Puppyroach said: Why is it any more a human right to be protected from foreign aggression than to have the right to healthcare?

Because civilians are not allowed to carry military grade weapons ? I mean c'mon anyone can see that, no need to play ignorant ... 

Healthcare should not be a human right when you're at the mercy of a doctors decision to treat you or not ... 

Do you suppose that we should give heathcare to our enemy soldiers as a human right that we try so hard to kill ?! 

Until we have robot doctors, you don't just force doctors to give free service cause they'll just quit if they don't find it profitable and we'll all be left without doctors ... 

fatslob-:O said: Puppyroach said: Why is it any more a human right to be protected from foreign aggression than to have the right to healthcare? Because civilians are not allowed to carry military grade weapons out complex surgery? I mean c'mon anyone can see that, no need to play ignorant ...  Healthcare Protection from foreign aggression should not be a human right when you're at the mercy of a doctors soldiers decision to treat protect you or not ...  Do you suppose that we should give heathcare to our enemy soldiers as a human right that we try so hard to kill ?!  Until we have robot doctors soldiers, you don't just force doctors soldiers to give free service cause they'll just quit if they don't find it profitable and we'll all be left without doctors soldiers ...

Or we could say it like this instead =).

Mr Puggsly said: Ultimately, able body people shouldn't get FREE health unless they have a damn good reason. I've literally seen entitlements ruin people in my family. The mom got welfare, the daughter eventually got welfare, now their kids are a new generation relying on welfare. It literally ruins people to know they can live fairly comfortably on government handouts. Its good intentions actually doing something evil, killing any ambition.

I'm sorry that this happened to your family, but anecdotal evidence from a handful of people who are socially and genetically correlated is not convincing enough to draw such a conclusion. Here is a much larger pool of anecdotes:

http://www.zmescience.com/other/economics/basic-income-finland-23062017/

However, I wouldn't be too quick to draw the opposite conclusion since this trial was only for 5 months and your anecdotes are much more longitudinal than this. But I strongly believe that humans are ambitious for many different reasons, and that ambition can thrive without a motivation so drastic as the threat of death (for instance, mate selection can be a powerful motivator). I could equally well imagine cases where any ambition is killed by stress over losing one's coverage, who can say for sure without more analysis?

Puppyroach said: Or we could say it like this instead =).

Dodge much ? Face it we need a military since there are regimes out there who will forcefully draft their own citizens into war ... 

Healthcare on the other hand ? Should be a citizens own problem ... 

You wouldn't have to worry so much about having health insurance if the majority of those at risked improved their life style to prevent heart diseases, lung diseases, strokes, diabetes or kidney diseases ... 

What one would be like if they went on a diet, didn't smoke or consume alcohol ... 

ebw said: Mr Puggsly said: Ultimately, able body people shouldn't get FREE health unless they have a damn good reason. I've literally seen entitlements ruin people in my family. The mom got welfare, the daughter eventually got welfare, now their kids are a new generation relying on welfare. It literally ruins people to know they can live fairly comfortably on government handouts. Its good intentions actually doing something evil, killing any ambition.   I'm sorry that this happened to your family, but anecdotal evidence from a handful of people who are socially and genetically correlated is not convincing enough to draw such a conclusion. Here is a much larger pool of anecdotes:   http://www.zmescience.com/other/economics/basic-income-finland-23062017/   However, I wouldn't be too quick to draw the opposite conclusion since this trial was only for 5 months and your anecdotes are much more longitudinal than this. But I strongly believe that humans are ambitious for many different reasons, and that ambition can thrive without a motivation so drastic as the threat of death (for instance, mate selection can be a powerful motivator). I could equally well imagine cases where any ambition is killed by stress over losing one's coverage, who can say for sure without more analysis?

Any US examples?

Perhaps the people of Finland are culturally different than some of the US. The US is more diverse and a lot bigger, different problems.

For example, the immigrants of Europe tend to have unique problems not being addressed.

brendude13 said: Locknuts said: You are entitled to nothing. The federal government's job is to protect it's citizens from foreign aggression. Healthcare is not a human right. For the rest of the civilised world it is.

And if it was a problem free solution, the US would be more open to adopting it.

Mr Puggsly said: ebw said: I'm sorry that this happened to your family, but anecdotal evidence from a handful of people who are socially and genetically correlated is not convincing enough to draw such a conclusion. Here is a much larger pool of anecdotes:   http://www.zmescience.com/other/economics/basic-income-finland-23062017/   However, I wouldn't be too quick to draw the opposite conclusion since this trial was only for 5 months and your anecdotes are much more longitudinal than this. But I strongly believe that humans are ambitious for many different reasons, and that ambition can thrive without a motivation so drastic as the threat of death (for instance, mate selection can be a powerful motivator). I could equally well imagine cases where any ambition is killed by stress over losing one's coverage, who can say for sure without more analysis? Any US examples? Perhaps the people of Finland are culturally different than some of the US. The US is more diverse and a lot bigger, different problems. For example, the immigrants of Europe tend to have unique problems not being addressed.

There was a Wikipedia article with a couple of leads (and absolutely, culture is an important variable).  It mentions that a handful of cities ran pilot programs on negative income tax (with thousands of families in aggregate) during the 1960s to early 1980s.  There is some meta-analysis in this article (PDF download): https://www.bostonfed.org/-/media/Documents/conference/30/conf30a.pdf

More recently, Y Combinator has formally announced its intention to introduce a multi-year basic income pilot in Oakland, CA:

https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/31/y-combinator-announces-basic-income-pilot-experiment-in-oakland/.

However, I don't see information about any progress on it since that blog post from last year.  I hope the experiment goes forward as it can provide valuable data: they chose Oakland specifically for its socioeconomic diversity (and close proximity to Y Combinator).

Mr Puggsly said: brendude13 said: For the rest of the civilised world it is. And if it was a problem free solution, the US would be more open to adopting it.

It really does not matter if healthcare is a human right or not.  If people in the US feel this way they will show it at the polls once the Republican bill goes through.  When those stats start to pile up as people lose their heathcare, or when those kids on medicaid start to expire.  It could be that none of that happen and everything stays the same pretty much and the boys in red stay in power.  Either way it should be interesting to see how things go.

This whole thing just feels like it'll lead to the inevitable universal healthcare system in the US. I'll be sad if we adopt uni healthcare before we take the metric system. We desperately need to adopt the metric system... *sigh*

StarOcean said: This whole thing just feels like it'll lead to the inevitable universal healthcare system in the US. I'll be sad if we adopt uni healthcare before we take the metric system. We desperately need to adopt the metric system... *sigh*

Just think of all the road signs and mile markers that would need to be replaced.  Not worth it in my book.  I have no problem using the English system.  Sure metric is easy because it goes by multiples of 10 but honestly we can just use the metric system when dealing with scientific experiments and what not.  We use metric system for somethings already such as liters for large soda bottles.