Note by Site Admin: The posts below dated March 8, 2007 were split off from this thread, which you may refer to for context. Well that is only if you think national health care is good for the society. I actually don't see a problem with the system now. The poor and disabled get Medicaid and those with a job/money are forced to purchase it themselves. Those who don't qualify for Medicaid are those with income. A national health care program would simply take an extra 30% in taxes out of their paycheck. Why can't those who don't qualify for Medicaid (because they have income) simply take an extra 30% from their paycheck and pay for medical expenses/insurance. One might say, "Well because they can't afford it." Well that's exactly what a national health care system would do. But not only would the government take their money, they would also take away their freedom to choose the health care system they want to purchase.
Well it sounds to me that Eso agrees with me. One cannot dictate how much other's should give to the government. Therefore, the government should not dictate how much we give them! :wink: :lol:
You got me on that one. I, however, am not free to go to the beach in your country without vomiting! :lol: (I heard it's usually not a pretty site considering the one's who choose to be naked) :wink:
Which beach ? I thought there is no sea in C.R... If Czech could have a small ocean, I would vote it for Paradise on Earth...
Bill Clinton tried to implement a VAT here in the U.S. during his presidency for the same reason--to fund health care. Of course, he argued that consumers wouldn't have to pay anything, that the VAT would be paid by businesses. Of course this was both untrue and dangerously deceptive, 1) any added expenses businesses incur are passed on to the consumer, and 2) consumers would never see this tax, and since the price listed in the store would be exactly what the consumer paid (no adding 8% or so to the store prices), the average American consumer would think he's getting a good deal. :roll:
It can be true, if you have your personal state, where you are alone and everything is yours If you are two and more, you have to negotiate. If in USA majority don't want public health care, ok. If in Czech republic majority want to, let be it.
It's irrelevant whether you can refuse it, you must pay for it. Well, I read it in a different way*: "Others can dictate to me, how much I have to pay to government." This is true, of course, but I can understand what's the coherence with personal freedom. * That's a conditioned reflex, whenever somebody talks in plural about property or costs, I understand he wants my money. :wink: I acknowledge with thanks you wrote here about the society and not about the state. The difference is principal.
I know, what you think, but in reality, society is very theoretical entity, which contains many different, often antagonistic, groups. State is result of equation of powers of these groups
I hope with all my heart that USA majority will never be blind enough to vote in a National Health Care System. However, if they do vote in some sort of government funded health care system, I hope it is by state only. That way if your state votes it in, you can move to a different state without having to leave your country and citizenship. I agree that government has it's place. However, the smaller the better. Laws need to be made and should be made based on the desires of the society. However, it should be for that small society, not the entire country. People in middle town American may live quite differently than people in say, Las Angelas or San Francisco. For instance, those in San Francisco may want it to be legal for women to walk around topless, but those in middle town America may not want it legal. Well majority should rule and those who don't like it can move to the other part of the country. However, when you allow the federal government to make too many decisions on the entire country, to where can you move? That's why government should remain small and the Federal government shouldn't be determining health care for everyone in this country.
Be careful with the "majority rule" question, though. Part of the reason for having a constitution in any state with a republican form of government is to protect the "inalienable" rights of its citizens, without regard to what the majority decides they want. Of course, the issue of rights is a complicated one, as (for example, since the topic already came up) some would say that they have a right not to live in a place where they and their children would be exposed to topless women in public, whereas others might argue that women have a right to go topless in public. Where to draw the line between rights and majority rule is a tricky issue.
I agree it's a very tricky issue. Majority can't rule in every situation which is why we have the Bill of Rights. However, in some things, it simply has to go with majority rule because everyone can't simply have their own way such as in your example above. Which is why, if government stays small, one has the option to move to a different place. I mean practically speaking, if you were against women going around topless, you probably wouldn't want to live around a bunch of people that were for it whether it became legal or not. There would be other issues and ways of life in that community that would consistently offend you so you probably would want to move anyhow. At least I would. Not that I don't want to be exposed to other beliefs and ways of life. However, I would be most comfortable rearing my children in a community where other's believed closely to the way I believe as not to give my children too much exposure to things I'm against. After all, children have fragile minds that should be guarded by parents. Once they reach adulthood, they can be exposed to other ways of life and choose their own way. Take the Old Testament Bible for example. Every time Jews lived in foreign land, the children eventually gave up the Jewish customs and began practices of non-Jews. Once again, not that it is bad to learn other customs. However, if you want your children to continue your customs and way of life, you need to rear them in a community of such.
While liberty and freedom are (I believe) God given rights, don't each of our individual rights end when they begin to infringe on another's rights? It is for the good of the whole that it is illegal for me to drop my litter on the ground. Of course that is a very pedestrian example, but here in America we are having a culture and values war between those who believe the rights of the individual are supreme (with the inevitable conclusion of "Society be damned.") and those who believe that as human beings in community, we have a responsibility to consider how our choices and actions affect the community, which I guess leads us to the inevitable question, "Who is my neighbor?" It is a rather heady proposition to predict the consequences in a society when the attiude and choices of a life that champions the rights of an individual is played out. But if we consider the logical outcomes in the microscosmic community of a classroom, it is perhaps easier to see how the obvious conclusion will be anarchy and the collapse of the community. Didn't radical individualism and moral anarchy contribute to the collapse of the Roman Empire?
The former strike me as really being of the persuasion that their own rights are supreme and to hell with everyone else. But, of course, such are more likely to speak out for what they want, and we all know it's the "squeaky wheel" that gets the grease. :roll:
