Health Care bill passed

[Tiberius]

Capitalism Capitalism Capitalism Capitalism FTW!! Oh wait, except healthcare, that should be socialist. And the police. Oh and the fire brigade. Wait..... education too. Where are you drawing your line on capitalism? Just food? Government responsible to protect the health of citizens you say, food is nessesary for health. Clothing is nessesary also. Where's the line Adrian? When people here advocate a mix of socialism and capitalism I believe you said 'bad idea' or something like that, yet here you are advocating a NHC. Thou confuses.

It's the difference between how a Libertarian views government and how seemingly everyone else (the statists) view it. Statists, who include all major parties in power, go from a position of government control. Healthcare? The government should control it. Welfare? The government should control it. Libertarians reject those ideas, basing our view of government on what the government should ultimately be responsible for. These responsibilities are summed up by our three ideals "Life, Liberty, Prosperity". That is to say, the government has responsibilities to protect these ideals whilst not interfering with how people want to live their lives.

Protection of life in my view necessitates a National Health Service. Far from the socialist view of such a service, in which government has control, the NHS under Libertarianism would be run like any other private institution. A collection of private charitable groups would act as watchdogs, pointing out wasteful things in the system, cutting costly bureaucracy in favour of efficiency. There is nothing anti-capitalist about having an National Health Service, since the government does not have control over such a service, it only funds it. Additionally, there is nothing to stop private hospitals being set up, private insurance, etc.

The funny thing here is that you take capitalism and socialism to mean more than they actually do. Capitalism and Socialism are both economic systems, not governmental systems. Sure, you can have a "capitalist" or "socialist" government, but that only describes their stance regarding economic control. There is nothing innately socialist or anti-capitalist about a National Health Service, nor any public service. The National Health Service isn't trying to take money from the rich and give it to the poor, spreading the wealth, nor is it trying to lock down the healthcare market. So I stand with what I said before, combining socialism with capitalism is a very bad idea. The two economic systems do not go well together; their underlying principles in stark contrast with each other.

As for the police and fire brigade, yes, I see no reason why these systems should not remain public under the same circumstances. Cut bureaucracy, cut spending, focus on providing a service.

Education I believe should be privatized. Current public education is like batch farming, which is great if you want to produce a lot of the same product. Unfortunately we don't want children to become drones; they are all individuals with different needs and abilities. Only a private system can provide such individualistic services.

Food and clothing are commodities; they are free market products, they should remain on the free market. There is no reason to waste public funds on such things. If someone does not have access to food or clothing, there are private charitable services that can provide them. Indeed, systems like Libertarianism and other anarcho-capitalist systems depend upon private charity (and in that instance, encourage them). We don't believe people are monsters, but we don't believe people are inherently perfect as socialists tend to. There will be decent people who can take the extra money they get from the lower taxes and give to the poor, but that is their choice; it is their money. A system that forces people to give to those they may not wish to give to is unfair.

Or if you like to sky-dive. Don't expect care if you hit the ground and bust up some bones. Oh and the lady with ostio, she obviously didnt ingest enough calcium in her life, so no care for her as she brought it upon herself. Why 50 cigarettes? What if I smoke 5 a day? Should I be denied care? What if I smoke 1 or 2 a day? How about the web master (Tiberius) who developed carpal in the wrists? Denied care because you sat there typing on the computer thus 'bringing it upon yourself'?

Let's not forget Mr. George, developed a bad back from working hard all his life to make a better life for his family. Brought it upon himself (he could have worked easier and done with less) care denied.

Awwwww...... Joe busted his toe open stubbing it on that damned brick sticking up on his walkway. DENIED care because he knew about that brick for a couple weeks now. He could have worn his steel toed shoes yet choose not to thus "brought it upon himself".

You may think my examples are spurious however they demonstrate that slippery slope you advocate.

How about the local homosexual who contracted aids? How about ANYONE who contracted a STD?

Who is the line draw'er Adrian? You? Me?

I never said such a system would be easy to implement, or even if it were possible. As I was typing it in I thought about putting such a disclaimer, but then I thought it might be interesting to see if anyone spots the flaws such a system might have. Well done to you

Yes, there are many instances you could argue would lead to good people getting rejected. There are also many examples you give which are plainly ridiculous. I never advocated a position that rejected people who have work-related injuries, and surely the responsibility there lies with the employer? A balance might be needed; perhaps a blacklist with all possible self-injuries that would not be covered for free.

Regardless, I agree, such an amendment probably makes things less fair to regular people.