US Universal Healthcare: How are we going to pay for it?

[Scoobes]

Kasz216 said:

Scoobes said:

Kasz216 said:

Rath said:
A) Muslims != smokers. Sorry but they really are not the same thing.

B) Sick days are not personal costs. They are huge costs to the economy of the country.

C) I think that taxing cigarettes decreases the number of users (especially the number of people starting the habit) and has the happy side effect of putting a lot of money into the health system. Plus, smoking and alcohol both have negative effects outside of the person consuming them - smoking through second hand smoke and alcohol through drunkeness along with the monetary cost to society at large of both. Hence I believe taxation of both (despite the fact that I enjoy alcohol) to be fair.

A) Both are choices people make and something that should be up to them.

B) That in my opinion is facist thinking.  Someone losing sick time due to the effects of smoking is no different then someone "losing" time because they decide to not go into work in a day.  The government has no "right" to any time I don't go to work, no matter the reason.  Penalizing me for not working is at best light facism.  I mean why not tax people more who go on vacation?

C) Yeah that's... social engineering.  Which is wrong.  Your telling people "You arent responsible enough to stop smoking and drinking.  So we the government are going to stop you... or make you damn well feel it anyway! 

This is immoral.  If someone wants to do something unhealthy they should have every right to do it.

We should treat adults... like adults.

A) What really is the point you're trying to make?

B) Seriously? I think you'll find that his opinion is simply capitalist.

C) Social engineering is everywhere, get over it.

Overall, I think you need to understand that if you treat adults like adults, then any country would go to complete shit because large proportions of any adult population are complete and utter idiots. Hell, America managed to vote Bush in for 2 terms. Goverments and leaders manipulate the masses, its simply the way of the world.

My point is I'm not Pro-authortarian unlike you apparently.

The point is that

A) People should be free to make their choices outside of extreme direct negative actions such as murder and theft.

B) People's time is primarity property of the people who use that time.

C) Lots of unacceptable things are everywhere.., rape, racism, people who eat grapes before they weigh them to pay for them.  Letting something slide because it's everywhere is stupid.

If most adults are idiots... well so what then? People have the right to be stupid if they want to be.  People should be allowed to make their own mistakes.

 

I don't think they should be allowed to act stupid if its to the detriment of others or if it is detrimental to society. It is down to the leaders of each country to help navigate society into not destroying itself, whilst balancing that with the rights of individuals to be free. Don't get me wrong, I don't like it when they abuse their power and try to control what we think, but in certain circumstances, its necessary for the good of the society in question.

Take your original example/complaint about the taxing of smoker and drinkers in the UK. Both cause a host of problems later on in life that firstly cost the goverment/NHS money for treatment. Thinking from a purely financial perspective it makes sense to have a high tax on these products. If we look a little more at smoking we also see that smokers cause others who don't smoke to suffer similar consequences due to second-hand smoke, so there is now a smoking ban in all public places in the UK. This is done to protect those that make the choice not to smoke. Morally the tax also helps to fund the healthcare of smokers and alcoholics to help save there lives. With drink, the money likely also goes to police to help them police drink related violence. People are still able to choose to smoke or drink, but the extra taxes and the smoking ban enables the goverment to heal and protect both those who smoke/drink and those who don't but may suffer the effects from those around them. I see this as a lesser evil than "social engineering" and when put into context morally sound.

Its also worth noting that goverments have less control in the modern Western world, and the power has seemingly shifted to the supposedly "free" media. If anything, the media of Western countries are the ones who are the true social engineers.