PS: the fact that it's close to a Republican bill means nothing to me as the Republicans have just as bad a track record on liberty.
"Liberty" is such an abstract and loaded word that it's really not productive to debate how much "liberty" we want, or who's got a good track record on "liberty." Absent any context or clarification, it's little more than a rah-rah buzzword to rile up constituents for or against something you don't like. We all want it in the abstract, but without specifying where to draw the boxes around your liberty to swing your fist and my liberty to live without having my face punched, we're really not getting anywhere.
That's pretty well said.
You know what would mean "liberty" for me? A single-payer health system, administered by the government. I'd have the liberty to change jobs, without worrying about losing/downgrading my health care. I'd have liberty from worrying about where the hell I'm going to get the funds to pay an additional $500+ bill every month, after losing my job. I'd have the liberty to go to any doctor I want, instead of being artificially restricted to whoever my insurer dictates (yay, Kaiser HMO!). I'd have the liberty to go to the closest, least-busy hospital, when I need to. I'd have the liberty to get out-of-state medical care when I'm traveling, without worrying about how much is covered by insurance.
Having lived on both sides of the US/Canada border, it's the Canadian system (even with all its imperfections) that's more liberating, by far. Even though it's government administered. (The higher taxes thing is a red-herring -- by the time you pay for health insurance post-taxes, the difference is negligible.)
You mean it would provide you, personally, with more of what you call "liberty".
And everyone else I know, too. I know a great many people who were afraid to look for a better job, consequently improving their lot in life, because they were concerned about keeping their medical insurance. I know a great many people who are frustrated about losing doctors they liked, because they had to switch insurance. What I wrote above would provide liberty to a greater class of people than just myself.
You aren't considering that someone has to pay that $500. That there is no such thing as a free lunch. If you aren't paying for services (labor) that you receive, someone else is. That doesn't seem to matter to you as long as that someone isn't you.
Really? I'm not considering that? When you decided that, perhaps you weren't considering that I'm somewhere above "moron" on the scale of intelligentsia? I'm quite well aware that the funding for a single-payer system comes from somewhere, and that there's no such thing as a free lunch. The notion that people in favour of "socialized" medicine just want something for nothing is nothing but an old canard.
That is very far from the philosophical principle of liberty. In fact, it is the complete opposite, and more correctly referred to as "selfishness" or simply "stealing."
IMHO, you have it exactly backwards. By paying into a single-payer system via my taxes, I know that my funds are being used to provide
anyone and everyone with medical care. Including you, if necessary. Because I believe so strongly in the importance of everyone having good access to medical care regardless of their financial situation, I'm willing to contribute so that
everyone has the same liberties that I described above; so that everyone can have the opportunity to be as healthy as possible. And in the event that I need to draw on it? So be it... but so far, I put far more into the (Canadian) system than I ever took out. I pay into it so that everyone can benefit... not just me. I've paid far more into the US system than I've ever taken out, too, but here I have no confidence that any surplus funds have done anything but line the pockets of an insurance executive.
On the other hand, you seem to be arguing for your funds only being of benefit to you. And you accuse me of selfishness?
Cheers,
Edit: Trimmed incendiary comment...
Previous Topic
Index
