NationStates Jolt Archive

My question today is quite simple, as a taxpayer do you mind your tax dollars being be used so that all citizens of your nation may have access to free health care and welfare services, such as income support, free child care etc.

My question today is quite simple, as a taxpayer do you mind your tax dollars being be used so that all citizens of your nation may have access to free health care and welfare services, such as income support, free child care etc.

If my tax dollar is being spent on "free" healthcare, in what way is it "free?" ;) Sorry, just a nitpick.

If my tax dollar is being spent on "free" healthcare, in what way is it "free?" ;) Sorry, just a nitpick.

Free is just a term, it isn't free because your paying for it, so I guess the better term would be 'more equitable health care', you also should remember that rolling taxes way up for the most exorbitantly rich and taxing such like private equity could easily pay for a welfare state without even affecting the middle/lower class at all.

PS: Hopefully Gordon Brown taxes the hell out of private equity, it's widely believed he will when he comes in.

Free is just a term, it isn't free because your paying for it, so I guess the better term would be 'more equitable health care', you also should remember that rolling taxes way up for the most exorbitantly rich and taxing such like private equity could easily pay for a welfare state without even affecting the middle/lower class at all.

PS: Hopefully Gordon Brown taxes the hell out of private equity, it's widely believed he will when he comes in.

But then the economy fails and you have to pay out more welfare and raise taxes more to pay for that increase while the economy keeps on failing.

I don't mind paying taxes for that.

Oh and be prepared for the nuts chanting about taxing the rich too much. Never mind the fact their incomes have gone up 128% (well in California) since the shrub took command.

Oh and be prepared for the nuts chanting about taxing the rich too much. Never mind the fact their incomes have gone up 128% (well in California) since the shrub took command.

Do you even know where most of it goes?To expand the buissness give (aka create more jobs reduce unemployement).Oh and to answer the question on this poll i say no!!!(it's called should have got an education or shouldnt have done all those dum things when i was kid).

Australia has this "subsidy" where the government pays of 30% of your private health insurance (provided you are Australian) - which was supposed to keep your private health insurance costs down.

Every year without fail - it's gone up and up and up and up and up

Oh and to answer the question on this poll i say no!!!(it's called should have got an education or shouldnt have done all those dum things when i was kid).


No, meaning "No, I wouldn't mind my tax dollars being spent on social programs". So much for that education.

Anyway, I wouldn't mind my taxes going to such efforts but only if we got rid of other drains on my capital. Like the FCC, detention camps outside the U.S. and ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan just to name a few. I just want a general streamlining of the Federal government, and I want it visible through and through.

Australia has this "subsidy" where the government pays of 30% of your private health insurance (provided you are Australian) - which was supposed to keep your private health insurance costs down.

Every year without fail - it's gone up and up and up and up and up

Yeah that's because the private companies purposely drive up premium costs in order to pay higher corporate salaries, exorbitant management costs and advertising campaigns etc, the only way to fix it is to expropriate their assets and make it universally free.

But then the economy fails and you have to pay out more welfare and raise taxes more to pay for that increase while the economy keeps on failing.

See: Finland, Sweden, Norway etc, it hasn't failed their and it's been around for over 70 years.

Do you even know where most of it goes?To expand the buissness give (aka create more jobs reduce unemployement).Oh and to answer the question on this poll i say no!!!(it's called should have got an education or shouldnt have done all those dum things when i was kid).
Actually that has been proven wrong pretty much, private companies for the most part private business horde their profits and assets and whine to governments for subsidies for R&D work, which they usually don't use for R&D, instead using it to put up corporate board salaries etc. What's also happening is that in 'streamlining' companies are sacking employees en masse, so the employment thing is a myth.

these things are what nations are for (along with infrastructure and keeping it all environmentally harmonious). by mind do you mean object?

if there is anything i object to it would be allowing nations to weasil out of doing these things. when a government doesn't have trying to meet it's obligation to such things to occupy its policy makers is when it turns to wars and other draconian circuses to convince their populas of the indispensability of hierarchy.

=^^=
.../\...

Free is just a term, it isn't free because your paying for it, so I guess the better term would be 'more equitable health care', you also should remember that rolling taxes way up for the most exorbitantly rich and taxing such like private equity could easily pay for a welfare state without even affecting the middle/lower class at all.

PS: Hopefully Gordon Brown taxes the hell out of private equity, it's widely believed he will when he comes in.

Errrr...I don't know where you got that from. In the UK the middle class is squeezed the hardest. Those who are rich enough not to be middle class aren't affected because of that wealth, but the middle class work very hard and in return get taxed up to the eyeballs.

Errrr...I don't know where you got that from. In the UK the middle class is squeezed the hardest. Those who are rich enough not to be middle class aren't affected because of that wealth, but the middle class work very hard and in return get taxed up to the eyeballs.

If you actually read my post that isn't what I was saying, I was just saying that in the UK at the moment their is massive pressure on the labor government by the unions to tax private equity as they would capital gains, so classifying it as income and then doubling the tax rate on it. This is because only the highest class have private equity, that's all I was saying, also progressive taxation is good.

Of course I wouldn't mind, why should I?

My question today is quite simple, as a taxpayer do you mind your tax dollars being be used so that all citizens of your nation may have access to free health care and welfare services, such as income support, free child care etc.

If the people, in the proper manner, decide that their society ought to implement such a program lawfully, then absolutely. I myself am strongly sympathetic to such a health-care system, but I'm trying to put first things first.

But then the economy fails and you have to pay out more welfare and raise taxes more to pay for that increase while the economy keeps on failing.

and government expenditure is a key part of consumption, which is a key factor in the demand side of an economy. government expenditure can help stabilise or even reverse economic downturns.

learn some economics, then post.



no, i have no problem at all in my taxes going to those purposes. if my tax money wasn't being used in those ways, i'd want it to.

My question today is quite simple, as a taxpayer do you mind your tax dollars being be used so that all citizens of your nation may have access to free health care and welfare services, such as income support, free child care etc.

Nope not at all.

No qualms whatsoever.

I've never understood the arguments against universal healthcare, or the Welfare State, for that matter.

There are lots of things I object to my taxes paying for, but the things in the OP aren't them.
Well, apart from free childcare, which I don't pay for, so that's OK.

No qualms whatsoever.

I've never understood the arguments against universal healthcare.

That's because your not supposed to, if you look close enough you see them for what they are - just smoke flown up into the air by rich business interests and the for-profit healthcare companies that make lots of money by hording profits while pulling up premiums so that people can't afford to pay healthcare. The US is already paying nearly 3 trillion dollars on healthcare, they're just not getting it, only a tiny percentage goes to the people - the rest is gobbled up by corporate board salaries or lost in corruption.

But then the economy fails and you have to pay out more welfare and raise taxes more to pay for that increase while the economy keeps on failing.

Socialism =/= Economy Fails

And don't dare say Lollzorz11! Soveit Unoin1!

Any of my tax payer dollars that go to social services, healthcare and education are fully supported by me. I see it as a good thing because then it's already taken care of.

When you need to see a doctor for small things (ie: preventive medicine), cost isn't a problem (ie: paid for through tax dollars) and you are more likely to stay healthy because you're not waiting for your problems to compound on each other, and at the same time, your doctor isn't pressure to give a solution right away and can do tests to see what the problem is.

If my tax dollars were going to anything, I would be quite alarmed, seeing as our currency is the krona.

Any of my tax payer dollars that go to social services, healthcare and education are fully supported by me. I see it as a good thing because then it's already taken care of.

When you need to see a doctor for small things (ie: preventive medicine), cost isn't a problem (ie: paid for through tax dollars) and you are more likely to stay healthy because you're not waiting for your problems to compound on each other, and at the same time, your doctor isn't pressure to give a solution right away and can do tests to see what the problem is.

Well yeah that's kinda how it's gone in Cuba. Resources and money in Cuba are extremely tight, yet they have one of the best free universal health systems in the world, mainly because of the sanctions they have focused and streamlined medical care approach on preventative care and 'community care' programs, the doctor to patient ratios are better than the US, and you never have to wait weeks to see a doctor, you can simply walk into a clinic and see one straight away. This is why many American medical grads get alot of their education in the academy place for Cuba.

If my tax dollars were going to anything, I would be quite alarmed, seeing as our currency is the krona.

:rolleyes: Oh geez....

Ok, pretend its the 'krona'. Gonna answer now?

:rolleyes: Oh geez....

Ok, pretend its the 'krona'. Gonna answer now?

but fass is kind of right here. The OP should have just said tax money then making these crazy generalisations.

but fass is kind of right here. The OP should have just said tax money then making these crazy generalisations.

Sheesh you people and your pedantic worries. Man I'm Londoner, so I use pound sterling, yet I understood the post, I got the context, and the term 'tax dollars' is as far as I'm concerened applicable usage of slang.:eek:

Sheesh you people and your pedantic worries.
Being pedantic is just being more right. ;)

If my tax dollars were going to anything, I would be quite alarmed, seeing as our currency is the krona.

Damn you Swedes! Why can't you use the Euro like everyone else? :mad:

Being pedantic is just being more right. ;)

Umm you know I wonder if the word pedantic and the word penickerty share the same root?;)

My question today is quite simple, as a taxpayer do you mind your tax dollars being be used so that all citizens of your nation may have access to free health care

My only complaint with free health care is that, while usually it's perfectly acceptable to me, there are instances where I don't want my tax dollars to go towards paying for someone elses stupidity.

If your injury is the result of your own stupidity (say, for instance, that you blew your own hand off while lighting illegal fireworks, or lost control of your vehicle going 20 mph over the speed limit, etc, etc), then I fail to see why one cent of my money should go towards injuries you could have easily avoided.

and welfare services, such as income support, free child care etc.

I'm all for these...especially child care. It's a huge expense for many families that, more often than not, simply can't be avoided.

My only complaint with free health care is that, while usually it's perfectly acceptable to me, there are instances where I don't want my tax dollars to go towards paying for someone elses stupidity.

If your injury is the result of your own stupidity (say, for instance, that you blew your own hand off while lighting illegal fireworks, or lost control of your vehicle going 20 mph over the speed limit, etc, etc), then I fail to see why one cent of my money should go towards injuries you could have easily avoided.



I'm all for these...especially child care. It's a huge expense for many families that, more often than not, simply can't be avoided.
Well I imagine government prevention programs in health and public safety would be paramount, after all prevention is better than cure.

Well I imagine government prevention programs in health and public safety would be paramount, after all prevention is better than cure.

I completely agree...

...we still have to treat injuries as they occur, however, and accidents happen all the time. Some are genuine accidents, and I have no problem with my tax dollars going towards that.

It certainly doesn't mean I'm going to be happy when some nitwit who ought to know better goes and hurts himself trying to get on Americas Funniest Home Videos, or something equally idiotic...and uses those same dollars.

I completely agree...

...we still have to treat injuries as they occur, however, and accidents happen all the time. Some are genuine accidents, and I have no problem with my tax dollars going towards that.

It certainly doesn't mean I'm going to be happy when some nitwit who ought to know better goes and hurts himself trying to get on Americas Funniest Home Videos, or something equally idiotic...and uses those same dollars.

What about guys playing rugby or other physical sports?

It's not as easy as yes or no for me. Welfare that truely helps the needy? Of course. Welfare for people who just don't feel like working? No. Free healthcare for preventative care? Yes. Healthcare that's run like the current state healthcare? Absolutely not.

If we must have income inequality, then the things mentioned in the OP are good uses for tax dollars.

Do you even know where most of it goes?To expand the buissness give (aka create more jobs reduce unemployement).Oh and to answer the question on this poll i say no!!!(it's called should have got an education or shouldnt have done all those dum things when i was kid).

You say no to the poll question. Therefore you wouldn't mind?

I'm all for these...especially child care. It's a huge expense for many families that, more often than not, simply can't be avoided.

Surely it could, by not having kids?

Yes I would mind. Providing those services is not the government's business.

My question today is quite simple, as a taxpayer do you mind your tax dollars being be used so that all citizens of your nation may have access to free health care and welfare services, such as income support, free child care etc.

How is it free healthcare when I have to pay a hundred dollars for a fucking Ace bandage?

Surely it could, by not having kids?
Once we get past accusatory board member questions, the point still stands.

My only complaint with free health care is that, while usually it's perfectly acceptable to me, there are instances where I don't want my tax dollars to go towards paying for someone elses stupidity.

If your injury is the result of your own stupidity (say, for instance, that you blew your own hand off while lighting illegal fireworks, or lost control of your vehicle going 20 mph over the speed limit, etc, etc), then I fail to see why one cent of my money should go towards injuries you could have easily avoided.

I agree. However, I would rather see a few people cheat the system than see the system cheat everyone (okay, it doesn't really "cheat" people, but it isn't parallel structure if I rephrase it).

My question today is quite simple, as a taxpayer do you mind your tax dollars being be used so that all citizens of your nation may have access to free health care and welfare services, such as income support, free child care etc.
Health care, yes, because I think that everyone has a right to health. However, if you choose to destroy your health despite everything that we have done, then... pity you. (Oh, and I don't want paying for cosmetic things. Treatment of diarrhea or hemorrhagic fever, yes; Botox and cosmetic surgery, no.)
Welfare, I'm all for the idea, but many welfare systems make people too much dependent on it. It depends on the welfare system.

If your injury is the result of your own stupidity (say, for instance, that you blew your own hand off while lighting illegal fireworks, or lost control of your vehicle going 20 mph over the speed limit, etc, etc), then I fail to see why one cent of my money should go towards injuries you could have easily avoided.
And at what point does it become really easy to deny you benefits?
"I fell off my ladder putting up Christmas lights."
"You didn't need to put up Christmas lights."

Ugh, I voted no instead of yes. But I guess it doesn't matter much, since I'm somewhere in between. I do mind paying as much I do, but I accept that at least some money has to be collected for society to work.

I happen to live in Sweden, a country which I keep hearing has a "working system", and I just can't agree that it does. Taxes are ridiculous, the problem with cheating massive, as I imagine it is most everwhere, and as a worker with a crap job with a crap pay I hate paying for the lazy fucks that abuse the system. Hell, it's a system that's asking to be abused.

How is it free healthcare when I have to pay a hundred dollars for a fucking Ace bandage?

Oh... nvmd.

You should put a disclaimer, like "poll not meant to be taken by Americans" :)

Of course I mind. Its MY MONEY, I EARNED it. My sweat is what got me my money not the money tree people seem to think is growing in my backyard. The only charity I don't have a problem giving money to is education.

As for universal health. You smoked smoked all those years Why should I pay for it? You went and got drunk on your own destroying your liver, pay for it own your own. You slept with the entire neighborhood, your STDs are your problem. You let yourself get so obese you can't move from your couch its your problem. Why should I have to pay because others made poor or stupid choices?

Free child care? If you can't support a child then you better make damn sure not to have one.

Income support? Very special cases only such as one of the main contributers to a family died. Even then it should be temporary.

And yes before anyone body accuses me of anything:

I am a greedy capitalist and proud of it.

Why should I have to pay because others made poor or stupid choices?

"You left your front door open? No way are we investigating this burglary."
"You let your kid play with matches? Lady, you can put out your own fire."

I'm not accusing you personally of doing anything, but I think if the government already covers for things sometimes caused by idiocy (police protection, fire protection, etc.) then it isn't much of a stretch to pay for healthcare. And just as plenty of people get robbed without leaving their front door open, and houses can ignite without careless parents, so people can need healthcare without bungee jumping with a friendship bracelet.

"You left your front door open? No way are we investigating this burglary."
"You let your kid play with matches? Lady, you can put out your own fire."

I'm not accusing you personally of doing anything, but I think if the government already covers for things sometimes caused by idiocy (police protection, fire protection, etc.) then it isn't much of a stretch to pay for healthcare. And just as plenty of people get robbed without leaving their front door open, and houses can ignite without careless parents, so people can need healthcare without bungee jumping with a friendship bracelet.

But it's not the governments job to provide it. Its up to the people to provide, or get it from work.

police protection, fire protection

These were not part of the original question. I have no problem paying for them because it gives a direct benefit to me.

Paying for someone elses healthcare or paying to support someone else does not benefit me in any way.

But it's not the governments job to provide it. Its up to the people to provide, or get it from work.
How is healthcare different from fire or police protection?
These were not part of the original question. I have no problem paying for them because it gives a direct benefit to me.
Fire protection only benefits you if your property catches fire.
Paying for someone elses healthcare or paying to support someone else does not benefit me in any way.
A larger amount of adults able to work does not benefit you? People who aren't able to spread disease (because they're healthy does not benefit you? Although less direct than fire protection, universal healthcare has universal benefits.

Paying for someone elses healthcare or paying to support someone else does not benefit me in any way.
Unless of course you know how to do math, which I am questioning at this point.
The more people that collectively put money in the healthcare pool, the less it costs you when you need healthcare.. Seems like it directly benefits you.

How is healthcare different from fire or police protection?
They don't know, don't waste your time trying to reason with them.
And it isn't.

I would want those things prioritised as large expenditures for the government, so I'd be more than happy for my taxes to go towards that.

Whether or not someone can be held responsible for hes* immediate medical needs should not affect whether they must pay for it themselves. As I see it, if you need treatment, then those who are able to provide it to you are morally obliged to do so. When you're the victim in the situation you're often unable to do very much about it yourself, and if someone gets hurt due to hes foolishness, repairing the damage might even give the victim the opportunity to "work off" the cost through future taxations.

Of course, if people can pay for their own medical care, they should be allowed to do to, insofar that they are still willing to pay their share to the public healthcare. I think this is where a large part of the problem arises.



*"hes" is not a typo, but a shorthand of his/her.

Paying for someone elses healthcare or paying to support someone else does not benefit me in any way.

Maybe if you help support them… they'll help support you? :eek:

Well i dont mind giving taxes to my fellow country men, but i would be very angry giving my tax money to help immigrants and other outsiders that come to my country. Jetzt NPD!!!

How is healthcare different from fire or police protection?

Police catches thief one less thief to break into my house. Whether he is caught breaking into my neighbors house or on the other side of the city.

Fire Protection I don't have to guard my property from fire personally leaving me free to go to work and make money.

Healthcare I pay $1000 a year nobody in my family needs the doctor so we don't spend any money on healthcare. I lose $1000 out of my own pocket. Johnny pays nothing because he has no job. He does drugs and is spending a couple days a week in the hospital. His Hospital bills cost several thousand dollars he has payed $0 into the healthcare. So why do I have to pay Johnny's bills?


A larger amount of adults able to work does not benefit you? People who aren't able to spread disease (because they're healthy does not benefit you? Although less direct than fire protection, universal healthcare has universal benefits.

If they work then why do they need my help?

If they have a cure for the disease then its not a serious threat is it? And even if it is I'm able to take precautions against such as eating right and keeping my immune system healthy and avoiding situations that increase the risk of catching the disease. If they don't have a cure for it then it really is a waste of money to try and treat it. You would be better off spending that money on research that discovers a cure not on ineffective treatment options.

Healthcare I pay $1000 a year nobody in my family needs the doctor so we don't spend any money on healthcare. I lose $1000 out of my own pocket. Johnny pays nothing because he has no job. He does drugs and is spending a couple days a week in the hospital. His Hospital bills cost several thousand dollars he has payed $0 into the healthcare. So why do I have to pay Johnny's bills?

And if Johnny just died in the streets, he'd stop costing the healthcare system money! :rolleyes:

My question today is quite simple, as a taxpayer do you mind your tax dollars being be used so that all citizens of your nation may have access to free health care and welfare services, such as income support, free child care etc.

If it is being used effectively, then yes. Somehow, in the current State of America, I can see it going down the shitter and fast. So, I'm torn. On the one hand, I have no problem with welfare and other such programs, even though I don't get them to begin with. On the other hand, I have met many people who abuse the system beyond all repair.

Food stamps, for instance. You'd think that food with no nutritional value wouldn't be allowed to be bought with food stamps.

And yet, like clockwork, in the last few days of the month, people load up and buy just the worst shit with foodstamps(Soda, Potato Chips, that kind of thing), and it really dismays me that this is allowed(I work at a grocery store, and it was one of my least favorite things to do is ringing up over a hundred dollars worth of crap just to be payed with food stamps).

However, if effective, I would not be at all disinclined to pay 10, 15, or even 20 percent or more in taxes if it meant that not only I, but others, could go to the doctor to ensure good health. People just can't afford to go in for preventative health care these days, and in the end it actually costs more once problems do arise than it ever would to just go in and get checked up every once in a while. A rather dismaying idea, really, that not only do people suffer more because they can't afford health care to begin with, but once a serious problem arises, they are footed with a bill that they can not pay.

So, really, health care only makes sense in the long run.

Do you even know where most of it goes?To expand the buissness give (aka create more jobs reduce unemployement).Oh and to answer the question on this poll i say no!!!(it's called should have got an education or shouldnt have done all those dum things when i was kid).

I really hate that...that whole sink or swim mentality in Americans and Conservatives

Healthcare I pay $1000 a year nobody in my family needs the doctor so we don't spend any money on healthcare. I lose $1000 out of my own pocket. Johnny pays nothing because he has no job. He does drugs and is spending a couple days a week in the hospital. His Hospital bills cost several thousand dollars he has payed $0 into the healthcare. So why do I have to pay Johnny's bills?

Meanwhile, your kid gets Hepatitis, you feel it's not worth it to go to the doctor for what appears to be a small problem(As the symptoms are similar to the common cold early on), then serious health problem start to arise in your child, leading to either:

A)Costing you far more money than you would ever pay for preventative health care.
B)Your child dying due to the disease being to far along to do anything.



If they work then why do they need my help?

Because they lack affordable, effective health care, perhaps? And doctors cost an ass ton of money. Health care is continuing on an upward shift in terms of cost, and wages just aren't keeping up enough for people to actually afford it.


If they have a cure for the disease then its not a serious threat is it?

Not every cure is affordable, nor even available. And yes, it is a threat if people can't afford to go for a checkup for what seems like less than serious problems, only to have infected several others(Such as with the flu). This actually costs far more money to everyone than if the person were to just be able to go in for a check up to begin with.


And even if it is I'm able to take precautions against such as eating right and keeping my immune system healthy and avoiding situations that increase the risk of catching the disease. If they don't have a cure for it then it really is a waste of money to try and treat it. You would be better off spending that money on research that discovers a cure not on ineffective treatment options.

Yes, but that is hardly a fool proof plan. Healthy people can get ill to, you know.

As well, "research" involves finding treatments moreso than finding cures. Treatments make money. Cures don't. For instance, there have been many things found recently that are affective at killing cancer cells. And yet, they are not being marketed. I wonder why. Cures don't make money.

Maybe if you help support them… they'll help support you? :eek:

I don't have any right to expect their help, and they have no right to expect mine. So expecting some unknown strange is going to come and throw handouts at my feet is never taken into consideration.

And if Johnny just died in the streets, he'd stop costing the healthcare system money!

I didn't force him into the lifestyle he chose. He did. I am not responsible for his choices in life. So if his choices cause him to turn up dead because he couldn't afford the price of his lifestyle (I don't mean purely in monetary terms either) oh well.

Police catches thief one less thief to break into my house. Whether he is caught breaking into my neighbors house or on the other side of the city.
But he didn't break into your house. You are paying police to go around arresting people that arn't bothering you and you can't be sure would ever bother you, waste of money.

Fire Protection I don't have to guard my property from fire personally leaving me free to go to work and make money.
Fire protection doesn't do shit. Fire fighters are not preventative, they are responsive. If a fire starts in your house, the fire fighters respond. If not, they don't. You are paying fire fighters even though they arn't fighting fires in your house.

Healthcare I pay $1000 a year nobody in my family needs the doctor so we don't spend any money on healthcare. I lose $1000 out of my own pocket. Johnny pays nothing because he has no job. He does drugs and is spending a couple days a week in the hospital. His Hospital bills cost several thousand dollars he has payed $0 into the healthcare. So why do I have to pay Johnny's bills?
Why are you paying for fire fighters to put out houses on fire on the other side of town? Why are you paying police to arrest a wife beater that isn't you?

If they have a cure for the disease then its not a serious threat is it?
Are you kidding me? Are you fucking kidding me? Anyone got a shot of polio or small pox laying around, I see some one who needs a dose of reality.

If my tax dollars were going to anything, I would be quite alarmed, seeing as our currency is the krona.

DAMMIT SWEDEN!!!! Conform!!!!:p

I really hate that...that whole sink or swim mentality in Americans and Conservatives

Hate it all you want, but taxes are a form of force. It's not that we don't want to help people, it's that we don't want to do it by FORCE. Americans donate heavily to charities. As a people we are plenty generous enough when left to our own devices. Taxes are a form of coercion by the Government and THAT I have a problem with.

Don't agree with me that it's a form of force? What will happen to you if you don't pay your taxes? The Government will TAKE it from your bank account. If they can't do that, you will be imprisoned. If that doesn't count as force, I don't know what does.

And that makes all the difference.

I don't have any right to expect their help, and they have no right to expect mine. So expecting some unknown strange is going to come and throw handouts at my feet is never taken into consideration.

Um, no. The point is that since some of your money is going to healthcare when they need help, some of their money will go to healthcare when you need help as well…

Are you kidding me? Are you fucking kidding me? Anyone got a shot of polio or small pox laying around, I see some one who needs a dose of reality.

Oh, well, those are threats to forn parts. Not here, were we can look after ourselves! :rolleyes:

:D

It's not that we don't want to help people,
Surprised me.

Americans donate heavily to charities. As a people we are plenty generous enough when left to our own devices. Taxes are a form of coercion by the Government and THAT I have a problem with.
Yet all the argument about socialized healthcare revolve around not wanting to shell out money to help other people.

But he didn't break into your house. You are paying police to go around arresting people that arn't bothering you and you can't be sure would ever bother you, waste of money.

It's simple math. 1000 houses 100 burglars. Each burglar breaks into 1 house. One of those houses is yours. That means your home has a 10% to be broken into.

1000 houses 10burglars. Each burglar breaks into 1 house. One of those houses is yours. That means your home has a 1% to be broken into.

Which of these situations do you prefer? Less criminals overall means less chance of me having to deal with one.

Fire protection doesn't do shit. Fire fighters are not preventative, they are responsive. If a fire starts in your house, the fire fighters respond. If not, they don't. You are paying fire fighters even though they arn't fighting fires in your house.

But what if my neighbors house catches on fire? Without a Fire department there is a good chance of it spreading to my house. For that matter what if a house several miles away catches fire? Unchecked it could reach my house and burn it down.

Yes, I do mind. It is no more than a system of bread and circuses to satisfy the various warring factions that political competition has created, each trying to one up the other. As bad as kingly rulership may have been, at least they did not indulge in the kind of whoredom that our thieving politicians do today.

Yes, I do mind. It is no more than a system of bread and circuses to satisfy the various warring factions that political competition has created, each trying to one up the other. As bad as kingly rulership may have been, at least they did not indulge in the kind of whoredom that our thieving politicians do today.

Oh, come now… be realistic.

It's simple math. 1000 houses 100 burglars. Each burglar breaks into 1 house. One of those houses is yours. That means your home has a 10% to be broken into.

1000 houses 10burglars. Each burglar breaks into 1 house. One of those houses is yours. That means your home has a 1% to be broken into.

Which of these situations do you prefer? Less criminals overall means less chance of me having to deal with one.
Of course we have to take into account police do other things besides go after burglars. Crimes that will never affect you unless done by some one you know - crimes of passion, domestic disputes, etc.

But what if my neighbors house catches on fire? Without a Fire department there is a good chance of it spreading to my house. For that matter what if a house several miles away catches fire? Unchecked it could reach my house and burn it down.
What if some other sick kid gives your kid the flu because they couldn't afford to go to the doctor?

I can play this game all day.

What if some other sick kid gives your kid the flu because they couldn't afford to go to the doctor?

I can play this game all day.

If a kid went to the doctor with the flu the doc can't exactly just hand out anti-virals for it so using the flu is a bad example. Sorry just being picky. Your general example stands

What if some other sick kid gives your kid the flu because they couldn't afford to go to the doctor?


Simple I take my kid to the doctor. Or even better get my kid a flu vaccine, preventing my kid from catching it in the first place.

Simple I take my kid to the doctor. Or even better get my kid a flu vaccine, preventing my kid from catching it in the first place.
And the point soars so far over your head you didn't know it was there.
Ok fine, you pay the full price to treat your kid for some communicable disease instead of paying a small fee to the government so other people will have the money to take their kids to the doctor and get treated so your kid doesn't get it in the first place.

Back to your fire example, if your neighbor's house catches on fire, who cares? The fire department can just wait until your house catches on fire, then they can put it out.
Or the cops can wait until your house is robbed then they will go arrest the guy.

Why are you bothering to pay for fire and police services for other people?

Do you even know where most of it goes?To expand the buissness give (aka create more jobs reduce unemployement).Oh and to answer the question on this poll i say no!!!(it's called should have got an education or shouldnt have done all those dum things when i was kid).

I thought the question asked about healthcare and childcare. How does being a child or getting cancer mean that somebody shouldn't have done dumb things as a child?

Surprised me.

whatever

Yet all the argument about socialized healthcare revolve around not wanting to shell out money to help other people.

No, they revolve around the idea that the Government isn't capable of running quality healthcare.

I mean, I know you guys like to demonize everybody who disagrees with you on this, painting conservatives as heartless greedy bastards but the fact is we, as conservatives can't understand what in the world makes people think the US Government, possibly the LEAST efficient and LEAST competent organization in the country is somehow magically going to swoop in and fix a healthcare system that's already the best in the world.

Seriously, people. Why do people from all over the world travel to the USA to get some types of surgery done? It ain't for the ambiance.

Ask the Government to run healthcare and you get Walter Reed. My sister, who is a former Air Force tech, has a disease that's put her in and out of VA hospitals most of her adult life. Talk about misery.

The US Government, the most wasteful and corrupt body to be found anywhere and you want to trust it with our healthcare.

Frankly it's more humanitarian to fight socialized healthcare than to support it.

I accidentally voted no, but I meant to say yes.:headbang:

I mind a lot! People say it is unfair that the poor can't live as comfortably as the wealthy, but how is it fair that the government is able to take my money and spend it for me.

No, they revolve around the idea that the Government isn't capable of running quality healthcare.
The only one I have ever seen espousing that view is you, and I have seen my share of people opposing omgcommiedemon universal healthcare.


I mind a lot! People say it is unfair that the poor can't live as comfortably as the wealthy, but how is it fair that the government is able to take my money and spend it for me.
I demand to know where you live so I might move there and live free of general taxes.

Oh, come now… be realistic.

I don't see how I'm being unrealistic. It IS a modern form of bread and circuses, and it's all the fault of the thieving democratic politicians. Kings never indulged in this kind of buffoonery (though they did do lesser evils.)

The only one I have ever seen espousing that view is you, and I have seen my share of people opposing omgcommiedemon universal healthcare.


Well maybe you've been listening to the wrong people. I hear it all the time.

Mind you, that's not to say that I reject the argument about money. I'm not a big fan of wealth redistribution. At the same time if I honestly believed the Government could take it and make it work and work WELL I'd probably support it. As it stands, I have no such faith so I'd rather spend my money on private healthcare where if I ever need to have my Gall Bladder removed I won't have to wait 6 months for the surgery.

I demand to know where you live so I might move there and live free of general taxes.

I live in Canada and am far from free from taxes. Gas tax, goods and services tax, provincial sales tax, income tax, business tax, and many others exist here. I was merely pointing out how my government takes my money (and everyone else's) in all of those ways and others and decides how I (we) should have spent it.

And the point soars so far over your head you didn't know it was there.
Ok fine, you pay the full price to treat your kid for some communicable disease instead of paying a small fee to the government so other people will have the money to take their kids to the doctor and get treated so your kid doesn't get it in the first place.

As far as the medical thing goes. You most live under a hell of a govt. if you would trust them with your health. All the govts. I know screw things up and take 10x as long to accomplish things as any other means.

Besides who said I would pay the full price of a doctors visit? I never said I wouldn't have health coverage. It's called private insurance. And before anyone says well that cost money too, Your absolutely correct. There is only one tiny difference between Private and Public. Private is MY CHOICE. If i decide I don't like the program I can always change to another or chose to drop it entirely. But you see it is totally up to me.

Back to your fire example, if your neighbor's house catches on fire, who cares? The fire department can just wait until your house catches on fire, then they can put it out.
Or the cops can wait until your house is robbed then they will go arrest the guy.

Why are you bothering to pay for fire and police services for other people?

I'm not paying the cops to prevent the burglars from robbing my neighbors house. I'm paying them to catch said burglars so he can't rob MY house. I'm not paying the fire dpt. to stop my neighbors house from burning to the ground I'm paying them to insure it does not spread to MY house.

As far as the medical thing goes. You most live under a hell of a govt. if you would trust them with your health. All the govts. I know screw things up and take 10x as long to accomplish things as any other means.
Who funds police and fire fighters in your area? At best, fire fighters will be volunteer, but police are state funded.

I'm not paying the cops to prevent the burglars from robbing my neighbors house. I'm paying them to catch said burglars so he can't rob MY house.
But they didn't rob your house, and as far as you know, they wern't going to. You are paying the police to stop burglars from robbing your neighbors.
I also like how you are ignoring my references to victimless crimes and crimes that are not serial and have no chance of affecting you (unlike burglary).

I'm not paying the fire dpt. to stop my neighbors house from burning to the ground I'm paying them to insure it does not spread to MY house.
But your house didn't catch on fire and as far as you know, it wasn't going to. You can pay the fire department to put out your house when it catches on fire, otherwise you are paying them to put out other peoples' houses.

To be frank, I don't see how you can be so stupid as to argue you are paying the police and firefighters to take preventative measures by acting for your neighbors but be so adamantly against contributing to a preventative healthcare system which would keep other people from being sick and thus you don't get sick. Your inability to reason and see the obvious and blatant similarity and parallel here would be astounding if I hadn't seen so many other people equally as dense.


EDIT: Now that I think about it,
There is only one tiny difference between Private and Public. Private is MY CHOICE. If i decide I don't like the program I can always change to another or chose to drop it entirely. But you see it is totally up to me.
So you pay for your insurance yourself? It isn't provided through your job?

My question today is quite simple, as a taxpayer do you mind your tax dollars being be used so that all citizens of your nation may have access to free health care and welfare services, such as income support, free child care etc.

As a taxpayer, I prefer to choose what my taxes are spent on, but that is a nonsensical idea.

I do suppose there are far worse things than health care coverage and education.

As far as the medical thing goes. You most live under a hell of a govt. if you would trust them with your health. All the govts. I know screw things up and take 10x as long to accomplish things as any other means.

Besides who said I would pay the full price of a doctors visit? I never said I wouldn't have health coverage. It's called private insurance. And before anyone says well that cost money too, Your absolutely correct. There is only one tiny difference between Private and Public. Private is MY CHOICE. If i decide I don't like the program I can always change to another or chose to drop it entirely. But you see it is totally up to me.

Hear, hear


I'm not paying the cops to prevent the burglars from robbing my neighbors house. I'm paying them to catch said burglars so he can't rob MY house. I'm not paying the fire dpt. to stop my neighbors house from burning to the ground I'm paying them to insure it does not spread to MY house.

You know, back in the 18th and 19th Centuries, Fire Protection was a form of insurance that was privately funded. The Fire departments were private companies who came out to put out your house if, and only if, you had insurance with them.

of course, some people would hire more than one firehouse at a time, which led to competing fire departments arguing in the street over who got to put out the fire whilst the house burned down in front of them.

Note: before anyone jumps on this as proof of the wonders of socialism, let me tell you an absolutely true story that actually appeared in the News of the Weird.

About 10 years ago a friend of mine, who was a firefighter, arrived on the scene of a burning house. About the same time, trucks from a neighboring municipal fire station arrived. An argument ensued over which deprtment had jurisdiction over the fire. As I recall, the argument nearly came to blows, meanwhile, the house burned...

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

About 10 years ago a friend of mine, who was a firefighter, arrived on the scene of a burning house. About the same time, trucks from a neighboring municipal fire station arrived. An argument ensued over which deprtment had jurisdiction over the fire. As I recall, the argument nearly came to blows, meanwhile, the house burned...

The local fire department and EMTs do that since fire trucks respond to the same things as EMTs.

Of course, your point is irrelevant since it is obvious that total fire coverage is better than only getting fire coverage if you pay for it.

The local fire department and EMTs do that since fire trucks respond to the same things as EMTs.

Of course, your point is irrelevant since it is obvious that total fire coverage is better than only getting fire coverage if you pay for it.

I never mentioned EMTs.

And as it happens, I agree that total coverage is better. It's just an anecdote.

There ALREADY IS free healthcare for the poor in the US. It is called Medicare and Medicaid. Some states even offer more. I don't understand why everything needs to be federal. If a state wants 'free' healthcare then let them provide it. Same for any city or even county. They are all tax-collecting entities. If it is that spectacular of an idea then all states will eventually jump onboard. If it is a shitty idea then it will be demonstrated on a much smaller scale than nationwide. That is the WHOLE point of a decentralized government - letting each community decide their own values and enact their own legislation - right?

Loaded question? much?

Yeah sure.

Yes, I do mind. It is no more than a system of bread and circuses to satisfy the various warring factions that political competition has created, each trying to one up the other. As bad as kingly rulership may have been, at least they did not indulge in the kind of whoredom that our thieving politicians do today.
The phrase "bread and circuses" comes from the Roman Empire, which was ruled by the emperor. Monarchs have had to politic just as much as current leaders.

If they work then why do they need my help?
They can't work, because they need medical treatment. Giving them medical treatment allows them to work. This is why Wal-Mart (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/07/AR2007020700944.html) was in favor of giving worker's health coverage, something you would not normally expect from that company.

If they have a cure for the disease then its not a serious threat is it? And even if it is I'm able to take precautions against such as eating right and keeping my immune system healthy and avoiding situations that increase the risk of catching the disease. If they don't have a cure for it then it really is a waste of money to try and treat it. You would be better off spending that money on research that discovers a cure not on ineffective treatment options.
For the cure to work, it has to be administered (i.e., healthcare). The mere existence of a cure does not work. If that were true, I would never have to get a tetanus vaccine.
Suppose the following happens: you get a disease that while treatable, still impedes your daily activity. Your income requires that you make a decision between food and insurance, so naturally you choose food. Now, like most jobs that pay what you're getting, there are not only few benefits, but there is no worker's leave. If you stay home for a week in order to recover, you're fired. So, now you're sick, have no job (and thus no way of buying anything, food or insurance), and will just have to go without money for a while.
Universal healthcare will not eliminate all of these problems, and it will have a few of its own. However, it is better than the alternative, where the lack of healthcare is not only a health risk, but a financial one.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=531295

The phrase "bread and circuses" comes from the Roman Empire, which was ruled by the emperor. Monarchs have had to politic just as much as current leaders.

Possibly. But for a long time Rome still retained its republicanism; the Emperor wasn't even always considered a monarch. Also, prior to the rise of democratic states, spending under monarchs was usually somewhere around 5%.(1) One half went to the military, one half went to government administration. Nowadays, at about 50%, the vast majority goes to social programs and the welfare state.(2) So, saying that monarchs had to politic just as much as current leaders is, indeed, empirically inaccurate.

(1) H.J. Schoeps, Preussen, Geschichte eines Staates
(2) P. Flora, State, Economy and Society

There ALREADY IS free healthcare for the poor in the US. It is called Medicare and Medicaid. Some states even offer more. I don't understand why everything needs to be federal. If a state wants 'free' healthcare then let them provide it. Same for any city or even county. They are all tax-collecting entities. If it is that spectacular of an idea then all states will eventually jump onboard. If it is a shitty idea then it will be demonstrated on a much smaller scale than nationwide. That is the WHOLE point of a decentralized government - letting each community decide their own values and enact their own legislation - right?

Yes... for the poor. There is a fairly large number, however, in the lower middle, to straight middle class who cannot afford health coverage, and do not meet the requirement for state funded health care. Basically, they are getting screwed.

Yes, I damn well do mind.

I have no problem helping the poor. If a poor person asks me for help, I always do whatever I can for them. But resorting to armed robbery is not the answer - and armed robbery is exactly what that is. For those who spout nonsense such as "taxation is consensual," I ask them to stop paying taxes, and see for themselves how "consensual" it really is.

A major problem with universal health care is that it leads to a loss of freedoms across the board. Some people have already alluded to that a bit.

I'm all for preventitive health care. And the good thing about a universal health care system is that it would most likely stress prevention alot more than it is currently stressed now (at least in the US). But when does prevention stop? At what point does the gov't ban all unhealthy foods, ban all unhealthy or dangerous recreational activities, etc?

Or, does the gov't just require me as a taxpayer to subsidize other people's poor decisions?

Here is a thought: How about people provide for themselves?! Is that really hard to grasp and understand? OH I know people will bitch and moan about how not everyone can provide for themselves, but they should rely on friends and family, and perhaps even private charity, but the not the government. Welfare is a crutch for the weak. Universal health care is a retarded idea. Why the hell should my money go to pay for someone I have never met, will never meet, and have no desire to meet? I'd rather help out a friend or family member privately, and if needs be start up a collection than pay money to people I don't know, and don't care to meet.

A major problem with universal health care is that it leads to a loss of freedoms across the board. Some people have already alluded to that a bit.

I'm all for preventitive health care. And the good thing about a universal health care system is that it would most likely stress prevention alot more than it is currently stressed now (at least in the US). But when does prevention stop? At what point does the gov't ban all unhealthy foods, ban all unhealthy or dangerous recreational activities, etc?

Or, does the gov't just require me as a taxpayer to subsidize other people's poor decisions?

They could go the health insurance route and discourage unhealthy behavior(But not ban it) by either:

A)Reduced coverage(Instead of full, the government will pay part, and you have to pay a deductible; or perhaps a loss of some sorts of coverage)

or

B)Increase taxation for those whom live unhealthy lifestyle, so that they may pick up more of the burden they pose to such a system.

And hell, for those who are in extremely high risk choices(Stunt junkies who just love to do stupid shit that poses a massive risk to themselves) could even lose coverage for injuries sustained when they act stupidly.

There are possibilities. You could even make it optional. If you want coverage, you could opt into it, on an individual basis, and pay higher taxes if you want it. More accessible, and affordable, than actual insurance, but you are not forced into it. I would, for instance, opt into it over having no insurance whatsoever(As my job doesn't cover me, and getting health insurance from outside sources would be far to expensive, and inaccessible, to me, as well as not exactly providing the greatest coverage for an ass ton of money). So really, there are options that can be explored.

But when does prevention stop? At what point does the gov't ban all unhealthy foods, ban all unhealthy or dangerous recreational activities, etc?
At a point far before all the anti-commies and supposedly charitable people stop universal healthcare. Sodas and snacks in kids schools? Nuh uh, don't think so.

Or, does the gov't just require me as a taxpayer to subsidize other people's poor decisions?
Poor decisions like getting sick and not being able to afford medicine? Yeah, good idea, let's not do that.

Oh, and while we are at it, let's not pay the government for fire fighters to put out the homes of people who were smoking and dropped their cigarette on some furniture, or left their space heather on too long.

And let's not pay police to respond to domestic abuse because the wife should have left soon as she saw the first signs.

Why the hell should my money go to pay for someone I have never met, will never meet, and have no desire to meet?
Why don't you stop paying taxes and make that argument after they arrest you?

Here is a thought: How about people provide for themselves?! Is that really hard to grasp and understand? OH I know people will bitch and moan about how not everyone can provide for themselves, but they should rely on friends and family, and perhaps even private charity, but the not the government. Welfare is a crutch for the weak. Universal health care is a retarded idea. Why the hell should my money go to pay for someone I have never met, will never meet, and have no desire to meet? I'd rather help out a friend or family member privately, and if needs be start up a collection than pay money to people I don't know, and don't care to meet.

Ummm and you cannot see any flaws in this system?

Here is a thought: How about people provide for themselves?! Is that really hard to grasp and understand? OH I know people will bitch and moan about how not everyone can provide for themselves, but they should rely on friends and family, and perhaps even private charity, but the not the government. Welfare is a crutch for the weak. Universal health care is a retarded idea. Why the hell should my money go to pay for someone I have never met, will never meet, and have no desire to meet? I'd rather help out a friend or family member privately, and if needs be start up a collection than pay money to people I don't know, and don't care to meet.

The system where friends/family and charities where suposed to take care of the poor and the sick was tried under the wonderful system imposed during the dark ages. It resulted in people dying of (even back then) very easily treatable diseases. This came from the simple fact that the poor where the ones who suffered from more diseases and ofcourse theyre families where poor too, so unable to help out as much as needed. And suposedly the church would help out (pretty much the only charity in the dark ages), but in practice the bishops/priests/nuns/monks/etc enjoyed their luxuries too much and didnt offer anywhere near the amount of charity that was needed.

Thats why the government should provide universal healthcare, private donations simply wont even come close to covering the amount of money that is needed to provide for the poor, the sick and the infirm.

And frankly, i think anyone who opposes universal healthcare is just a sick selfish bastard who doesnt deserve a treatment spot in any medical facilty on this planet...

Here is a thought: How about people provide for themselves?! Is that really hard to grasp and understand? OH I know people will bitch and moan about how not everyone can provide for themselves, but they should rely on friends and family, and perhaps even private charity, but the not the government. Welfare is a crutch for the weak. Universal health care is a retarded idea. Why the hell should my money go to pay for someone I have never met, will never meet, and have no desire to meet? I'd rather help out a friend or family member privately, and if needs be start up a collection than pay money to people I don't know, and don't care to meet.
I'm not sure I want to reply to someone named "Trollgaard".

However, troll or not, you do bring up the point many people have said, that is, "Why should all tax-payers pay for the poor?" Firstly, universal healthcare would cover everyone, including people who can afford healthcare normally. In fact, universal healthcare would give you more of your money than the current situation (in the US at least) where the Medicare program pays for only some people.
Secondly, what do you think the government is doing with your money right now? There's not a deposit box in the Treasury with your name on it that the government takes out whenever you receive one of its services. Your taxes get mixed in with the rest. They pay for soldiers you don't know, sick people you don't know, even politicians you don't know.
Finally, there is the argument that private groups should meet the need. To this I can only ask, "Why?" There is an enormously rich and powerful institution in the form of the government that could do the job that many smaller and less powerful groups are currently doing. And if you think families and friends should foot the bill, try paying for one year all of the medical expenses for all the people in your family (and no insurance). In 1998, healthcare cost was $4,178 per capita. It's not pleasant.

I'm not sure I want to reply to someone named "Trollgaard".

However, troll or not, you do bring up the point many people have said, that is, "Why should all tax-payers pay for the poor?" Firstly, universal healthcare would cover everyone, including people who can afford healthcare normally. In fact, universal healthcare would give you more of your money than the current situation (in the US at least) where the Medicare program pays for only some people.
Secondly, what do you think the government is doing with your money right now? There's not a deposit box in the Treasury with your name on it that the government takes out whenever you receive one of its services. Your taxes get mixed in with the rest. They pay for soldiers you don't know, sick people you don't know, even politicians you don't know.
Finally, there is the argument that private groups should meet the need. To this I can only ask, "Why?" There is an enormously rich and powerful institution in the form of the government that could do the job that many smaller and less powerful groups are currently doing. And if you think families and friends should foot the bill, try paying for one year all of the medical expenses for all the people in your family (and no insurance). In 1998, healthcare cost was $4,178 per capita. It's not pleasant.

Well I don't believe its the governments business in the first place. Also it would make people that much more dependent on the government, and increase the size of the government. Here in America we were supposed to have a small government, but year by year it grows...

Well I don't believe its the governments business in the first place. Also it would make people that much more dependent on the government, and increase the size of the government. Here in America we were supposed to have a small government, but year by year it grows...

And where do you get that idea? No where in the Constitution does it say that our government is supposed to be small, nor does it say it should be large. Instead, it allows flexibility and a great deal of vagueness on that issue.

In truth, the debate over "Big vs. Small" isn't even anything new. It's been going on since nearly the beginning of the United States(Infact, a great example of the failures of a small government were the Articles of Confederation, and the Confederate States of America, which was not even able to efficiently put down a rebellion of farmers).