This is a gross mischaracterization of the position I and mamy others hold. Fundamentally, I will pay twice as much to avoid the state dipping its slimy fingers into another aspect of my life. More practically, our screwed-up healthcare system resulted from state involvement (FDA bureaucracy, wage & price controls, etc.), so I don't think more state involvement will fix a thing.
You know what really screwed things up? The ability for people to pay (two times, ten times, whatever) to get whatever they want and not give a f about how this affects society, and in particular the people without the ability to pay $$$ to get their will.
What on earth are you dreaming that could give you the right to pay for the ability to deny health care to the rest of society??
Because without that society, you too, are nothing.
I am not paying to deny any one any thing; rather I am simply not paying for them to receive it. What is wrong with paying to get what I want? How does my purchase of medical treatment harm another?
> Because without that society, you too, are nothing.
This reflects a profound ideological difference between you and me. I believe the individual's value is a unique, personal thing that exists independent of society; you seem to think individuals are without value on their own. You are evidently a much more collectivist person. That's fine, go form your collective, but don't force others to enter at gunpoint.
But you said you would rather pay twice as much for healthcare if it avoids that money would also be spent to help others. Sounds to me like you'd be paying extra so others don't receive it.
I'm probably misunderstanding something you said here, because even accounting for that profound ideological difference, that still seems really weird.
And speaking of that, well first let me deny that I think individuals are without value on their own. Indeed I am apparently much more of a collectivist person; but it is because I believe in every individual's value that we all should take care of each other, in order for that value to prosper. What I meant was, without a society, you are just some weirdo without a bank account, knocking on a doctor's door, twice. Which was probably a bit hyperbolic.
I was going to argue my side of this ideological divide, but I should really be spending my energy elsewhere (what I had half-written was getting way too long) ... so I'm gonna leave it at that.
> But you said you would rather pay twice as much for healthcare if it avoids that money would also be spent to help others. Sounds to me like you'd be paying extra so others don't receive it.
No, I said that I'd pay more for a private vs a cheaper _government_ alternative. My objection is to government involvement, not to helping out my fellow man. I give to private charities because I believe they are more effective and more moral.
Well, it's what happens in practice to real people. So go you.
Edit: It also doesn't make sense. You are giving the government just as much money as people do in northern europe, and the government gets to play around with it and decide JUST AS MUCH about you and your care.
