Hillary outspoken socialist

[mattp]

I don't understand why there is any healthcare debate at all. Hell: even Nixon tried to put national health care in place. If you think health insurance companies are going to look out for your interest, you are nuts.

[archenemy]

agreed.

[jjd]

None of which changes the fact that it's not the proper role of government to provide health care.

[mattp]

Agreed.

You can't agree. I take it back.

[mattp]

None of which changes the fact that it's not the proper role of government to provide health care.

 

Why not?

[jjd]

The role of government is to secure the rights of its citizens, nothing more. People don't have a right to force others to provide them with health care any more than they have a right to walk into a grocery store, steal a loaf of bread and claim that you have some right to it.

 

I do believe in voluntary charity and I have no problem with providing health care to the needy via a voluntary system.

[archenemy]

then you are against the gov't providing education?

[archenemy]

roads?

[archenemy]

airports?

[archenemy]

fire departments?

[archenemy]

immunizations to children from families that can't afford them?

[archenemy]

The USDA and the FDA?

[jjd]

Yes to all of the above. Again, for families who can't afford immunizations and other health care, I would gladly contribute to charities that help them. The USDA and FDA would be at the top of my hit list.

[archenemy]

I am often accused of being an idealist. But if you think everyone is going to chip in and do all this stuff on a voluntary basis, you got me beat.

[kevbone]

 

I do believe in voluntary charity and I have no problem with providing health care to the needy via a voluntary system.

 

Will you define "needy" please.

[jjd]

I'm not sure I can give you a precise definition. Different people need different levels of assistance. For example, many homeless people suffer from various mental illnesses and have almost no ability to provide for themselves. Contrast this to a "working poor" family who have some ability to provide for themselves, but need some help to afford health care or put food on the table. Bottom line: I can't give a precise definition.

 

[mattp]

The role of government is to secure the rights of its citizens, nothing more. People don't have a right to force others to provide them with health care any more than they have a right to walk into a grocery store, steal a loaf of bread and claim that you have some right to it.

 

That's some hardcore politics there. I don't know who your heroes are but I can think of few but maybe Ayn Rand who would even set forth such a simple argument [here's where JayB chimes in about blah blah blah damn liberal doesn't read much does he blah blah blah].

 

It seems to me that virtually every society - and in fact may be every single one - since Mesopotamia has included the notion that government can and should provide various services and utilities. Further, I bet there are extremely few that have actually eliminated all provision for "wellfare." I have not studied the issue, but it seems to me that even in a feudal society there is a need to maintain the serf class for labor and etc. and it seems likely that there are going to be some organized (government) provisions though perhaps minimal by any modern standard.

 

I could see some argument that healthcare is not a basic human right or something -- but wow.

 

 

Edited May 30, 2007 by mattp

[jjd]

I get accused of being "cold hearted" and "mean" (go figure?), so let me be clear: while I don't support coerced charity, I do support voluntary charity, which can be pretty effective at meeting such basic needs.

[mattp]

You cold hearted bastard!

[jjd]

[archenemy]

I don't think you'll find too many people who are against charity, so that isn't a tough statement to make. However, if charity could cover everything, I doubt gov't intervention in the issues noted above would have arisen in the first place.

[jjd]

I disagree. First of all, charity need not cover "everything." Besides, the government does a terrible job of doing, well, just about everything.

[archenemy]

I agree that the gov't doesn't do a very good job at a lot of stuff. But I don't see a whole lot of charity work that is very well run or effective either (Bill Gates is the exception).

 

And without looking back at what you posted, I think you said that if the gov't didn't provide immunizations to poor kids--you would. Well, I assume that if you are so charitable, you'd already be doing this. And even in doing your part, I am sure you recognize how much really needs to be done--even charity and gov't together can't seem to get everyone covered.

[mattp]

Besides, the government does a terrible job of doing, well, just about everything.

 

Say what? Private business was going to win WWII? Eliminate diseases like Polio? Provide drinking water? Sewage treatment? Postal services that are better than USPS and get a letter to your grandma in what-the-heck Idaho for almost nothing? Put a man on the moon? Build an Interstate highway network that is all at the same standard? Patrol the streets of Seattle? ....

 

That's a laughable assertion.

[archenemy]

It seems to be a dream that even without proof or example, a lot of folks insist on believing.