My Simple Argument Against Government Healthcare

1. Theft is wrong. It is wrong to forcibly take wealth from one who earned it and give it to someone else.

2. It's unfair. I choose not to smoke. I choose not to sit on the couch with a 4lb bag of Doritos every night. I choose not to drink. I choose to exercise. I choose to be healthy. Why should I be forced to pay for fat smokers that make poor choices? They should reap what they sow. I have no problem with them making stupid choices. I have a HUGE problem with being forced to pay for the consequences.

3. We can't keep the private option. How can a private company that must make a profit compete with the government, who can run indefinitely at a loss? Considering most of us get our insurance through work, what would motivate our employers to pay the extra taxes for the public option AND continue to keep paying the premiums (or part of them) for the private option? They'll drop the private option because they'll refuse to pay twice for health insurance.

4. We can't afford it. The country is broke. We currently pay over $450 BILLION dollars in interest each year for the money we have borrowed from other countries (mainly China). How about balancing the budget and getting us out of debt before taking on another obligation? Sure it would be nice to give everyone free healthcare. It would be nice for me to have a mansion and a yacht too. But I can't afford it. Neither can this country.

http://usdebtclock.org/
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm

[Edited on August 31, 2009 at 7:21 PM. Reason : links]

8/31/2009 7:20:12 PM

Quote :

"1. Theft is wrong."

The instant I read this, the fail tune from The Price is Right played through my mind.

8/31/2009 7:22:21 PM

it's simple.
and we didn't really need another thread for this

8/31/2009 7:45:33 PM

whats this government health care you speak of

8/31/2009 7:47:27 PM

^^seriously. its the same old points

[Edited on August 31, 2009 at 7:48 PM. Reason : .]

8/31/2009 7:48:45 PM

same old same old. so why do you idiots keep pushing for it? it doesn't get any simpler.

8/31/2009 9:51:31 PM

And clearly it's as simple as your randian bullet points make them out to be.

8/31/2009 10:01:29 PM

The hilarious irony is that the OP goes to a state-supported school.

[Edited on August 31, 2009 at 10:52 PM. Reason : or went, if he's an alumnus.]

8/31/2009 10:51:19 PM

you should have just written "I'm selfish" as your first point

[Edited on August 31, 2009 at 11:10 PM. Reason : .]

8/31/2009 11:03:55 PM

^http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

Quote :

"Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227)."

8/31/2009 11:06:55 PM

1. That's what all taxes are do. Get used to it, or move to a 3rd world country where you don't pay taxes and try to live off the land. I don't appreciate my tax money going to fight unjust wars, but not much I can do about it.

2. So you don't partake in car insurance? Home-owners insurance? Or any health insurance at all, for that matter?

3. Bullshit.

4. We can't afford not to.


Bonus #5 - It's morally reprehensible in a country this wealthy so many people die or go bankrupt from lack of proper care

8/31/2009 11:07:27 PM

OP translates to "Fuck you, got mine!"

Why is it always well-off people with a job and good health insurance who argue against a public option? Where are the poor uninsured people arguing against a public option?

8/31/2009 11:09:13 PM

Quote :

"Where are the poor uninsured people arguing against a public option?"

Nice to meet you. I am recently unemployed and paying far too much for almost worthless private health insurance (only good for catastrophic injuries and has a massive deductible). I will also likely be denied coverage, due to pre-existing conditions, if I am not able to get on a forgiving employer-plan in the very near future. I also have $5k in medical debt to pay.

Even if I get sick, and get 100K in medical bills that I have to shoulder the rest of my life....I will remain emphatically against a public option. I know our system is fucked up, and I am on the receiving end of its ass-raping, though there are many in worse shape.

I guess you just wouldn't understand that some of us believe in liberty and the Constitution, even when tyranny flashes dollar signs in our eyes. The solution is less government, not more.

Though, there are plenty of conservatives you can call out for being limp-wristed and hypocritical. Any conservative who is against this plan with all their heart and soul, and yet would not dare to touch Medicare or Medicaid, deserves no place in any discussion on this. Where were they when the feds were reaching near monopoly status in the healthcare world with those programs? If they will kick and scream and cry over the "public option" but smile and wink at the bigger programs with Medicare/Medicaid, then they need to stfu.

[Edited on August 31, 2009 at 11:20 PM. Reason : a]

8/31/2009 11:16:43 PM

Quote :

"I guess you just wouldn't understand that some of us believe in liberty and the Constitution, even when tyranny flashes dollar signs in our eyes."

Please tell me how offering health coverage for every American constitutes tyranny and a violation of liberty and our constitution.

Are you against other state sponsored services like the postal service, medicare, the fire department, and public school?

8/31/2009 11:18:46 PM

Quote :

"Where are the poor uninsured people arguing against a public option?"

oh, i have no doubt there are plenty of these. You think everybody who worships Sarah Palin or listens religiously to Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh have or can afford insurance? Ha, yeah right - but, of course, their leaders have convinced them they don't deserve insurance and it's their own fucking fault for making $5.50/hour at Walmart with no benefits. I mean, Walmart is good for everyone, right?
It wouldn't be the first time poor people voted against their own self-interests (see What's the Matter With Kansas?)

8/31/2009 11:19:43 PM

Quote :

"of course, their leaders have convinced them they don't deserve insurance"

^^^ thank you, couldn't have said it better myself

8/31/2009 11:21:28 PM

Quote :

"1. Theft is wrong. It is wrong to forcibly take wealth from one who earned it and give it to someone else."

While i do not support the healthcare bills currently in legislation your logical reasoning is flawed as to why you are
against the current liberal healthcare agenda.

Your first argument could be used as a fill in the blank government activity here to pretty much shoot down the existence of government
all together.
ouiji taking tax payer money to pay for health care is theft.

hooksaw taking tax payer money to pay for welfare checks is theft

Boone taking tax payer money to fight wars of foreign aggresion is theft.

joe_schmoe taking tax payer money to pay farmers subsidies is theft.

Thus you are arguing gov't by its mere existence is a their by collecting any sort of taxes from its citizens. If you are an extreme
libertarian or anarchist than fine. If you were a card-toting Republican with a W sticker on your SUV, waving your gun in the
air in excitement when we went to war with Iraq than you are a hypocrit and tool so GTFO.

[quote[I choose not to smoke. I choose not to sit on the couch with a 4lb bag of Doritos every night. I choose not to drink. I choose to exercise. I choose to be healthy. Why should I be forced to pay for fat smokers that make poor choices?[/quote]

I agree there needs to be some sort of fat tax or high risk "surcharge" people must pay if on the gov't healthcare plan. Please
note though that those unable to pay are already subsidized through medicaid to eat at church's chicken every night.

Quote :

"We can't keep the private option. How can a private company that must make a profit compete with the government,"

I think you are jumping the line with this one. This point is true but may be a false dilemna depending on how the legislation pans out.
From my understanding the democrats are on the retreat about the public option.
To refute your argument into the sand even if their was a public option how about UPS or FedEx ZOMG HOW DO THEY EXIST WITH THE PUBLIC
OPTION OF THE US POSTAL SERVICE!
Or DUKE versus NCSU ZOMG HOW CAN A PRIVATE UNIVERSITY CHARGING 30,000/YR EXIST WHEN I CAN GO TO NCSU FOR 3000!!

[quote[We can't afford it. The country is broke. We currently pay over $450 BILLION dollars in interest each year for the money we have borrowed from other countries (mainly China)[/quote]

Tricky issue. If we can refore healthcare right we may end up saving money in the long term. Additionally there is lots of cost cutting
they can be made that is long overdue. For one the current Social Security Program needs to be phased out.

BTW as a side note i overheard some UNCW Sorostitute whining about how she doesn't approve of Obama's "socialist policies b.c he doesn't want him taxing her daddy b.c then he won't have enough money for a Lexus SUV "

8/31/2009 11:27:12 PM

Quote :

"oh, i have no doubt there are plenty of these. You think everybody who worships Sarah Palin or listens religiously to Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh have or can afford insurance? Ha, yeah right - but, of course, their leaders have convinced them they don't deserve insurance and it's their own fucking fault for making $5.50/hour at Walmart with no benefits. I mean, Walmart is good for everyone, right? It wouldn't be the first time poor people voted against their own self-interests (see What's the Matter With Kansas?)"

This reveals a lot. Why would someone vote against their best interests? Why would someone be offered something in terms of monetary gain, social advantage, or any other benefit, and yet vote against themselves?

Well, it's quite simple. Some people believe in right and wrong. And some people are willing to act to their own personal detriment just so that they can uphold what is right.

You may disagree with what right and wrong are - that's fine. Argue about what the right principle is. But don't act like people are stupid or missing an obvious answer to their problem if they are acting on moral bearings.

Case-in-point: I was offered a full-ride minority scholarship to a historically black college. I attended, and turned down the scholarship every semester it was offered, even as I was working full-time to just barely pay the bills. Why? Because it is wrong to hand out money to people based on their skin color. Are you going to call me stupid, now?

8/31/2009 11:30:38 PM

Quote :

"you should have just written "I'm selfish" as your first point"

carl face

Health care is not a right. It is not a fucking right. We have the right to choose how we live our life, we do not have the right to expect others to pay for it.

/ thread

8/31/2009 11:32:17 PM

Quote :

"Health care is not a right. It is not a fucking right."

that's your opinion, and that's where the fundamental disagreement begins.

Many would say that (the potential for) good health, and by extension, access to healthcare, falls under "life" and the "pursuit of happiness"

8/31/2009 11:42:12 PM

some would say that the pursuit of happiness can be limited by having to forfeit money to others.

there in lies the argument and the probability that the status quo will be upheld.

8/31/2009 11:45:18 PM

Christ you are retarded.

8/31/2009 11:45:57 PM

well, I have not heard any decent argument that supports the fact that I should pay for anyone else's healthcare. I guess that = retarded

8/31/2009 11:47:13 PM

How about you come back when you can form a cogent argument with a developed political philosophy not based upon Atlas Shrugged.

[Edited on August 31, 2009 at 11:54 PM. Reason : .]

8/31/2009 11:54:13 PM

yes, because clearly political rhetoric is working towards a solution.

sometimes common sense is the answer, not politics.

8/31/2009 11:56:09 PM

If it means jack shit to you, I'm not a republican or democrat. I don't identify with any political party. I'm against all taxes except taxes on imports. The government survived just fine before they started taxing income and everything else under the sun.

I'm against the wars. It's a huge waste of money and doesn't serve any helpful purpose.

I want a small federal government. I want local governments to handle things how they see fit in their local jurisdictions. The only thing the government needs to provide is a police force, fire department, and roads. All that can be handled on the local level. Letting the federal government seize so much power as they have in the last 10 years is lunacy. Bush was up to the same bullshit Obama is up to. Patriot Act, torture, wars, taxes. Stay the fuck out of my life. Go away and let me be free to earn a living and pursue my dreams.

I also empathize with those who through no fault of their own get cancer and go bankrupt trying to pay the medical bills. The current system is FAR from perfect, but completely overhauling it in the manner described is not the answer. Repeal the income tax, get rid of all these federal government departments and regulations. State law is soverign over federal law. Read the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson would have wanted no part in this. Get rid of the PRIVATE bank that prints our money and charges interest on each dollar printed. Stop sending billions of dollars in foreign aid to countries around the world. Stop wasting money on endless wars. We have troops in over 130 countries around the globe and spend billions a day maintaining that. That money could be better spent by the people who earned it. I don't want to be paying off student loans for decades because the federal government hijacks 1/3 of my income. I don't want to pay for fat assholes to get fatter. I don't want to pay for troops to murder millions of innocent civilians around the world. The entire system is flawed and is in serious need of reevaluation.

But let's use the administration's logic here. Hmm, I'm 12 trillion dollars in debt. How can I get out of it? Oh, great idea!! Print more money and spend more money. That's sure to fix the problem. Anyone who runs their own household and budget sees through their idiocy. STOP SPENDING. CUT BACK. DOWNSIZE. No more cable tv. No more dinner out. Cancel Netflix. Pick up a second job. Hard work people, not government handouts. Get rid of the department of education, homeland security, federal reserve, etc. Leave people the fuck alone and let them keep the money they earn. I'm tired of working 2 days a week for the government. It's slavery, no question about it.

9/1/2009 12:03:09 AM

Quote :

"I'm against all taxes except taxes on imports. The government survived just fine before they started taxing income and everything else under the sun."

Quote :

"The only thing the government needs to provide is a police force, fire department, and roads. All that can be handled on the local level."

Does not compute. How do you propose the government, whether it be state or federal, pay for anything? Do you even know how a government collects any sort of revenue?

Quote :

"Hard work people, not government handouts. Get rid of the department of education, homeland security, federal reserve, etc. Leave people the fuck alone and let them keep the money they earn. I'm tired of working 2 days a week for the government. It's slavery, no question about it."

Nevermind, I'm backing out of this. You appear to be insane.

9/1/2009 12:06:42 AM

i agree with the guy to a point.

i think we are too overpopulated to not have a government. There are too many unproductive fucks that we can't let starve. Therefore, we need some sort of social net - but not to the point that we pay for healthcare for them. Bread and water and that's it. However, keep education available for all so that the poor have a chance. Taxes are not the answer, education is.

9/1/2009 12:09:44 AM

Quote :

"Print more money and spend more money."

Zimbabwe does it so why can't we

9/1/2009 12:10:31 AM

Dipshit, the government can collect tons of cash taxing foreign imports and use that to pay for essential services (police, fire). Yes, I'm insane because I don't want to be a fucking slave. Monday and Tueday each week is work for Uncle Sam days. I don't start keeping what I earn until Wednesday. Get real.

[Edited on September 1, 2009 at 12:14 AM. Reason : .]

9/1/2009 12:11:03 AM

Are you seriously proposing that we let poor people starve? Did you really just argue that point?

[Edited on September 1, 2009 at 12:11 AM. Reason : to beergolftile]

9/1/2009 12:11:21 AM

Quote :

"i think we are too overpopulated to not have a government. There are too many unproductive fucks that we can't let starve. Therefore, we need some sort of social net - but not to the point that we pay for healthcare for them. Bread and water and that's it. However, keep education available for all so that the poor have a chance. Taxes are not the answer, education is."

oh dear jesus, that post is just embarrassing for you, guy.

[Edited on September 1, 2009 at 12:12 AM. Reason : .]

9/1/2009 12:12:10 AM

Perhaps you don't realize that the dept of education directly correlates to low test scores and our worsening educational position. Local government can handle education much better than the fed. If your local government wants to tax you for education, great. At least you have the choice to move to another county or state.

9/1/2009 12:13:33 AM

Quote :

"the dept of education directly correlates to low test scores"

truly brilliant.

9/1/2009 12:15:33 AM

Quote :

"Dipshit, the government can collect tons of cash taxing foreign imports and use that to pay for essential servcices (police, fire)."

Please explain to me how North Carolina will make enough revenue to pay for all essential services by "taxing foreign imports."

Quote :

"Yes, I'm insane because I don't want to be a fucking slave."

I'm not quite familiar with this concept. How are you a slave when you're living in the freest most prosperous country in the world? I don't believe you're familiar with the concept of slavery. Perhaps you should live in The Democratic Republic of the Congo. You probably wouldn't even have to pay any taxes!

Quote :

"Perhaps you don't realize that the dept of education directly correlates to low test scores and our worsening educational position."

[Citation needed]

9/1/2009 12:15:49 AM

poor people shouldn't starve, but why is it my job to pay for their food? Did I directly cause their starvation?

Yes, extreme argument, but I somehow fail to see my obligation to others. Fuck that shit. Charity exists for that reason.

9/1/2009 12:16:03 AM

I would hope the answer would be "because I'm a decent human being who is concerned about the prosperity and well being of my countrymen."

When the entire country prospers, you prosper.

I would also hope that you aren't making this argument after benefiting from any sort of state run services, such as attending a public school or university.

9/1/2009 12:18:12 AM

1) All government is theft. Unless you want government officials to work for charity (unless, that is, you want all elected officials to be independently wealthy), you will pay taxes which will paid to other people.

2) You didn't choose to have any genetic disease you may have. Oh well, fuck you then. Hope you had (read: hope you had the family motivation and money to afford) a good education to get a good job with benefits.

3) UPS and FedEx both survive competing with the government-run USPS.

4) The difference between healthcare and a "mansion/yacht" is that one of them is a luxury and another you might die without. Don't be a fuckwad, please.

OK, I'll go beyond that. There are methods to both allowing for healthcare and balancing the budget. Many (if not most) of these methods call for the raising of certain taxes. If you're actually for balancing the budget, you might call for higher taxes...except all taxes are theft. So you want no taxes. So the only way to balance the budget is to have a completely volunteer government.

Good luck with that.

9/1/2009 12:18:28 AM

Because the Dept of Education is obviously helping things:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125065253283242295.html

Local government does it better. Get the fed's dirty little hands out of things. They are trying to run every aspect of our lives.

9/1/2009 12:20:29 AM

I don't feel that based on the behavior of all of my fellow humans that I am somehow liable for their bad decisions.

I guess it is easier in Europe where you have negative population rates and 50+% income tax to have socialized healthcare for all.

Here, it just doesn't make economic sense to cover an increasing population.

No way to have public healthcare sustainable without enforcing some sort of population regulation so that it medicine does not become another social security fiasco.

9/1/2009 12:20:43 AM

Quote :

"Because the Dept of Education is obviously helping things: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125065253283242295.html Local government does it better. Get the fed's dirty little hands out of things. They are trying to run every aspect of our lives."

Your citation proves absolutely nothing. There is no reference in that citation to any fault of the DOE for lower test scores, nor is there evidence that state-run programs would be better.

Quote :

"I don't feel that based on the behavior of all of my fellow humans that I am somehow liable for their bad decisions. "

I'm not sure you understand the concept of poverty. This seems to be a common problem among Conservatives, who feel that if those poor people "just worked hard enough" that they could pull themselves out of poverty and become rich and famous. Real life isn't like that.

9/1/2009 12:23:32 AM

Quote :

"1) All government is theft. Unless you want government officials to work for charity (unless, that is, you want all elected officials to be independently wealthy), you will pay taxes which will paid to other people. 2) You didn't choose to have any genetic disease you may have. Oh well, fuck you then. Hope you had (read: hope you had the family motivation and money to afford) a good education to get a good job with benefits. 3) UPS and FedEx both survive competing with the government-run USPS. 4) The difference between healthcare and a "mansion/yacht" is that one of them is a luxury and another you might die without. Don't be a fuckwad, please."

1. So its OK to continue to steal more and more? It's ok to steal a little, so why not steal a lot? Great logic. Keep the theft coming.

2. Natural selection. Charity helps. Catastrophic insurance can be purchased. No need to pay for fat asses and illegal immigrants to smoke cigarettes and eat doritos all day.

3. Let's not forget Amtrak right? This also only proves the point that anything government tries to run turns into a bureaucratic nightmare and they do a shitty job.

4. Healthcare is a good, just like any other. Not a right. Move to socialist Europe if you want a nanny state.

9/1/2009 12:26:30 AM

Quote :

"Your citation proves absolutely nothing. There is no reference in that citation to any fault of the DOE for lower test scores, nor is there evidence that state-run programs would be better."

That's why they continue to pump more and more money into education, only to see scores drop, college kids drop out, and test scores get worse and worse. If that's not broken, I don't know what is.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10053859/

9/1/2009 12:29:16 AM

Quote :

"I'm not sure you understand the concept of poverty. This seems to be a common problem among Conservatives, who feel that if those poor people "just worked hard enough" that they could pull themselves out of poverty and become rich and famous. Real life isn't like that."

It's about equality of opportunity, not equality of results. Naturally some rise to the top and others fall to the bottom.

9/1/2009 12:32:49 AM

This clone thread really took off. GG

9/1/2009 12:39:37 AM

1) That works both ways. If you think any taxes constitutes stealing, you should be opposing every tax that comes down the pipeline. If you don't think that, your position here becomes more muddled.

2) Natural selection in the context of policy? That's worked out well historically. Just ask uncle Adolf. And while charity helps, insurance cannot be purchased by just anybody.

3) Amtrak is failing because nobody rides the goddamn train anymore. Even if this example were spot on, the fact that not one but two (and another major one whose name I can't recall) firms are competing quite effectively with the Post Office.

4) By this logic, what isn't a good? Not all health problems are caused by bad decisions. I believe in certain limits on healthcare, but not ones that run across the board. The government has long handed out food to people. I guess they must be commies.

9/1/2009 12:40:53 AM

GrumpyGOP proves yet again that you don't have to toe ridiculous party lines to be a real Conservative....

9/1/2009 1:09:26 AM

It's not an issue of being "real conservative" or otherwise.

At some point, practicality comes into play.

Americans die younger than members of other modern countries. We have more infants die. And in spite of that, we pay substantially more per person than those countries do.

I can look at numbers and see that we're paying too much for too little. In this case, the numbers are clear enough to overcome ideologies. Even in Britain, Conservative forces aren't willing to mess with their health system.

9/1/2009 1:20:08 AM

^Overall mortality rates are misleading, and do not accurately reflect the success of a medical system. Mixed in with the quality of medical care are social factors that don't have anything to do with it, like rates of obesity, smoking, general activity level, etc. These are the heaviest factors in determining infant mortality rates as well.

This is a misconception that begins with the wrong question. It is not that important to ask whether people in country A or B live longer. The question is: which country would your rather have a serious health problem in? If you had heart disease, cancer, stroke, COPD, diabetes, liver and kidney failure, etc....where would you rather be?

I am looking for the peer-reviewed study I saw on this, but the upshot is that the U.S. has a greater survival rate for ALL of those problems regardless of whether the patient was insured. The infant mortality rate and average lifespan are not what I would be concerned with.

If your baby is underweight or born early, the chances of survival are better here than elsewhere. But the U.S. has much higher incidence of underweight and early babies than other countries, so the infant mortality rate appears higher in a misleading way. Both New York and Tennessee tried expanding Medicaid coverage and greatly improved pre-natal care for poor folks. Infant mortality was unaffected. Why? Because pre-natal care doesn't fix obesity, smoking, poor diet, lack of exercise, etc.

[Edited on September 1, 2009 at 2:37 AM. Reason : a]

9/1/2009 2:31:03 AM

TULIPlovr --

Go ahead and toss "smoking." The levels of that are higher in many industrialized countries than our own, and yet they live longer.

As to obesity...last I checked the UK wasn't too far behind us in that, and their mortality rates are much lower.

Quote :

"The question is: which country would your rather have a serious health problem in? If you had heart disease, cancer, stroke, COPD, diabetes, liver and kidney failure, etc....where would you rather be?"

Well now that depends, doesn't it? If I'm loaded with cash, I'd rather be in the US. If I'm middle-class or poor, I'd much, much rather be in Canada or the UK.

Quote :

"the upshot is that the U.S. has a greater survival rate for ALL of those problems regardless of whether the patient was insured."

It has it for some, but not all. And regardless, an overarching point is that we are paying more. Much more. Emphatically more. Part of the reason is that the well-off are already paying for the "lower classes" through increased hospital bills and insurance premiums.

9/1/2009 2:57:12 AM