Healthcare: An Entitlement or a Privilege? - Discuss

Haelium

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Sweden (as an example) has been so messed up by socialist ideals that the new liberal conservative government is disassembling a lot of state control and privatising it as we speak.

Yeah so ****ed up at the moment that they have the 8th highest GDP per capita in the world and had record growth in 2010. But places like Ireland and America which went for your ideal deregulated market are doing fantastic.

I hear Somalia is also doing well these days.

Haelium

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

I don't see why much of the above shouldn't treated as a breech of contract if the insurance company refuses to fund claims of preexistence customers.

No, they can't get insurance in the first place because the insurance companies are profit motivated and thus will not insure people who are likely to get sick. As for the flood damage, it wasn't covered, not in the contract, so no obligation to pay... but who the **** expected a flood?

Haelium

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Well, Louisiana is in a Hurricane prone region.

(I was being sarcastic by the way, my point was that these people weren't idiots)
And wouldn't it be natural to assume that a flood caused by a hurricane would be covered by the insurance that covers hurricanes? Apparently not.

Anyway, as fun as it is to explain to a naive objectivist, I'll be going.

Warper

Healthcare should be an entitlement.

We should pay more taxes to improve it and get better management. Somehow a lot of people cannot see the relationship between higher taxes and better public services.

Suryavarman

Haelium wrote: »

Yeah so ****ed up at the moment that they have the 8th highest GDP per capita in the world and had record growth in 2010. But places like Ireland and America which went for your ideal deregulated market are doing fantastic.

I hear Somalia is also doing well these days.

I don't think any libertarian would call Ireland or America examples of their ideal deregulated market. Especially considering both countries crashes were caused by government intervention through tax breaks for buying houses.

It's not really surprising that Somalia isn't doing too well seen as they've had a civil war the last 20 years and had socialism prior to that.

I think the best working example in terms of healthcare and a deregulated economy is probably Singapore. Last year Singapore experienced 18% GDP growth and got unemployment down to 2%. It only spends 3% of GDP on healthcare annually (less than any other developed nation) and only 30% of that is spent by the government (less than the US!). Despite spending so little they still have one of in not the best healthcare systems in the world.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

The profit form the activities of the parties I mention above will contribute to employees wages and creating more jobs - it's called trickle down economics.

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/11/19/129031574626506150.jpg

Dyr

We have, as always, the worst of both systems. We pour a huge amount of tax money into a public health system which is completely substandard but if you want decent health care ( decent meaning "not to die in hospital") then you have to pay through the nose for private health care. Which seems to be soaking up all the resources that your public health care dollah paid for anyway.

Everyones a winner bar Sean O'Public

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

No, Nazism advocates the forceful alleviation of the weak from society. Letting every man fend for himself is more a mild Social Darwinist idea.

I suggest that the first is a result of the second.

This coming from the person who say that a libertarian free-market capitalist society is somehow Nazi.

Really? I could have sworn I said I didn't trust free-market capitalism to remain free or fair in a competitve market, especially insurance. Oh wait... I did say that...

Sweden (as an example) has been so messed up by socialist ideals that the new liberal conservative government is disassembling a lot of state control and privatising it as we speak.

Last time I was there the people looked pretty healthy. Which Swedish polices are you saying are spur of the moment and emotive driven?

karma_

Deleted User wrote: »

mikemac, who cares... You're just following a tired trend of people attackin an OP for not posting an extra line with what they think.

I think the state should be responsible.. It means the rich subsidize the poor's health through higher taxation. I wouldn't call it an entitlement though..
I'm not entitled to healthcare just because I was born, but it's definitely one of the things a proper society should be built on.

I cannot and will not acknowledge that if a gravely ill person cannot afford help, then it should not be provided to them.

For me, healthcare needs to be regarded as one of the fundamental human rights. If someone, anyone, should need medical help, and we have the knowledge and the will to help then we absolutely must.

karma_

karma_ wrote: »

I cannot and will not acknowledge that if a gravely ill person cannot afford help, then it should not be provided to them.

For me, healthcare needs to be regarded as one of the fundamental human rights. If someone, anyone, should need medical help, and we have the knowledge and the will to help then we absolutely must.

I did say that the state should be responsible. I agree with you.. I just said I'm not entitled to it just because I exist.