Screamapillar said:
Mr Khan said:
Such a response is wholly unfounded. You just assume that the system would not be properly funded, for one. Two, it is the role of the state to provide goods for which the free market is an inefficient provider, health care being a *huge* thing here. Third, different countries use different systems, and not all of them (indeed, not many of them) involve the government seizing direct control or totally monopolizing the system (just mostly monopolizing it. The United Kingdom still has a small private health system that the very rich can take advantage of). In many countries, it's simply a matter of the government distributing funds to a system that otherwise looks much like our own, just that the bill ultimately comes from the top. In Japan, everyone pays into national health insurance (including anyone on a visa more than 90 days), and they pay according to their income, and get deductibles set according to their income. The wealthy pay more into the system, and are on the hook for more when they get care, but everyone is guaranteed to get it, which is simply justice.
|
Forgive me, but it seems as though that is an incentive to not be a successful person. As in, a disincentive to obtain a career with a higher-paying job in order to obtain "free" health insurance, but at the same time, not have to work very hard for it. Thus, it leaves the door open for the more industrious to feel "Why am I bothering to work so hard when other's are getting health insurance for doing far less?", even though most are more capable than that?
Let me be absolutely clear. I am a compassionate person, it seems like you are as well, I just feel very strongly that your philosophy of how this all should be handled is going to create more problems than it's going to solve. I think in general, that welfare programs, and programs like Social Security and Medicare, are a disincentive to save for retirement, and a disincentive to budget enough money from your own salary to pay for your medical bills. I don't think it's fair to expect someone to pay for someone else who was, for the most part, less careful about making good life choices and exercising good judgement.
|
Because we're only talking about the essentials of life as far as income goes. In the welfare state I would advocate, the poorest would get full nutrition, healthcare, shelter, education, and the minimum in clothing, but these are not really the ingredients for a fulfilling life on the whole. If you want a house, a good car, the leisure to watch movies or read books or surf the internet or video games or what have you, you still have to work.
Some people aren't going to work, and are going to exercise poor judgment and yet expect someone to cover for their mistakes, but even they deserve the basics, but how many people are going to be satisfied with the basics? Wealth and success are their own incentives beyond mere survival.
