Fixing problems before they become emergencies is a LOT cheaper. This can only be done when everyone is on comprehensive insurance, not just the rich. If only there were countries with such a system as well as half the healthcare spending on a GDP basis for the US to emulate.....

You are such a heartless fuck, stick. Do you know what would happen if we did what you suggest? SOCIETY WOULD COLLAPSE. No, it is a moral imperative that we continue the nanny state until the government collapses and society along with it.

dude thats crazy...

im a healthy person and i wont need any of that thank god im healthy but thats insane, i dont want people to start dying, no matter how shitty they are everyone has the right to live.

Forget about the economic arguments about whether public or private works best (private wins out), you, here, have pointed out the fundamental reason why you shouldn't support public healthcare. When the Government can control something as essential as your healthcare, they then have the ability to control a whole lot more.

Government doesn't want you smoking? Drinking? Doing drugs? Overeating? Not doing enough exercise? The Government controls your healthcare, if you want care, you have to stop doing these things. You know, skiing is a pretty dangerous sport, better ban that. Sky-diving, too. Football seems to cause a lot of injuries. Where do you draw the line?

You may scoff, but it can easily happen. The NHS has often toyed with refusing care for smokers and overeaters. I don't know if it has happened on a mass scale, but given budgetary problems, and the Government's staunch anti-smoking campaigns, it very likely will in the next 5 years.

And what about those dependant on the Government for housing? Or food? Dependancy just opens up the path to control.

Yes, everybody has the right to life, but that doesn't mean others need to pay to facilitate it. I have the right to privacy, but that doesn't mean the Government has to build a big wall for me. I also have the right to free speech, but I don't get no megaphone handed to me.

Healthcare is not a right, it is a good. Goods facilitate our rights, but they do not become them. You need many goods for life - food, shelter, clothes. Healthcare is not the only one.

Sure, but does everyone have a right to your pocketbook?

I never said that the unhealthy should be barred from recieving care. Just barred from government redistribution of funds through health care. In doing so, you'd create significant incentive to either 1) stay healthy, or 2) be very pro-active about your health care options. Its the same way that the majority of life goes, but has changed as some people believe health care must be given entirely by the government, regardless of merit.

Like Samuel said, nearly every other system works that way - food, shelter, love, and so on. People have incentive, power, and responsibility to choose the best course of action so the best results. People acquire shelter through voluntary trade which ensures that landlords do not artificially inflate prices, or no one could rent, and tenants aren't A-holes to the property so they don't get kicked out. Food gets created, distributed, and eaten based on nutrition and the consumers' desire for specific foods (of course, in the US this is distorted through AG subsidies...)

Health care can work the same way if done properly. Done improperly, people have no incentive to be healthy or rein in costs for services that they do not pay for. You are seeing such things in healthy Canada and the healthy UK, and are seeing the starting stages of unsustainability among their systems.

Let me give you an analogy: I am a landlord. I own an apartment complex. When I got the complex, I provided electricity, heat, water, and trash for all tenants, and they simply had to pay a flat fee which I rarely changed. Problem was, since tenants got "unlimited" services, they felt no desire or need to turn the thermostat down, use less electricity for their needs, or conserve water by any measure. This drove up my costs significantly. In turn, this meant my costs were significantly higher, losing me money.

Eventually, I parsed out electricity and heating bills, giving them to the tenants while lowering their rent by the amount of money saved on my end. When they became responsible for thier heat and electricity, they were much more conservative with their usage: they turned heat down in the winter, and didn't leave lights on when they weren't home. The end result was that we both saved money. Services provided by the goverment, at large, are the same way. You can easily Google my analogy for utility subsidies for landlords, as its a documented fact this happens - to the tune of 30% savings among landlords and tenants when they're responsible for their own bills.

well you guys have valid points no doubt... i really want the world to turn fit but instead its getting fatter and you all know that.

I find that hard to believe, I suspect that when income tax capped out at 94%, there would have been higher revenues as a share of GDP.

It was the old code, yes. I should work now, anyway.