If medical coverage is not a necessity, what is it?

[SlayerRondo]

richardhutnik said:

SlayerRondo said:

richardhutnik said:

snyps said:

richardhutnik said:
So, I would then question why you don't want to give up money to help other people.  Why is that?

 

Because medical coverage under the health insurance system is WAY too expensive to afford for yourself let alone pay for someone else's

My entire post was pointed an individuals who claim coersion and theft as reasons for not having government assistance.  I was arguing turning it on its head to get someone arguing coersion and theft to come out and say why they wouldn't give to help others.

So people now have to say why they don't want the government to take their money? 

If someone does not want to have their property taken by force they dont have to justify why, its THEIR MONEY.

Kindness should be voluntary not forced.

If a person agrees with doing it, then it isn't coerced/forced.  So, a person who voluntarily pays taxes isn't the subject to coersion or force or theft.

Yes but people are not given a choice on paying for and receiving medical care and welfare from the government. Therefore they are coerced as they are given no choice.

And yes, I have every right to question this, and why someone doesn't want to pay taxes if they live in a society, PARTICULARLY if the money in question goes to help the poor and those in need.  I can also question exactly what the level of kindness of a person is, when they don't want the money to be there.

You can question the kindness of a person all you like but taking their property and giving it to someone else without their consent is theft and an immoral action. Not donating money, however unkind you may deem the person, does not harm other people.

In America, to argue anything about welfare being theft is seriously pushing it, because one engage in enough donations to charity that they pay no income taxes, through the use of deductions.  So, I am more than willing to ask exactly how charitable the person in question is, if they don't give enough to reduce their taxes to nothing.  And, with such said said individuals, if you didn't have social programs there, and gave the money back to them in lower taxes, exactly how much help would those in need get?

Theft is the taking of someone's property without their consent which is exactly how welfare operates. Those in need would get as much as those with surplus would be willing to provide and if you think they need more campaign for people to give more not higher taxes for welfare which is theft. And chariatable donations only reduce tax threshholds not taxes directly making them more expensive as to avoid all taxes you would have to donate nearly all your income. 

With the last statement: Kindness should be voluntary, not forced, that is very good.  So, would you agree then that individuals should be giving voluntarily and not holding back, so it isn't forced?

I think that there are some things where its kind and helpfull to help others to give and other times i dont. Nearly everyone else will has disagreements about how to give and what to give and can makes their own choices accordingly. I think that giving to someone else kind but i dont think it should be legal to force them to do so.