"Medicine" in America

[amartin_109]

sirsnipsalot

Force would not be necessary. A pharmaceutical company performing these tests would be required by their insurance companies to release all information or be dropped from their insurance. Baring them from banking, electricity, etc. Its all an intertwined system of contracts and insurance. Effectively killing their business. But you are right about not knowing. That is kind of the point. That no person, or group of people, can ever know how to run the lives of other people. That if you want to sign up for a drug test with a company that has no insurance, that is your own stupid choice. For sure these companies would be pushed out of the market, no person would do anything to possibly cut them from their own insurance, again baring them from electricity and likely everything else. Yeah its harsh. People respond to harsh. We call it incentive. Yeah a free market might not work, you also have to admit that this government thing sure as hell isnt working either. Force always achieves the opposite of the intent. Why would an industry so morally bankrupt, that kills people and burns the results, follow a law that said pretty please don't burn the results?

Please note that I am genuinely trying to hold a rational discussion and not trying to insult anybody in any way. I feel for the people whos lives are literally wasted in these diabolical trials, i truly do. I cant see how passing more laws then already exist is going to help.

 

[Danny Ocean]

The relevant question is this, why don't you pay for your healthcare out of your own pocket. You don't because you cant afford it. In America at least, the cost of healthcare is so high that nobody can afford to pay it. Nobody can afford to spend $2000 to sleep in a hospital bed for one night.

You know why that is?

Because individuals have no bargaining power when their life or livelihood is on the line.

You know what fixes that?

A single player system.

You know what provides that?

Universal. Bloody. Healthcare.

I have literally never seen a good argument against the concept.

The only good arguments regard the application of it to the USA and how one would go about it.

 

[amartin_109]

I have literally never seen a good argument against the concept.

You have never seen a good argument against it because against it is the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is the default "true" position until it has been proven otherwise. The burden of proof is on the proponents. First principals are really a wondrous thing.

First principal: People respond to incentives. (innovation, costs, services)

Still first principal: Lack of competition destroys incentive.

Conclusion drawn from first principals: A system that has no competition (single player monopolies) has no incentive to innovate or keep costs down. Prices rise. Taxes rise to pay for medicine. Poorer people makes for more sick people. Costs rise for medicine. Taxes rise... Its cyclic. Without end.

The first argument is going to be that government does have an incentive to innovate. I ask, where? What possible motive could a government have to cut its own profit margin? What other government program has progressed anywhere near as fast as a free market counterpart?

 

[Danny Ocean]

You have never seen a good argument against it because against it is the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is the default "true" position until it has been proven otherwise. The burden of proof is on the proponents. First principals are really a wondrous thing.

First principal: People respond to incentives. (innovation, costs, services)

Still first principal: Lack of competition destroys incentive.

Conclusion drawn from first principals: A system that has no competition (single player monopolies) has no incentive to innovate or keep costs down.

First principals, huh? Right then, let's get principled.

Here is your argument- vague as it was- where 'response'(r) is innovate or keep costs down or whatever, Incentive(i), Competition(c):

1. i -> r
2. ~c -> ~i
3. ~c
C. ~r

This argument is deductively invalid, because ~i does not necessarily mean ~r.

Moreover, the premises are not even true. It is not the case that people only respond to incentives (as you imply- your argument is vague), nor is it the case that incentives disappear without competition (as you imply- your argument is vague).

I presume you think that the NHS means the government runs everything itself, like some kind of government agency with complete vertical control of its supply chain. This is factually incorrect and a gross over-simplification of how the world works. Get your head out of those ideological clouds of yours.

It's like you've just done an introductory economics course or read a partisan book or something. You claim to be 22, so you can get a bit more academic. Bring in your degree in economics/sociology/political economy or whatever government-related field I presume it to be.

The first argument is going to be that government does have an incentive to innovate.

I ask, where? What possible motive could a government have to cut its own profit margin?

What other government program has progressed anywhere near as fast as a free market counterpart?

1. The government is not-for-profit and its income is not dependent on demand. It does not behave as a regular, for-profit corporation and so requires separate economic modelling.

2. Really? Really? Everything scientific. Without government funding for non-directed research, we wouldn't have shit. Go ask any scientist. Governments are better at healthcare, defence, policing, poverty-reduction, education, and more. Mostly because they are very good at ensuring minimum satisfaction, while markets let people go hungry. Surprise, surprise, governments are actually quite good at government. At least in the West.

The government does not make the drugs, equipment, or doctors. These things are all supplied by private companies to the NHS. Who are you referring to when you say "Innovate" and "Keep costs down"?

The fact of the matter, quite apart from your ideology, is that healthcare costs are cheaper here. Not despite the government being the only buyer of drugs for the NHS, but because the government is the only buyer of drugs for the NHS.

This is because demand for medicine is inelastic. You either have it, or you suffer greatly, or you die.

Medicine and medical care are not normal goods or normal services, so everything you've said so far (which only applies to normal goods/services) is moot.

 

[Godhead]

This doesnt happen in a real free market. So setting up a non-competitive, unionized, unaccountable government program is the way to fix a problem fundamentally caused by the government? Pointing out that the only reason healthcare cost so much is because of legislation that restricts insurance agencies and competition. Because when you take away all motive to innovate and be more efficient you end up with better care.

http://www.surgerycenterok.com/about/

Price fixing does happen in a free market. It's just that it's illegal.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/22843/5-brazen-examples-price-fixing

Also I have no idea what you're talking about with the setting up of a government program to fix a problem caused by the government.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Force would not be necessary. A pharmaceutical company performing these tests would be required by their insurance companies to release all information or be dropped from their insurance.

That if you want to sign up for a drug test with a company that has no insurance, that is your own stupid choice.

Why would an industry so morally bankrupt, that kills people and burns the results, follow a law that said pretty please don't burn the results?

Please note that I am genuinely trying to hold a rational discussion and not trying to insult anybody in any way. I feel for the people whos lives are literally wasted in these diabolical trials, i truly do. I cant see how passing more laws then already exist is going to help.

If a company wouldnt follow the law, one that has a discrete punishment, it would do so by hiding such a law had been broken to avoid the punishment. Your solution is for insurance companies to enforce rules on what the company must do. If it cannot be enforced as a law why would a rule work? Whats the difference? If a company would evade a law enforced by government why would it not evade the exact same set of rules enforced by an insurance company instead.

People who sign up for these tests are, depending on the drug, dying and desperate. Or suffering. Or convinced its this or nothing. They take the risk because anything that might help is better than nothing. Its a relationship that is extremely hard to keep from becoming exploitation.

See i think we should do the following (Most of it isnt even legislation also its pretty dense SORRY!):

Spoiler

1. By law the results of all trials conducted on humans MUST be made publicly available at most 1 year after completion of the trial. Withholding data, depending on the trial should come with either a fine or a jail sentence depending on how serious the implications of the data are. Killing by saving information is still killing. Obviously its not murder or manslaughter but its gross misconduct to withhold information that could save people after conducting a test which had the stated purpose of creating information to save people. If its headache medication side effects maybe not jail time. This should be enforced internationally and needs to be signed and approved by all countries with significant contribution to medical science.

2. Institutions of doctors and governments that compile drug reports (which contain every trial performed for a certain drug) should add a list of trials that were performed and finished but still have no published results. Who performed them, how many patients were in them and who specifically is witholding the data should be included. Its important doctors know who the worst offenders are so they can avoid them and starve their business. This is trivial extra work, companies already declare when a trial is conducted because patient records state that they were part of a trial. Its just a matter of trying to see if results were published. If not? On the black list you go!

3. The government should pay for a server that holds a scanned (unedited) paper copy of the trials results which are gathered from the enforcement of law 1. This database should be available over the internet to EVERYONE, professional or not, who wishes to see it. Its AMAZING how large the paper archives of a drug company are. A lot of it has never been, nor can be, read by doctors. This is cheap as hell to run. Just need someone with some patience and a scanner as well as server costs.

4. Since 26 hours of reading is too much for a single doctor the government could pay for a (volunteer) hospital representative from various counties to spend time disseminating useful information from these recent trials. Split amongst a team many dense trials can be cut down to relevant information so doctors can know about new drugs without personally having to read for a whole 26 hours a day.

5. As well as bulk data, individual patient data (Not names and such, just effects on numbered patients and their medical condition when the effect took place which IS gathered but is rarely shown) should be made available to just doctors. Sometimes doctors can spot that everything with a previous heart problem performed worse on this drug. Keeping the individual data available (But hiding all personal identifying information) means doctors can still use trial data to see if a drug can harm a certain group or compare the patient they are trying to treat to other similar patients on the trial. A lot of trials use "perfect patients", young men or women in their prime with no previous major health problems. These people usually volunteer a lot for extra cash. However if im treating an elderly individual, even if 96% of the people in the trial did well, i want to know if the other 4% were ALL elderly. This way i can make sure i dont accidentally hurt my patient by assuming she only has a 4% chance to have a negative effect. It could be MUCH higher if she is part of a select group that ALL did badly.

In the long run this will save a government more money by letting doctors form an informed and unified buying force as well as encouraging businesses to actually compete rather than half ass everything in the knowledge that no one is keeping track of their half assing. Someone needs to. And since this information should be available to every citizen and doctor across the nation that government is in the best position to provide this service. Even if we DONT enforce law 1 fully, the use of a blacklist listing who keeps skipping trials will help doctors know who to avoid. A free market only works if the customer knows what the hell is going on around them.

This wasnt my idea to be fair, this was Dr Ben Goldacres idea. Since he has spent a vast majority of his life dealing with drug companies as a doctor i think it has some decent weight behind it. There is definitely room for private medical research. Just the way it is now its mostly freaking terrible and no legislation is preventing insurance companies from forcing it to become better. At the moment they just arnt. It remains mostly terrible.

 

[amartin_109]

Oh you.

Yes incentive always equals competition... im not even sure how to argue for the existence of gravity. If you can point to real world example, absent the use of force, please do so.

1. Why?

2. So here we have you that says government is better at healthcare. By what metric? Lives saved? Costs? Well its interesting that your government does not allow the collection or publication of those results. So where does this argument come from? You have exactly 0 evidence. How can you compare a system (NHS) to another system (Free Market) that does not even exist?

When the government is writing all your checks, you know its always going to be there.

Citation needed.

Yes exactly. You think that is wrong. Maybe if there was a group of people that got together and asked the population for some money to pay for a life saving surgery... what can we call that... maybe a... a word that starts with c maybe? charity? Oh yeah its a charity.

Again why? Please make an argument.

longsnipislong

I would change law -> contract
change government -> impartial third party / insurance

Anybody that broke this contract would be dropped from their insurance. To buy gas you need insurance, to rent a hotel you need insurance, to buy food you need insurance. I would suppose it to run on some kind of credit card like system, You wouldnt be able to run, as there is nowhere to run to. I guess sure he could run to the woods and live off the land. I live in Northern Maine, pretty much Canada, you arent gonna survive long out in those woods lool. But i do not know the future, i cannot say that one system is better than the other.

Spoiler

"In the same way, whenever an anarchist talks about a stateless society, he is immediately
expected to produce evidence that every single poor person in the future will be well taken
care of by voluntary charity.
Again, this involves a rank contradiction, which involves democracy.
The welfare state, old-age pensions, and "free" education for the poor are all considered in
a democracy to be valid reflections of the virtuous will of the people ? these government
programs were offered up by politicians, and voluntarily accepted by the majority who
voted for them, and also voluntarily accepted by the minority who have agreed to obey the
will of the majority!
In other words, the majority of society is perfectly willing to give up an enormous chunk of
its income in order to help the sick, the old and the poor ? and we know this because those
programs were voted for and created by democratic governments!
Ah, says the anarchist, then we already know that the majority of people will be perfectly
willing to help the sick, the old and the poor in a stateless society ? democracy provides
empirical and incontrovertible evidence of this simple fact!
Again, when this basic argument is put forward, the myth of the noble citizenry evaporates
once more!
?Oh no, without the government forcing people to be charitable, no one would lift a finger
to help the poor, people are so selfish, they don?t care etc. etc. etc.?
This paradox cannot be unraveled this side of insanity. If a democratic government must
force a selfish and unwilling populace to help the poor, then government programs do not
reflect the will of the people, and democracy is a lie, and we must get rid of it ? or at least
stop pretending to vote.
If democracy is not a lie, then existing government programs accurately represent the will
of the majority, and thus the poor, the sick and the old will have nothing to fear from a
stateless society ? and will, for many reasons, be far better taken care of by private charity
than government programs."

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

If democracy is not a lie, then existing government programs accurately represent the will
of the majority, and thus the poor, the sick and the old will have nothing to fear from a
stateless society ? and will, for many reasons, be far better taken care of by private charity
than government programs."

Name these many reasons.

As it is the government simply IS an impartial third party. It allows my money, and the entire nations money, to go toward a unified health system available to all with over arching regulation and the ability to use money to compensate for lack of funds elsewhere. For example if Berkshire where i live produces more than enough NHS tax to pay for OUR healthcare we can help pay for Yorkshires if they have more medical costs than medical tax. It seems you want to destroy the status quo and replace it with a load of non unified institutions that achieve the exact same thing minus the unity and organisation of a national system just for the sake of ideology. Or we can replace it with one giant charity that does the exact same thing and lower taxes accordingly. But why would this change anything. We get a new name, the same funds go to an organisation facing the same sick people with the same tools and the same funds in the same nation and culture. But its better now because its technically not government? Is it better because we cant decide who is in charge?

I dont understand this mentality that "Government system = bad" by default. As if taking every single person, pencil, paper and system in the UK right now OUT of the government building, moving it next door, and putting it all back together again will suddenly improve it. Its not in a government building anymore sure and it has a fancy name. But why is it better now? I dont get why you want such a change that achieves nothing different whatsoever except on paper. It doesnt serve any purpose.

When the entire nation wants to donate to a charity together, rather than have every single charity start managing and independently trying to cope with an entire nations healthcare divided into arbitrary areas that may be easy/hard to care for the nation can vote for a single large charity that we all agree to pay for in taxes. Its only "Government" because we vote for who is in charge. And anyway WE voted for this national charity to exist. To destroy it is to undermine the democracy that decided rather than deal with a thousand tiny charities we might as well have one big one and let the people we vote in be in charge of it. Why this arbitrarily makes it shit is beyond me.

Its also because people are freaking lazy. Do you have ANY idea how many people WANT to donate organs according to polls? Do you know how many can be bothered to tick the box to do so? The difference is staggering (And frankly it sickens me a little) The NHS is a representation of our wishes. But without it i dont think people would be bothered enough to go and spend the time donating to fullfil that wish. The average citizen simply doesnt want to be shouldered with even the tiniest amount of bureaucracy that goes into the management of a national system. However they are more than happy to pay for and enjoy said bureaucracy. This is demonstrated by the fact the average citizen is morally ok with both taking and donating organs. But most of them dont want to even sign up for a card and fill out the paper work to make it so.

Also i showed the government is better at healthcare. 50% of government research is positive and 50% shows a new drug is terrible. While 85% of private research is only positive results that show how awesome a drug is. You might say that private research possibly is better at developing good drugs and this is why their results are more positive. Which is undermined by the fact the government is mostly testing the same drugs companies produce to see if they are worth stocking up on (Like tamiflu and the like) or purchasing for national healthcare. Its simply a fact that the government tests on drugs are more accurate, less bias and not destroyed when its something they dont like.

 

[gavinmcinns]

The relevant question is this, why don't you pay for your healthcare out of your own pocket. You don't because you cant afford it. In America at least, the cost of healthcare is so high that nobody can afford to pay it. Nobody can afford to spend $2000 to sleep in a hospital bed for one night.

This is why universal healthcare wont work, at least for America. How is the government supposed to use our money to pay for something we cant afford? If their isn't enough money in our pockets to pay the bill then how can the government, which gets all of its money from our pockets, afford to pay the bill?

Tax the rich. They are spending it on 75$ ice cubes and gaudy ass jewelry. Tax rappers double. Tax kanye triple.

The fact is, the government wastes our taxes on a bunch of bullshit. In the military, outpost commanders are given a budget, and if they do not spend it all, they end up losing the difference for next year. So you get officers spending 250k on fireworks and ass gel. Get some fiscal oversight in there.

In michigan, police spent $300k on slushie machines for this same reason. Same with education. Spend it or lose it. Its the american mentality that is the problem here. Saving that money for an emergency doesn't even cross their little minds. An epic Consumer economy like this one will inevitably end catastrophically.

The war on drugs is another great example of fiscal irresponsibility, or as I like to call it, retardedness. The media has tricked a lot of people into retardedness and it's sad.

 

[amartin_109]

Name these many reasons.

There is no way for me to prove definitively that it would be better. There are no examples because it has never been tried before.

We do decide who is in charge. It would be the most cost effective company that could provide the best services to the most people. Thats economics.

Yes its all for the sake of ideology really i cant argue that. I define government as; "A person or group of people that reserve the right to initiate force in a specified geographical area." I believe that the initiation of force in any context is by default bad. If you and everybody around you wants to create an organization to take care of the heavy stuff, then that is your own choice. If that is your choice, I have no right to take away your choice. In the same vein, you have no right to take away my choice to not be a part of that system. The difference between this current system and my hypothetical one is choice. WE didnt build anything. I sure as hell didnt vote for anything. Why do you get to tell me how the money that i earned contractually is spent? Why do you get to appoint people in costumes to come steal my money? We dont all agree to pay taxes.

If i want to be a selfish ass and keep 100% of the money i have, that is not morally wrong. I have been a dick, I have not hurt anybody or stolen anything. Then government comes and demands that i pay taxes. If i do not and i withhold long enough, there will come some form of tax collectors. If i try to defend my legitimately owned property, they will shoot me, or drag me off to some cage somewhere... lolwut? How is this reasonable?

Again, there is no private drug research organization that is entirely absent government. There is no way for me to give examples for or against.

 

[renegade7]

If you're planning to be in an emergency or suffer a serious injury, you should see if you could pre-order an ambulance and get it cheaper.

If you're lucky you may even get some sort of pre-order bonus (like a free Limited Edition Bandage and Painkillers pack), or some Day 1 LHC (Lifesaving Health Care), such as pre-order and place a deposit on your ambulance and receive 3 free jolts with the Premium Defibrillator, instead of the standard CPR.

A Season Pass for ambulances does seem a bit much, but they have to make money somehow, what with all those patients who take a taxi or drive to hospital, or even worse, look-up first aid on the Internet and treat their injury at home, all of which robs the hospital of sales and means they don't have the money pay their staff and save lives.

You win this thread. Medical piracy is destroying the industry and costing people their jobs!

 

[ZorroFonzarelli]

Dang. I just can't let this one go. It's just too darned aggressive to not get a bit of a response. Before I start poking at individual quotes, I first want to say that I'm not going to offer citations on anything. There are two reasons for this. First, it is the nature of such disputes that anything I post in support of my positions would be summarily ignored on the grounds that it's biased toward my perspective. I've been through that song and dance too many times, so I'm going to present logic as I perceive it.....................................

Very well said.

 

[ZorroFonzarelli]

I thought this video might relevant. According to him, there's no single issue wrong with America's healthcare system- there's LOTS of issues that ALL need fixing.

This guy has some very good points, but drops the ball on banking on government-imposed system.

The only government-imposed rule I'd like to see in health care is a requirement for all medical practitioners to post their prices, so consumers can make the same informed choices they can make in every other market.

This enables competition, which keeps costs down.

As far as governmental systems go, scrap all of them and replace them with a Negative Income Tax as Milton Friedman suggested.

Just go to YouTube and type in 'Milton Friedman' and you'll see how complex systems orbit around economic fundamentals, not government programs.

 

[Danny Ocean]

Yes incentive always equals competition... im not even sure how to argue for the existence of gravity. If you can point to real world example, absent the use of force, please do so.

You never said "incentive always equals competition", you said this:

1. i -> r
2. ~c -> ~i
3. ~c
C. ~r

I.E

1. If incentive, then response
2. If no competition, then no incentive.
3. No competition.
C: No response.

This example fails in principal there are other motivators to action besides competition , such as:

1. Duty.
2. Personal Ethics.
3. Religion.
4. Emotion.
6. Family pressure.

And why does it have to exclude the use of violence? Violence-- physical, symbolic, and structural- is part of the fabric of this world. To ignore its effects on human behaviour would be grossly oversimplifying reality.

And it also fails because it is logically invalid.

1. Why?

Because that's how science works, and economics is a science.

They differ in such a degree on such a fundamental level that they can no longer be regarded as the same thing. Or, to put it in language that might be more appropriate to your taste: treating government as if it is corporation is like treating gravity as if it is the electromagnetic force.

2. So here we have you that says government is better at healthcare. By what metric? Lives saved? Costs? Well its interesting that your government does not allow the collection or publication of those results. So where does this argument come from? You have exactly 0 evidence. How can you compare a system (NHS) to another system (Free Market) that does not even exist?

I thought we were comparing the single-payer model to the American model, as per the title of the thread?

Err... the Government does allow the collection and publication of these data. I don't know where you get the conspiracy from that anything involving the NHS is somehow magically excluded from the Death Record or the Government budget-- both of which are publicly available:

http://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/
http://www.nhsconfed.org/priorities/political-engagement/Pages/NHS-statistics.aspx
http://www.hscic.gov.uk/searchcatalogue
http://www.oecd.org/statistics/

When the government is writing all your checks, you know its always going to be there.

No, because the contracts are put up for auction. The business who can fulfil the contract the cheapest whilst still meeting quality standards will be rewarded the contract.

Citation needed.

For what? Stating that healthcare costs are lower here than in the USA?

This stuff is common knowledge. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita]

Yes exactly. You think that is wrong. Maybe if there was a group of people that got together and asked the population for some money to pay for a life saving surgery... what can we call that... maybe a... a word that starts with c maybe? charity? Oh yeah its a charity.

Again why? Please make an argument.

For state provision and against charity?

Because charity is unreliable, and a plurality of charities lacks bargaining power.

And, as private organisations, charities are not subject to oversight.

Your argument is purely ideological. You might think that this makes it immune from criticism, but that is not so, because we can and are engaging in thought experiments and analogising it to aspects of reality that we can observe.

And it just doesn't hold much water.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

If i want to be a selfish ass and keep 100% of the money i have, that is not morally wrong. I have been a dick, I have not hurt anybody or stolen anything. Then government comes and demands that i pay taxes. If i do not and i withhold long enough, there will come some form of tax collectors. If i try to defend my legitimately owned property, they will shoot me, or drag me off to some cage somewhere... lolwut? How is this reasonable?

Your quote shouldnt say "many reasons" if you cant state many reasons. Its like me saying "Healthcare would provide better care if we handed control of our planet over to the baby eating space aliens from Omicron Persei 8 and there are many reasons for this but i cant name any because i havnt done it yet". Thats not how reasoning works. For people to want and like my idea you need to, at least using hypothetical arguments, convince me its better than what we have now. Otherwise its a blind stab in the dark.

Actually you DO have a choice. You are perfectly entitled to become Amish. Or form a commune that uses a currency not minted by the US government by producing 100% of your own goods or even use the barter system to trade with the outside world if you can. Or become a hermit! All valid choices that would never see you pay taxes ever again.

The reason this is reasonable is because frankly you were born. When you were born you were born in a hospital. You were delivered by a doctor who was educated by tax funded education. He travelled to work on a road built by tax money. The barrista at starbucks yesterday? She wasnt an illiterate idiot because the state paid for her to do english to at LEAST a 10nth grade level.

You're born into a society that has been paid for by the people before you to be a place thats nice for you to live in. The common people are educated and do jobs that help you because of this. Roads, electricity and public transport help others and when they help or serve you this is only possible because the aforementioned things exist. You cant control where you are born. But up until the moment you realised what taxes are and thought about paying them you have been racking up a debt. This might be unfair since you MIGHT have been born in somalia where you dont get taxed at all and been far happier for it but the generation before you shouldered this unfairness to create a society for YOU that you enjoy and appreciate. You owe them. But they dont want your money. They want you to pass it on. Help this very same society continue by doing what they did for you for others. You live better in an educated society.

School has been lying to you for the longest time. School isnt for YOU. Its for taxpayers. I want you to invent me cool shit i appreciate that makes my life better. Unless you spend your entire life until youre like 14 avoiding ALL benefit from a government funded system youre in debt son and you do that even by enjoying the newest Iphone since the inventor was publicly schooled. You dont owe the government. You owe EVERYONE in society who made those things that improved your upbringing possible. The government is just a middle man for the transition of money. If you exploit a system someone has paid for to improve your life youre expected to do the same for others. Personally i think thats extremely valid.

 

[cdstephens]

The relevant question is this, why don't you pay for your healthcare out of your own pocket. You don't because you cant afford it. In America at least, the cost of healthcare is so high that nobody can afford to pay it. Nobody can afford to spend $2000 to sleep in a hospital bed for one night.

Because individuals have no bargaining power when their life or livelihood is on the line.

As far as I know the bill you get from your doctor is very negotiable. They are more likely to let you pay only a fraction of the cost with a reasonable payment plan then attempt to bankrupt you with no gain whatsoever.

 

[amartin_109]

more snips

The quote wasnt mine, it was from a book. I just didnt edit it. There is no statistic i can give you that you could not come back with a counter example. There is no situation i can give you that you would accept. I can scream to high heaven that every instance of a real free market has resulted in efficiency, it would be pointless for me to do so.

Do you perchance know what a catechism is? Your argument breaks down to: If you do not wish to participate in a system that you disagree with, then go live in the woods. Even if that wasnt abhorrent, every commercial transmission of value is taxable. Meaning that if i say, made furniture and traded for cloth, gas, whatever, that exchange is taxable.

What you describe is the "Social Contract." In what other area of your life are you born into a contract? How can it be reasonable that until you are 18 in the states, you are unable to choose whether or not you consume government programs, in fact not even exposed to alternatives, taught that the system we have now is the very height of virtue, but are still bound by this contract? There are no competing roads to drive on, there are no completely government free schools or hospitals. You never had a choice.

I think you are misinformed about where tax money, at least in the states, goes. How all of our taxes are paying for the interest on debt. That no matter how much money gets passed along, there is simply not enough for everything. How the pensions and welfare of the last generation were payed for with debt at my expense, before i was even conceived! How i was born with national debt attached to me the second i spurted out. (i loled at that image) That every dollar i earn is worth less and less with each passing year.

Thats not even the thing i hate the most. The use of debt to pay for all these wars. War on terror, war on drugs, war for the petrodollar, war on poverty. That even at the extremely conservative number of 110,000 dead in iraq, thats still 27 times over the deaths that can reasonably attributed to terrorism, clearly not self-defense anymore.

I really dont care if my system works, or if it fails horribly. I am against the initiation of force. How is it that you can perfectly accept that theft, murder, and imprisonment are really bad things in your own personal life, but as soon as 51% of people get together and say "its ok because we wrote a law" it becomes acceptable? Why is this fundamental contradiction so well hidden? Maybe it is because i believe that if a principal is not universal, it is invalid.

What this really comes down to is; Are you willing to initiate the use of force against me for following my principals? If yes then i feel we cannot have a reasonable debate, as you have literally threatened my person. We are fundamentally morally incompatible.

snips

I concede to everything you say.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

There is no statistic i can give you that you could not come back with a counter example. There is no situation i can give you that you would accept.

I dont want stats, although if you even tried id appreciate it, i want you to show me that hypothetically your idea would work. Saying something has MANY reasons then refusing to even bother showing me a single one because i "Wont believe you" sounds a lot like the guys who think the president is an alien. Just saying.

Do you perchance know what a catechism is? Your argument breaks down to: If you do not wish to participate in a system that you disagree with, then go live in the woods. Even if that wasnt abhorrent, every commercial transmission of value is taxable. Meaning that if i say, made furniture and traded for cloth, gas, whatever, that exchange is taxable.

You can secede as well? Every form of government is a catachism. If you live in the UK and wish you could live in a communistic society thats too bad. Same with anarchy, i would NEVER want to live in an anarchy. So my option would be to secede and form a state or live in the woods to avoid it.

What you describe is the "Social Contract." In what other area of your life are you born into a contract? How can it be reasonable that until you are 18 in the states, you are unable to choose whether or not you consume government programs, in fact not even exposed to alternatives, taught that the system we have now is the very height of virtue, but are still bound by this contract? There are no competing roads to drive on, there are no completely government free schools or hospitals. You never had a choice.

I dont see why its relevant that in no other area are you born into a contract. All that says is this is a unique situation. And it is. Before youre 18 you really dont have a choice in most things. Youre not even a consumer before youre 18, in a free market youre forced to buy from and consume goods that your parents choose anyway. You were never taught about other systems of government? Are you serious? And the "Democracy!" worship is purely an american thing i think. In the UK i was taught about lots of different economic ideas.

The thrust of my argument is this. Its immoral to be born and exploit a society others paid to build for you but refuse to contribute yourself. Its true you didnt choose to exploit it. But you did. And why should you be the special generation that gets to take it all and give nothing back? Thats pretty unfair to the generation before you. Funding your schools and getting nothing in return for their efforts. Its not fair to those who paid taxes that YOU benefited from. If they knew you would reject the system they would be idiots to pay the taxes to begin with. Who wants to be the last tax paying generation? Giving to a system that is immediately destroyed by those who it helped. Sounds kinda shitty. They paid their taxes on the basis that the children it helped raise in a positive social environment would pay their taxes in turn. If youre not going through with that you should at least give their money back to them personally or else youve basically stolen it.

I think you are misinformed about where tax money, at least in the states, goes.

Cant comment really. I cant pretend to be informed about american society to a significant degree, im discussing a hypothetical england.

I really dont care if my system works, or if it fails horribly. I am against the initiation of force. How is it that you can perfectly accept that theft, murder, and imprisonment are really bad things in your own personal life, but as soon as 51% of people get together and say "its ok because we wrote a law" it becomes acceptable? Why is this fundamental contradiction so well hidden? Maybe it is because i believe that if a principal is not universal, it is invalid.

What this really comes down to is; Are you willing to initiate the use of force against me for following my principals? If yes then i feel we cannot have a reasonable debate, as you have literally threatened my person. We are fundamentally morally incompatible.

I care if the people in society live or die. I care about having the least amount of possible suffering. So i care VERY much if your system fails horribly. Building a "Moral" society on a river of baby corpses really isnt my cup of tea.

It depends what your principle is. If your principle harms others i think im perfectly within my rights to want to imprison you or use force to prevent you following it. Since i believe not paying taxes is the same as stealing from the generation before you who entered into the social contract (and thus taxes) on the basis you would take part after leeching their money I think its ok to use some measure of force to make sure they get their money back. So maybe taxation is stealing. But so is not paying taxes to make up for the generation above you that paid theirs. Either way someone gets a raw deal and i think if you dont pay taxes the one above you gets the worst deal, having wasted their money entirely educating you for you to turn around and say "Thanks but fuck you". Seems like the lesser evil.
[/quote]

 

[Niflhel]

Theft is defined as taking someone's property without their consent. I do not consent to taxation. I have never consented to it in my life. I don't want the government to take taxes from my paychecks, but they do it anyway, and I'm not given a choice in the matter. How is this not theft?

I'm pretty sure it would be considered theft if a bank teller refused to give me a portion of my money when I cash a check. Does it become something different if enough people (let's say 51% of the nation's population) want to take that money? Does it become legitimate if someone with a specific job title does the deed?

Use all the colorful and happy phrases you like, but property taken without consent is stolen, regardless of who's doing the stealing.

That's a horrible argument.

Taxation is written into the laws of a country. The company refrains from doing anything illegal. Therefor, any employees in this company will have to pay taxes. You then apply for a job in this company, knowing you will have to pay taxes. The company offers you a job, and you accept it - Voila, in this instance, you give consent to taxation. Taxation is so to speak a part of the job package, and since you've accepted the job, you've accepted all which it entails including taxation.
If you do not want to pay taxes, you're free to not work, or you can break the law and get an illegal job where you don't have to pay taxes (and thereby not giving your consent to pay taxes, since it's not a part of the job package).

BUT! This is actually pointless, because you've already given your consent before that. The state says 'so and so is the law, and if you want to live here, you'll have to be lawful, or else we'll punish you' - You, by living in the country, then give your consent to be 'lawful or get punished for breaking the law'.
If you find this deal unacceptable, you can move out of the country.

Therefor, taxation is not theft since you've already given your consent.

Let's take your bank teller example. The bank have decided that whenever someone cashes a check, they'll have to pay a fee of 1%. You go into the bank and hands over a check of 100$, while knowing that the fee exists. You're handed back 99$. "What is this, where is the last dollar?" you say. The bank teller informs you that there's a fee of 1% whenever you cash in a check, and points to a sign where you can read that very thing. "I didn't consent to that!" you tell the bank teller, but she replies "You did, by making use of our service". Clearly, she's in the right.

Besides, the whole notion that you have to consent to every single law is ridiculous. Using your logic, imprisoning a murderer would be illegal imprisonment if he hadn't given consent to the law that state murder is illegal. You can't run a country that way - citizens don't get to pick and choose which laws applies to them, as that would undermine the entire legal system.

 

[amartin_109]

The thrust of my argument is this. Its immoral to be born and exploit a society others paid to build for you but refuse to contribute yourself. Its true you didnt choose to exploit it. But you did. And why should you be the special generation that gets to take it all and give nothing back? Thats pretty unfair to the generation before you. Funding your schools and getting nothing in return for their efforts. Its not fair to those who paid taxes that YOU benefited from. If they knew you would reject the system they would be idiots to pay the taxes to begin with. Who wants to be the last tax paying generation? Giving to a system that is immediately destroyed by those who it helped. Sounds kinda shitty. They paid their taxes on the basis that the children it helped raise in a positive social environment would pay their taxes in turn. If youre not going through with that you should at least give their money back to them personally or else youve basically stolen it.

Because the violence of the past is unchangeable. Im sorry the past generation was stolen from. Thats awful. Its not my fault. I cannot be held responsible for stupid people voting for stupid laws. My parents were 'ok' with getting stolen from to pay things for other people, im not.

This isnt a special situation. There is nothing that differentiates it from any other interaction between people other than right now it is forced.

No you wernt taught anything in school. Well maybe YOU were. You are the minority. I am absolutely certain that nobody teaches an-cap tho. Or Austrian Economics. Or fractional reserve banking. Or morality. Or ethics. Hell how about, "How to be productive and competitive in the market." That isnt taught. The difference between a consumer good, and a capital good. How to accounting. First principals.

You know that under UN law it is illegal to be stateless? That it is illegal to not be a citizen of some UN recognized country?

I come up to you and give you 100 whatever local currency and dont say a word. You are confused, but soon spend this money on whatever. whether you personally would actually spend it is entirely irrelevant. 25 years later i come to you and say "remember that 100 monies i gave you? yeah that was a loan and now you owe me 2500 because interest."

Im not going to see the society i want... probably not even my kids or grandchildren. I dont want a free society for myself, thats impossible, I want it for humanity. When government is looked at for what it is.

Let's take your bank teller example. The bank have decided that whenever someone cashes a check, they'll have to pay a fee of 1%. You go into the bank and hands over a check of 100$, while knowing that the fee exists. You're handed back 99$. "What is this, where is the last dollar?" you say. The bank teller informs you that there's a fee of 1% whenever you cash in a check, and points to a sign where you can read that very thing. "I didn't consent to that!" you tell the bank teller, but she replies "You did, by making use of our service". Clearly, she's in the right.

Take that sign off the wall. There is nobody that comes to you before you are born and tells you what you are about to be born into. What you described is fraud by any definition.