known to attack dogs. Also we had the occasional bear.

How is any tax different from theft? I don't get to choose what my tax money is spent on and I disagree with some of what it's used for, but there are times when the good of others has to take priority over my own wants.

Many taxes in both the US and UK are theft. Taxes need to be done in a very specific way to be not considered theft, and they need to be used for the specific purpose of defending rights - which is the only legitimate function of government.

I'll give you an intriguing example.

In the United States, we have a branch of the government called the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). The job of the PTO is to issue patents and trademarks where the inventor or company has established a right to that intellectual property. You submit your application, you submit your application fee, and the PTO determines whether or not you own the property and issues you a certificate establishing such ownership as recognized by the government. This government certification of intellectual property is done to assist in preventing violation of your property rights by others and to help determine ownership in court over someone else who may have stolen your property rights.

The USPTO is entirely funded (and then some) by the fees they collect on patent and trademark applications. The point of the PTO is to facilitate property rights, and they function entirely without taxation.

Life isn't fair, really.

...but government should be.

 

[livemusic]

Many taxes in both the US and UK are theft. Taxes need to be done in a very specific way to be not considered theft, and they need to be used for the specific purpose of defending rights - which is the only legitimate function of government.

If the ends don't justify the means, how can a certain kind of tax not be considered theft depending on what it's used for?

 

[Famine]

That which is contributed equally and gives equal benefit to all equally, for defending rights.

 

[livemusic]

It's still theft though, right? I mean taking your property by force.

 

[Danoff]

It's still theft though, right? I mean taking your property by force.

Income tax would still be theft. Fee-based government is not theft. One can make an argument that sales tax is fee-based government. I'm not convinced, but I think a sales tax is much much farther from theft than income tax.

Famine is absolutely right that fees or tax rates need to be consistent from one person to the next, and of course the government can't use that to perform illegitimate functions of government.

If the national park fee in the US, for example, were dependent on income, it would not satisfy the test.

Edit:

I think if the discussion were framed on this concept society would come up with some very interesting ideas. Ideas like selling institutions that exist outside of protection of law (and without tax) and selling institutions that voluntarily exist inside the protection of law (with tax). Your kids' lemonade stand, for example, might not register with the state and pay sales tax, but don't bother calling the cops if someone steals some lemonade. I dunno, I'm thinking out loud but I think there are interesting options to consider.

 

[livemusic]

Sales tax is probably better than income tax, but I still see it as theft. After all you'd be obliged to pay the government every time you'd trade with someone else.

The only way it wouldn't be theft is if it was voluntary.

 

[Famine]

It's still theft though, right? I mean taking your property by force.

Income tax would still be theft. Fee-based government is not theft. One can make an argument that sales tax is fee-based government. I'm not convinced, but I think a sales tax is much much farther from theft than income tax.

That.

Paying for what you use - like Danoff's earlier example of the US Patent Office - is not theft.

Sales tax is probably better than income tax, but I still see it as theft. After all you'd be obliged to pay the government every time you'd trade with someone else.

The only way it wouldn't be theft is if it was voluntary.

It would depend on what is taxed. If it's things you cannot live without - necessities - then yes, it's theft. Anything beyond necessity is a voluntary purchase.

A good question would be who decides what's a necessity.

 

[livemusic]

I fail to see the logic in that. It doesn't matter if it's a necessity or not, if I can't make a trade with another person without handing some money to the government, which has nothing to do with the trade, in my opinion that's theft.

Sorry for the OT btw.

 

[Danoff]

I fail to see the logic in that. It doesn't matter if it's a necessity or not, if I can't make a trade with another person without handing some money to the government, which has nothing to do with the trade, in my opinion that's theft.

It does have something to do with the trade. The government exists in part to enforce property rights, and disputes over traded property (theft, etc.) is something the government will get involved with.

The reason a store is open and has goods you can browse is because the government enforces rule of law preventing those good from being stolen. So the transaction you make when you purchase something is directly a result of government. A fee on that transaction makes some sense.

I'd prefer it if we developed a voluntary system whereby companies can voluntarily register themselves with the government and pay taxes in exchange for this service. That would be truly voluntary. Even without that though, a sales tax is far far closer to voluntary than income tax - and our goal should be to head in that direction.

 

[Maccer_42]

The reason a store is open and has goods you can browse is because the government enforces rule of law preventing those good from being stolen. So the transaction you make when you purchase something is directly a result of government. A fee on that transaction makes some sense.

Now this is just my opinion, and it's probably wrong, more often than not I find out i'm wrong with a lot of things But I don't learn if I don't ask and get corrected.

A law doesn't really prevent goods being stolen though does it? It just means you can be punished when caught or found with stolen goods. Surely what prevents goods being stolen is a store using display models like empty boxes, or having it's own security force and having items tagged with something that set's off an alarm when it isn't paid for. So isn't it the stores own precautions that allow people to openly browse their goods and nothing to do with a law by the government?

Sorry for further continuing in the off topic discussion.

 

[Danoff]

A law doesn't really prevent goods being stolen though does it? It just means you can be punished when caught or found with stolen goods. Surely what prevents goods being stolen is a store using display models like empty boxes, or having it's own security force and having items tagged with something that set's off an alarm when it isn't paid for. So isn't it the stores own precautions that allow people to openly browse their goods and nothing to do with a law by the government?

Sorry for further continuing in the off topic discussion.

Well in most cases it's one's own sense of morals. But supposing you're dealing with a would-be criminal, I think it's the threat of incarceration if you're ID'd. I think most people assume that they could get away with shoplifting. Robbery is pretty easy if you bring a gun, because nobody working at the store is going to play hero over someone else's money. In-store security is not much of a concern. It's the cops finding you and locking you up that is of concern.

 

[Famine]

It does have something to do with the trade. The government exists in part to enforce property rights, and disputes over traded property (theft, etc.) is something the government will get involved with.

The reason a store is open and has goods you can browse is because the government enforces rule of law preventing those good from being stolen. So the transaction you make when you purchase something is directly a result of government. A fee on that transaction makes some sense.

Indeed. The transaction is a contract - you agree to pay x in exchange for product y.

When you fail to pay x, or y is inadequate for the purpose, poorly made or fake - or any other action that causes the breach of contract - one party has failed to honour the property rights of the other and that's exactly where government should be involved.

 

[ScouserInExile]

It would depend on what is taxed. If it's things you cannot live without - necessities - then yes, it's theft. Anything beyond necessity is a voluntary purchase.

A good question would be who decides what's a necessity.

Am I right in thinking that we don't pay VAT on books? Does that mean books are considered a necessity in the UK?

 

[Famine]

In this order: Yes. No.

Cakes are zero-rated for VAT too.

 

[livemusic]

Ok, I understand that line of thinking. But that would also mean there's no reason to leave out "necessary" goods from the sales tax. If it's to protect you against breach of contract then it should be charged on any sale.

Also, I'm not an anarchocapitalist. I do believe that for a society to have protection of individual rights the law needs to be centralized, but I also believe that police and courts services would be better run by private companies, as is the case with everything private-run against state-run. And if that was the case I don't think a sales tax would be justified.

 

[Liquid]

Cakes are zero-rated for VAT too.

Pretty sure biscuits are too, but it's a grey area.

 

[Danoff]

Also, I'm not an anarchocapitalist.

I do believe that for a society to have protection of individual rights the law needs to be centralized,

but I also believe that police and courts services would be better run by private companies,

What I read:

I'm not an anarchocapitalist

I'm not an anarchocapitalist

I'm am an anarchocapitalist

Private companies are really great at looking out for their own self interest - which is precisely why you can't put them in charge of rule of law.

 

[livemusic]

Ancaps don't believe in centralized laws, they want to privatize that as well. That's why I don't consider myself one, as I don't see that working to protect individual rights. It's a small difference, but a crucial one in my opinion.

Private companies are really great at looking out for their own self interest - which is precisely why you can't put them in charge of rule of law.

Government workers are also great at looking out for their own interest. Humans are humans.

That's why I think laws should be centralized, but the work of enforcing those laws could be privatized. Private companies wouldn't be free to do as they please as they would have to abide by the state law, and since they would be profit-run they would be more efficient than state police and courts.

 

[FoolKiller]

That's why I think laws should be centralized, but the work of enforcing those laws could be privatized. Private companies wouldn't be free to do as they please as they would have to abide by the state law,

But who is enforcing those laws? If you had competitive companies they may spend more time trying to bust each other on minor offenses and a monopoly would mean the public would have to be ever watchful and hope they can catch their biggest offenses on video.

and since they would be profit-run they would be more efficient than state police and courts.

An example that this is not working: red light cameras contracted to private companies. These encourage both the government and the private firm to take advantage of their guilty until proven innocent power. There have been cases of tickets charging people of running lights with the photo evidence clearly showing an unmoving car, checked and approved by a police officer. Similarly, these lights have sometimes been shown to have shorter yellow lights than allowed by law in order to increase revenues.

 

[Danoff]

That's why I think laws should be centralized, but the work of enforcing those laws could be privatized. Private companies wouldn't be free to do as they please as they would have to abide by the state law

Why?

 

[livemusic]

But who is enforcing those laws? If you had competitive companies they may spend more time trying to bust each other on minor offenses and a monopoly would mean the public would have to be ever watchful and hope they can catch their biggest offenses on video.

Why?

I think that ultimately it's up to the people to guarantee that these laws would be followed. It's the same thing with the government, and clearly the US government doesn't follow its constitution anymore, so the police and court services being state run or not doesn't change that.

 

[Famine]

I think that ultimately it's up to the people to guarantee that these laws would be followed.

And that's what the purpose of a government is - an assemblage of people, representing all people to provide an overwhelming body of force to counter those who'd use force to violate rights.

Not a ruling body that passes illogical laws and exists to pay itself.

 

[livemusic]

It doesn't seem like it's working, though.

 

[Famine]

That'll be because both governments and a significant chunk of the people worldwide think the role of government is much more than that - including providing for them - and have given it vast, wide-ranging powers it should never have.

 

[livemusic]

I understand and agree to that, and it just proves that it makes no difference having a government to enforce individual rights. It's up to the people.