A Stupid Statements About Single Payer Healthcare

[brewer]

He's already paying for other people's healthcare -- just not in ways so obvious that he notices.  When a hospital emergency room has to treat a non-paying patient who doesn't have a PCP because of no insurance and insufficient cash, the hospital doesn't eat that cost.  They pass it on to paying customers and insurance companies in higher rates for other services.  The insurance companies in turn pass it on to their customers in higher premiums.

It comes down to:  would he rather pay $50, up front, from his wallet, into a socialized healthcare system -- or have $250 picked from his back pocket by the industry to support the corporate dominated mess we currently have?

It's not just the non paying patients. There is also cost shifting to make up the difference for the medicare and medicaid patients.

[Cherub786]

1. It can't be theft if it's legal theft by definition is an illegal act 

All right are invented there are no natural rights 

By that logic forcing soldiers to fight for the government is wrong

What are you saying? It is impossible for the government to commit theft if it legislates that theft?

"All rights are invented there are no natural rights" <<what?!!

This is why I said on my thread "Am I an anarchist?" that atheists are prone to statism and authoritarianism

You believe that human rights are derived from the state

Forcing soldiers to fight for the government is wrong

[Rev. Rye]

Ask him how he thinks private health insurance works. If your personal healthcare costs for any given year exceed the amount your insurance company paid to the providers, then you paid for someone else’s healthcare.

Or paying for someone else’s HMO to claim they’re paying for your health care, only for some conveniently-placed loophole to give them an excuse to easily weasel out of paying for it.

---

What are you saying? It is impossible for the government to commit theft if it legislates that theft?

Pretty much. It may be immoral as all fuck, but, legally speaking, if a government takes something and it sanctions it as legal, it’s not theft.

"All rights are invented there are no natural rights" <<what?!!

This is why I said on my thread "Am I an anarchist?" that atheists are prone to statism and authoritarianism

You believe that human rights are derived from the state

In practice, that’s pretty much it. Note, this does not mean we think human rights should be dispensed with (most of us appreciate them very much), and to assume so is to fall victim to the Naturalistic Fallacy. That said, if an oppressive force is stomping your head into the dust, and the powers that be are okay with it, well, you can say you have rights, but they won’t mean a damn thing. And, as I’ve said numerous times before on this forum: Why, yes, that does suck.

Forcing soldiers to fight for the government is wrong

Which is why the “court-appointed attorney” example others gave is a better example than conscription. After all, it’s been 73 years since we’ve actually fought an enemy with both the will and ability to actually be a threat to us.

[Cherub786]

In practice, that’s pretty much it. Note, this does not mean we think human rights should be dispensed with (most of us appreciate them very much), and to assume so is to fall victim to the Naturalistic Fallacy. That said, if an oppressive force is stomping your head into the dust, and the powers that be are okay with it, well, you can say you have rights, but they won’t mean a damn thing. And, as I’ve said numerous times before on this forum: Why, yes, that does suck.

Which is why the “court-appointed attorney” example others gave is a better example than conscription. After all, it’s been 73 years since we’ve actually fought an enemy with both the will and ability to actually be a threat to us.

Can a court-appointed attorney work for a private firm simultaneously?

Can a doctor under a singer payer system open a private clinic or work for a private insurance company?

Also, do you agree people are justified in launching an armed insurrection against a state that violates their human rights?

[Rev. Rye]

Also, do you agree people are justified in launching an armed insurrection against a state that violates their human rights?

Yes. While I do question whether or not they're likely to repeat the same atrocities their oppressors did to them, or if their methods may be counterproductive or useless, I do certainly think they'd be in the right to rebel. This does not change that those rights they fight for are given by the powers that be. Before you're going to argue otherwise, please do some reading on the naturalistic fallacy and the is-ought problem and how they relate to the assumptions you keep making. If you don't, I can guaran-goddam-tee that this discussion will go nowhere.

[Cherub786]

Also, do you agree people are justified in launching an armed insurrection against a state that violates their human rights?

Yes. While I do question whether or not they're likely to repeat the same atrocities their oppressors did to them, or if their methods may be counterproductive or useless, I do certainly think they'd be in the right to rebel. This does not change that those rights they fight for are given by the powers that be. Before you're going to argue otherwise, please do some reading on the naturalistic fallacy and the is-ought problem and how they relate to the assumptions you keep making. If you don't, I can guaran-goddam-tee that this discussion will go nowhere.

I don't want to go into a philosophical discussion at this point. I say that the state does not have the right to determine and restrict our human rights (which are generally agreed upon by humanity). Basically, I deny that the state is the highest authority. It seems you agree with that notion too.

[Dmitry1983]

Awhile back i got into an argument about healthcare my opponent was a right winger who essentially argued .

That it was stealing his money to pay for other peoples healthcare and deprives them of their choice of provider 

1. It can't be theft if it's legal theft by definition is an illegal act 

It is only fair when you get from government what you give to government. Tax rates should be regressive. Forcing rich to give free stuff to lazy poor is definition of theft.

[Pat Mustard]

1. It can't be theft if it's legal theft by definition is an illegal act 

All right are invented there are no natural rights 

By that logic forcing soldiers to fight for the government is wrong

What are you saying? It is impossible for the government to commit theft if it legislates that theft?

"All rights are invented there are no natural rights" <<what?!!

This is why I said on my thread "Am I an anarchist?" that atheists are prone to statism and authoritarianism

You believe that human rights are derived from the state

Forcing soldiers to fight for the government is wrong

It's not theft, without tax income the state has no valid way to pay for military defence, policing, justice, infrastructure building or maintenance, education or (in civilised countries) social protection, health and safety, public transport or healthcare. Just as you are not allowed to take petrol without paying, why should any of these things come without cost?

That's what the libertardians and republitraitors* don't get, to provide these services you must pay, and the best and most cheapest way to pay is by giving the job to your government and paying taxes.

*Except the boys at the top, they know shrinking the state is the best way to low them to continue to be gougers.

---

Awhile back i got into an argument about healthcare my opponent was a right winger who essentially argued .

1. It can't be theft if it's legal theft by definition is an illegal act 

It is only fair when you get from government what you give to government. Tax rates should be regressive. Forcing rich to give free stuff to lazy poor is definition of theft.

It's a universal truth that laziness rises proportionately with wealth. Poor people have to scrabble and struggle every hour of the day to survive. All rich people have to do to live in luxury is snap their fingers, they employ people (nearly always at shit wages) to do the work.

[Dmitry1983]

It is only fair when you get from government what you give to government. Tax rates should be regressive. Forcing rich to give free stuff to lazy poor is definition of theft.

It's a universal truth that laziness rises proportionately with wealth. Poor people have to scrabble and struggle every hour of the day to survive.  All rich people have to do to live in luxury is snap their fingers, they employ people (nearly always at shit wages) to do the work.

That's a lie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_av..._countries
Workers in socialist european countries barely work while rich people have to work hard for their businesses to be profitable.

[Angrboda]

1. It can't be theft if it's legal theft by definition is an illegal act 

All right are invented there are no natural rights 

By that logic forcing soldiers to fight for the government is wrong

What are you saying? It is impossible for the government to commit theft if it legislates that theft?

"All rights are invented there are no natural rights" <<what?!!

This is why I said on my thread "Am I an anarchist?" that atheists are prone to statism and authoritarianism

You believe that human rights are derived from the state

Forcing soldiers to fight for the government is wrong

If you have a case to make then make it.