Healthcare Isn't A Free Market: It's A Giant Economic Scam

[Joeof1]

Regardless of whether or not you want those burdens they WILL be placed on you. When people cant procure employment, sustenance income, housing, and food from the state whether or not their position in life is a result of their conscious poor decisions or not, they will simply turn to crime, and mug people like you for everything you're worth. Sure we could spend more money on cracking down on crime, but where does that lead? Oh yeah, that's right, those who turned to crime will be given free housing, food, and even some form of income for commissary. Society is NOT a voluntary construct when there are such things as property laws. You cannot just move somewhere, and live off the land when you don't own the land; and in order to own the land you need money, which requires you to participate in society.

No it actually will not. I will leave the country as I already am. Your thuggery will be evident when everyone wonders were the wealth creators disappeared to. They won't understand that they gobbled them up and chased them away.

Society is a voluntary construct, what you are calling "society" is in fact not society, it's the State. The State is not society.

Oh, so in other words you're a tax cheat. How fitting.

It's cheating by not allowing you to steal what I earned. You see it's not your's to begin with. I earned it, I created it. Not you. You had no role in it's creation.

You should probably stop it with the 'you' schtick. I actually am well off for someone that makes minimum wage, and am a very hard worker and student. I am speaking about others, whom are in a position in life where they are genuinely financially trapped. Believe it or not, this actually happens. I have worked with plenty of others in a city with a 5+ year long 20% unemployment rate, where the majority of jobs available only paid minimum wage, and any jobs which paid above it, required previous work experience in their field, and also (here's what gets people genuinely trapped) requires you to be currently employed elsewhere in their industry.

Quit speaking for others, I am pretty sure they can speak for themselves. In fact many of them are on this forum doing so right now, well the ones that were not pushed away and scared away by the thuggish tactics used by some of you in here. BL is a fraction of the size it used to be. There is a reason for it. It used to be far more active.

So, how did people with little to no income acquire the ability to get credit extensions in the first place? It was of course due to government-subsidized investment banking, which was only a part of the problem. The other part of course, being extending credit to individuals with bad credit or no credit to begin with, where they are given a few months of low interest rates, then after said time has elapsed, the interest spikes well beyond what they can afford. So, you can blame others for not being good at math, or being financially irresponsible, but they were also being enabled, not just by the government, but by the investment banking industry.

You don't really know what credit is do you?

 

[Joeof1]

So what's the biggest medical bill you can pay out of pocket?

Say, for example, you were driving home one night. Another driver, drunk and uninsured, crosses the road, striking you head-on. The driver is killed in the crash. You must be airlifted to a hospital, where you spend quite a bit of time in the ICU, then months recovering.

Could you pay for all that medical treatment? You could very easily be looking at a 7 figure bill.

Why do my personal finances matter here? Are we speaking about personal issues or the topic at hand? Additionally, Regional Monoplization is the primary driver for the high costs in the medical industry.

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

Why do my personal finances matter here? Are we speaking about personal issues or the topic at hand?

Since you are arguing that people shouldn't put their burdens on other people, I'm wondering if you practice what you preach, or if, in the case of a serious accident or illness, you'd be unable to pay your hospital bills.

 

[Joeof1]

Since you are arguing that people shouldn't put their burdens on other people, I'm wondering if you practice what you preach, or if, in the case of a serious accident or illness, you'd be unable to pay your hospital bills.

Well if we are to take the argument that we should practice what we preach then the your argument/point is invalid from the start unless you are accepting the initial premise that taxation is based on the initiation of coercion and violence. If you are not accepting that premise from the start then the critique of my position is meaningless as you can not hold someone accountable for standards that you yourself do not hold. That would be what I would think we all refer to as a "double-standard".

If I were to answer in that no in fact I can not support that sort of load financially you would call me a hypocrite for understanding and seeing that how the system is now is detrimental to what it's stated purpose is. It does not accomplish the goals it set's out to do and in fact makes the situation tragically worse. However, I would also point out that I am not capable of doing so because the system itself is designed to prevent me from doing just that. You would likely disagree with what I am advocating citing it as being cold-hearted or something else, though the solutions offered by the Media and everyone else have not worked in 20+ years and have made the situation far worse than it was before they attempted to improve it.

So you see we would be at an impasse, because you hold an opinion that the situation based upon immediately uncontrollable circumstances that are beyond my actual control is actually indeed my fault, because of my personal views and you would indicate that I should adopt someone else's view, because my current situation that was designed by the system to be that way. You would say I am a hypocrite for wanting to actually find an honest logical solution to the problem that doesn't resort to confiscation of resources or wealth.

It's also a loaded question, in any instance you perceive it, here is the reverse that shows why:

If I were to answer to affirmative of that question that indeed I am capable of covering that sort of fee, you would lambast me for being privileged and advantaged for having those sort of resources available to me. You would then either tell me that my opinion does not matter because I am not in the position that is at risk of being at the hand's of the system that was designed to steal wealth, or that I should feel shame for not having compassion for the "less fortunate" among "us".


Damned if I am, and damned if I am not. So do my personal finances actually matter, or is this like I said a personal topic that has nothing to do with the topic at hand?

 

[Apostacious]

No it actually will not. I will leave the country as I already am. Your thuggery will be evident when everyone wonders were the wealth creators disappeared to. They won't understand that they gobbled them up and chased them away.

Ah, so you admit that you could not live within a state that does not have a welfare system in place. Wonderful. Where will these "wealth creators" run off to next?

Society is a voluntary construct, what you are calling "society" is in fact not society, it's the State. The State is not society.

Okay, as it is, they are one and the same. You cannot have a society without a state, since you cannot have property laws enforced without it. This is pretty basic stuff.

It's cheating by not allowing you to steal what I earned. You see it's not your's to begin with. I earned it, I created it. Not you. You had no role in it's creation.

This was funny, and very typical, thank you.

Quit speaking for others, I am pretty sure they can speak for themselves.

Like you've been doing?

You don't really know what credit is do you?

See, that's funny, because you're demonstrating very little understanding of what you're talking about. What did you get your Masters Degree in again?

 

[New]

I always thought American health care bills were so large because they assume the ownership of insurance. As in, the hospitals charge insane prices because they assume that the patient will only be paying a copay and they can charge their insurance company whatever they damn well feel like.

And I always thought the role of government was to protect its citizens, wherever that threat may be - foreign or domestic. I would think preventing hospitals and insurance companies from conspiring to bankrupt citizens would be the role of government...what purpose does government serve if not to protect its constituents from corporate predators?

 

[Joeof1]

Ah, so you admit that you could not live within a state that does not have a welfare system in place. Wonderful. Where will these "wealth creators" run off to next?

I see that coming up with your own conclusion based on little questioning and evidence leads you to assume a lot of things that you possibly could not know, and that is further from reality than you seem to understand. I have no vested interest whether you lose your leech based system. You have no clue where I am even moving to, nor why.

Okay, as it is, they are one and the same. You cannot have a society without a state, since you cannot have property laws enforced without it. This is pretty basic stuff.

If it were basic you would understand the argument for both came from Socrates, and he was essentially stating that Societies are groups of individuals that gather in their own self-interest where as the State (nation-state for him) was a parasitic system that formed to abuse those said societies at the behest of the privileged class.

(I OBVIOUSLY PARAPHRASED IT SO YOU WOULD NOT MISINTERPRET WHAT HE SAID)

So yes, a simple argument indeed... So simple that you likely were not aware of it.

This was funny, and very typical, thank you.

How depraved a person is can be seen by the character of what they are grateful for.

Like you've been doing?

Maybe I should point out that I have been using the specific letter representation of myself that we identify as I quite regularly in this thread. In fact the post above you noticeably side stepped the comment where it was most prominent. You conveniently ignored it for some reason. I would venture because it has something to do with you trying to avoid confronting the actual argument, and assuming that you try to make this about me personally that I will drop the issue and quit poking holes in your position, so you can continue to lament stealing the wealth of other people without someone pointing out the consequences that will follow.

See, that's funny, because you're demonstrating very little understanding of what you're talking about. What did you get your Masters Degree in again?

Why not address the argument, instead of attacking me here? You want to critique my understanding of something but you can't seem to formulate an actual argument against mine, so you are obviously redirecting your efforts at me personally.

Could it be the response above this one in this post is correct? You can't use moral justifications to promote what you are claiming to be a moral position, because the reality is that you are advocating the use of gang-like behavior to steal from others?

Would you like me to continue this line, or do you want to address the actual topic at hand?

 

[New]

^it's mainly because you're attempting to claim free agency in a society where the concept as you imagine it is impossible. We all depend on hundreds of people to live the way we do that to try and claim that our taxes shouldn't support sick people is like saying public transportation is like saying "why should my tax dollars support poor people getting rides".

You're not a free agent from society OR government. You haven't been since before you were born. You're already enmeshed in society, and to try and claim that "your tax dollars shouldn't pay for health insurance" is an arbitrary line, seeing as they pay for roads, education, water, police, fire rescue, emergency services...why shouldn't your taxes pay for healthcare other than you mistakenly thinking that the welfare of hundreds of people has no effect on you? It would clearly be in everyone's benefit if healthcare were centralized...except if you're a private health insurance company. You'd probably live a more satisfying life if you didn't have to save 20%, then 80% just to prepare for a 5-6 figure hospital bill.

 

[Joeof1]

^it's mainly because you're attempting to claim free agency in a society where the concept as you imagine it is impossible.

Where did I claim that? You really should actually learn what a society is before you claim to know the ones I deal with. There is not just one singular society in the US and the argument that says there is simply irrational and dishonest. If the US were on continuous society there would be no issues with people disagreeing, because all people would come together for a common goal or interest. That is obviously not the case in the US. This thread alone is proof of it.

We all depend on hundreds of people to live the way we do that to try and claim that our taxes shouldn't support sick people is like saying public transportation is like saying "why should my tax dollars support poor people getting rides".

That is not dependency, it's voluntary cooperation. It's the whole concept behind the "Division of Labor", the whole thing is done because INDIVIDUALS have their own personal self-interest to do so. I have no interest in paying for welfare, and historical data has shown that welfare and disabilities programs have the tendency to be extensively abused and actually do the opposite of what they claim to do.

That is on top of the whole idea being counter to the moral position that you are relying on to even justify that statement. That is part of my point.

You're not a free agent from society

My society is barely parts of yours, outside of this site you and me would never likely interact in the real world.

OR government.

What? I'm not part of the government. What a ridiculous notion.

You haven't been since before you were born. You're already enmeshed in society, and to try and claim that "your tax dollars shouldn't pay for health insurance" is an arbitrary line, seeing as they pay for roads, education, water, police, fire rescue, emergency services...why shouldn't your taxes pay for healthcare other than you mistakenly thinking that the welfare of hundreds of people has no effect on you? It would clearly be in everyone's benefit if healthcare were centralized...except if you're a private health insurance company. You'd probably live a more satisfying life if you didn't have to save 20%, then 80% just to prepare for a 5-6 figure hospital bill.

Your definition of society is rather loose here, and honestly everything you are saying in that part is irrational.

I already stated the US is not a singular cohesive whole society, and when I was born I pretty incapable of voluntarily doing anything. The whole social contract nonsense is just that. There has never been a chance for me to willingly opt out of the system and if I attempt to not participate they threaten me with guns and put me in a cage like an animal. That is what you would like to call a civilized country... I call that more like a plantation, there is not much difference.

I advocate the elimination of all taxation. It does have an effect on me, that is what I am saying FFS. READ WHAT I AM TYPING. I AM SAYING THAT IT IS STEALING FROM ME AND IT IS DOING THE EXACT OPPOSITE THAT YOU ARE CLAIMING IT DOES.

More satisfying life by making someone else slave and labor on for you? Have you not looked around in the US lately? They've been trying that since Social Security was first established. It's bankrupted the country as a whole. Nothing you are saying fit's with a rational argument, or with reality. That is also part of my point.




Now with that all in mind you are left to either admit that you wish to abandon your moral argument for the taxation and application of force upon individuals that have no vested interests in those programs, or you have to adhere to you moral argument and abandon the welfare and healthcare systems completely.

 

[marsmellow]

Your thuggery will be evident when everyone wonders were the wealth creators disappeared to. They won't understand that they gobbled them up and chased them away.

LOL who the fuck are you people? I swear libertarians only exist as internet alter-egos, because I've never met one in real life. I mean I've met plenty republicans and libertarians, but none of them were as retarded as the ones you see online. Maybe they just live in the south...

 

[New]

^(Joeof1)Just because I have a morally opposite stance from you doesn't mean my argument is flawed. And you are a part of the government if you pay taxes, however against your will. And if we're both US citizens, we're both part of the same society, however much you semantically choose to deny it. Your argument amounts to nothing more than romanticism and/or wish fulfillment, flavored with a poor understanding of the role of government in society. Just because it doesn't respond to exactly what you need out of it doesn't mean it's not doing its job. And back in 2000, the United States had a 2.4 Billion surplus in its coffers. The current Bush-Era tax cuts have bankrupted the country. Countries need money to survive. They get that money from taxes or conquest. And since the US isn't conquering and annexing nations(arguably), the money has to come from us.

I don't have to agree with your logic or moral stance at all.

 

[Joeof1]

^(Joeof1)Just because I have a morally opposite stance from you doesn't mean my argument is flawed.

You don't have a moral argument at all. You are saying that crime is bad so the government outlaws it, that is the base reasoning for supporting the government in any position because governments primary role is protect property right's. Yet you are advocating the government to commit crime on your behalf against others. That is morally inconsistent. That means that, yes indeed, your argument is flawed.

And you are a part of the government if you pay taxes, however against your will.

No paying taxes means that I do not wish to be imprisoned. It does not make me part of the government. You'll have do better than that. There is no logical or rational argument to make that even close to being valid. The only thing that comes close to validating that is the idea of social contract, but in my previous post I already pointed out why it's flawed. I also pointed out in this post here and that post why the moral argument for it is flawed. You are 0 and 3 now.

And if we're both US citizens, we're both part of the same society, however much you semantically choose to deny it.

Citizenry defines a person's belonging to the state, not a society. As I pointed out previously the State is not a Society. If you are trying to say that then you are denying nearly 3000 years of philosophical thought on the matter. Which IMO is amusing that you are not aware of this considering the forum you are moderator of. I guess no on here writes about Philosophy or political science in the least though.

Almost everyone from Socrates forward disagrees with what you are saying. The only people that agree with you are the Social Democrats and the Cultural Marxists. In either case, that means you are adopting the radical and not commonly held position on this. Care to clarify further?

To add, I would denounce my citizenship if it were possible, but it isn't anymore.

Your argument amounts to nothing more than romanticism and/or wish fulfillment, flavored with a poor understanding of the role of government in society.

Address the argument directly, not me.

I noticed that no one here seems capable of doing this. I guess those that were able to hold a conversation have finally left the site for good. To add my argument is from the Utilitarian/Rationalist aspect, not the romantic one. In fact if we examine your views of the government and society, we can see that you hold this ideal that humans should work to meet to obtain a system that fulfills your ideas of how it should be. So in fact you are the one projecting this romantic image here. As Romanticism is a by-product of Positivist thought and philosophy.

Just because it doesn't respond to exactly what you need out of it doesn't mean it's not doing its job.

I hope that was your attempt at humor. It's blaringly obvious to everyone else in here except you and Apostacious what I am advocating, even the rude guy above you could figure out close to what I am advocating.

And back in 2000, the United States had a 2.4 Billion surplus in its coffers.

No it didn't. The US federal debt has not gone down since 1957 when Eisenhower was President. If you want to make the economic argument drop the moralist one and go ahead and make it.

The current Bush-Era tax cuts have bankrupted the country. Countries need money to survive. They get that money from taxes or conquest. And since the US isn't conquering and annexing nations(arguably), the money has to come from us.

I don't have to agree with your logic or moral stance at all.

No, you don't have to agree with me. You could go about your day blissfully ignoring it, but it doesn't change reality.

So you admit to advocating state based violence and invasions of foreign lands them? If so that makes any moral positions you have invalid.

LOL who the fuck are you people? I swear libertarians only exist as internet alter-egos, because I've never met one in real life. I mean I've met plenty republicans and libertarians, but none of them were as retarded as the ones you see online. Maybe they just live in the south...

Why not actually make a point? If you check I have been on here longer than you. I travel a lot so I do not post as often, because guess what, the internet is the last thing on my mind when I'm on a tropical beach somewhere.

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

Well if we are to take the argument that we should practice what we preach then the your argument/point is invalid from the start unless you are accepting the initial premise that taxation is based on the initiation of coercion and violence. If you are not accepting that premise from the start then the critique of my position is meaningless as you can not hold someone accountable for standards that you yourself do not hold. That would be what I would think we all refer to as a "double-standard".

I'm not sure if "based on" is the right word, but taxation is backed up with the threat of coercion and violence.

I'm not sure why that would be relevant, since taxation tends to be not exceptional in this regard - many actions in society are based on the threat of coercion and violence. If I decide to drive whatever speed I want, instead of the speed limit on the sign, there's the threat of coercion, and even violence. If I decide to camp out in the back yard next to me, there's the threat of coercion and violence. If I decide to dump raw sewage in my front yard, there's a threat of coercion and violence. It's part of how society operates, right or wrong.

If I were to answer in that no in fact I can not support that sort of load financially you would call me a hypocrite for understanding and seeing that how the system is now is detrimental to what it's stated purpose is.

And what is the system's stated purpose?

If I were to answer to affirmative of that question that indeed I am capable of covering that sort of fee, you would lambast me for being privileged and advantaged for having those sort of resources available to me.

Don't worry, I never thought it was likely that you'd be able to handle all foreseeable medical bills. It's pretty uncommon to have the money available to pay a multi-million dollar hospital bill.

At which point, we need to throw up our hands and admit that the system is broken.

 

[New]

When I say

Your argument amounts to nothing more than romanticism and/or wish fulfillment, flavored with a poor understanding of the role of government in society.

and you respond

Address the argument directly, not me.

You're not having a discussion. You're saying whatever you want and disagreeing because somebody else said it. I'm done.

 

[Joeof1]

I'm not sure if "based on" is the right word, but taxation is backed up with the threat of coercion and violence.

I was attempting to reduce the complications of explaining the argument without making it longer than it had to be. I did make some shortcuts in the logical framework. I know you will see them.

I'm not sure why that would be relevant, since taxation tends to be not exceptional in this regard - many actions in society are based on the threat of coercion and violence. If I decide to drive whatever speed I want, instead of the speed limit on the sign, there's the threat of coercion, and even violence. If I decide to camp out in the back yard next to me, there's the threat of coercion and violence. If I decide to dump raw sewage in my front yard, there's a threat of coercion and violence. It's part of how society operates, right or wrong.

None of those are examples of threats or violence though. In not a single instance were you actually encroaching upon another persons right's.

Taxation is expressively encroaching upon the right's of all people everywhere, and there is no reasonably honest method of approaching the issue with the government. All people that have tried have been imprisoned for tax evasion, which technically is not illegal.

You can simply look at how the situation with Irwin Schiff played out to see that the government only view's the public as a source of revenue. They have no desire to actually pay out on their obligations or promises long term.

And what is the system's stated purpose?

It's stated from the onset to protect Private Property. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. You and me both should be aware that to the Puritans that meant private property and honest business. I mean some of the Puritans even allowed Usury, which was a huge step up from some of the Scholastics and early Liberals.

Don't worry, I never thought it was likely that you'd be able to handle all foreseeable medical bills. It's pretty uncommon to have the money available to pay a multi-million dollar hospital bill.

At which point, we need to throw up our hands and admit that the system is broken.

I'm not there yet, working on it though. Honestly, I threw up my hand's years ago. I decided to start moving everything out of the country when I saw the first warning sign's that the government had no intention of fixing the issues that it has. Sort of why I didn't visit the site for so long is that I was getting everything straightened out. I literally finished getting everything ready about 5 months ago. I just moved the last of my "stuff" at the beginning of January.

I am surprised it's lasted this long, and looking how everything is starting to snowball I think the rate of decline will be increasing at an increasing rate from here on out.

When I say

and you respond

You're not having a discussion. You're saying whatever you want and disagreeing because somebody else said it. I'm done.

Here, let me lay this out in detail to why this is not addressing the argument:

Your argument amounts to nothing more than romanticism and/or wish fulfillment, flavored with a poor understanding of the role of government in society.

You are directing the comment at me specifically here. You mention that it's my particular fault here. So yes, you in fact were focusing it on me, rather than the argument. When you debate an issue, it's the flaws within the issue it self that should be addressed, not the person. To address the person specifically before resolving the issue itself in any extent is a Red Herring. It's a specific type of Red Herring, but the distinction does not really matter.

Enjoy the rest of your evening then.

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

None of those are examples of threats or violence though. In not a single instance were you actually encroaching upon another persons right's.

Trust me - if I start camping out in the land next to me, which is considered my neighbor's fenced back yard under the current society, and I don't move, I'm going to face the threat of violence, followed by violence in order to forcefully remove me.

This makes sense to me (the police can remove trespassers, and use force to do so if needed), but I'll have to admit that the reason it makes sense to me is because I accept the idea that a certain section of land belongs to another person.

Taxation is expressively encroaching upon the right's of all people everywhere, and there is no reasonably honest method of approaching the issue with the government.

Much of society is encroaching on the rights of people everywhere. We divide stuff into spheres of control, and we tell others that objects, ideas and land belong to one person and not another. Which (as I said before) makes sense to me (mostly), but I am part of this society, so the idea that I can have possessions (even those I do not use) and those possessions can only be used by me or by those I authorize makes sense.

You can simply look at how the situation with Irwin Schiff played out to see that the government only view's the public as a source of revenue.

Irwin Schiff, the tax protestor? Now, normally, as a person and especially as a mod, I'd really like to address the issues involved and explain why someone is horribly and utterly wrong. But with tax protesters, the weirdness gets rather fractal in nature. It's easier to throw up my hands and say "batshit crazy" instead of going into a long digression about how they are wrong.

Now, you can call me on this (and you probably should) and I'm utterly willing to admit to any other CE&P posters that this is a weak argument on my behalf.

But yep, tax protester.

 

[marsmellow]

Why not actually make a point?

Because I know from experience that it's a pointless waste of time to 'debate' with people like you. You are going to dismiss whatever I say before you even finish reading it. But fuck it, I have some time to waste...

I earned it, I created it.

You created what exactly?

Here's a point for you: you, like almost everyone else, exist within a community of people. You don't exist in a vacuum where you 'create' without any contribution from other people. You wouldn't be able to create anything if it weren't for other people. Ever seen a feral child? That's what you would be without other people. Basically a wild animal. Good luck doing anything productive like that.

 

[superelephant]

Are you advocating that the problem of large medical bills in our healthcare system should be solved through suicide?

^Lo and behold the free market solution, folks!

Uhhh... I wasn't proposing or advocating a 'solution'. Just personally, that's what I would do.

 

[Bagseed]

Didn't read the whole thread, but what the fuck?

here in middle Europe, i can get an annual health check for free, which includes urine and blood analysis, plus a check-up at my doctor's. feels good to live in a socialist hellhole it seems.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Didn't read the whole thread, but what the fuck?

here in middle Europe, i can get an annual health check for free, which includes urine and blood analysis, plus a check-up at my doctor's. feels good to live in a socialist hellhole it seems.

Just curious, what happens if they find something wrong and you need treatment? Is that free too? If so I'm moving.