There's actually nothing wrong with this. Healthcare shouldn't be universal or socialized. It should be privatized and then many people would die simply because they couldn't afford healthcare and that's a good thing. We shouldn't be investing resources into worthless people.
Funny, because I consider the people who think people deserve healthcare simply because they exist to be the insane ones. If anything given to you requires the labor of another, that is slavery. It's fine if you negotiate a fair price for someone to work for you but if you require them to do work for you in the name of socialism that's as slavery as it gets.
Funny, because I consider the people who think people deserve healthcare simply because they exist to be the insane ones
Those are not the only two options. But it's far more insane to think that Taylor Lorenz, Joe Biden and Mark Zuckerberg deserve health care, but someone who's out of work due to government policy deserves to die and he's a good thing.
If anything given to you requires the labor of another, that is slavery
Slavery is ownership of another person. But I notice that you aren't even trying to defend your claim that it is a good thing if people who can't afford health care die.
but someone who's out of work due to government policy
This isn't a very good argument against someone who's talking about their opposition to socialism: if someone is out of work due to "government policy," that's a whole different failure that has nothing to do with whether or not healthcare is 'affordable'.
The only reason you think the people you listed don't deserve healthcare over another is because of the inherent corruption in our system. We don't promote a moral national capitalist system and instead promote an immoral international capitalist system so those who climb within the system are often not virtuous people. However, there are many that do climb who are virtuous and just because you don't have money doesn't mean you are virtuous. Many who lack resources in our society do in fact lack value. Overall, our system would be better if we only have healthcare to those who could afford it. We should also make strides towards promoting a more moral nationalist capitalist system so that men like Biden or Zuckerberg aren't able to exploit the system through immoral means to gain resources. That's a separate issue though and shouldn't be conflated.
If all you are to this society is a worker at McDonalds without a strong family who has proven their worth to this society and you get sick with $10,000,000 worth of healthcare, if you cannot plead your case to another rich person willing to volunteer their funds away to pay for your care, then yes, you should die. The strain on our society by diverting resources toward people who contribute very little to keep them alive for the sake of keeping them alive is immense and doesn't actually produce a better society in the end. Every one is going to die. Keeping people alive as long as possible for the sake of doing isn't productive at all nor is it even a good thing. We could be better diverting our resources to other ventures that are better for society.
Now, there are other issues. I get that. Why can drug companies have patents on drugs in the manner in which they do for the length of that that they do. Are IP laws even a good thing? Those are questions we can ask and perhaps make changes to. I will admit that our system is far from perfect but just because the system is imperfect doesn't mean we must promote socialism in healthcare because such a system is also far from the ideal. We should be instead making grounds toward better systems which means tweaking things like IP law and enforcing morality upon society to ensure those who get ahead do so for the right reasons and not for the sake of profit-seeking over exploiting others and promoting moral degeneracy or other ventures that are overall net negatives to the culture of our society.
Ideally speaking, if we have a perfect meritocracy grounded in good solid objective morals then those who can't afford healthcare do in fact deserve to die because only those who can pay for the healthcare themselves or solicit the help of their social networks have contributed enough to society to make keeping them alive worthwhile and in society's interest. This is true equity and justice. Keeping people alive for the sake of keeping people alive is unjust because you are wasting the resources of society as a whole against that society's will to promote a value that by no means is actually a good one. You're throwing valuable resources at a dead end (literally).
There are certain considerations when talking healthcare. What is ideal isn't necessarily attainable given certain realities. The most practical solution to healthcare is to have a bare minimum healthcare that is socialized. Something like that is not too strenuous on resources. You break your arm, you get patched up. You catch an STI, you get some antibiotics. However, all healthcare beyond this should be privatized. You want cutting edge treatment for some rare disease only 3 people in the country also have, then you pay out of pocket.
No, people dying because they can’t afford healthcare isn’t a good thing, it’s a bad thing, a terrible thing.
The good news is that privatized healthcare would be far cheaper than government healthcare, and any remaining gap could be covered by charitable and religious organizations.
Government healthcare isn’t a problem just because it’s expensive, inefficient and eventually leads to government encouraging people to kill themselves like in Canada, but because it’s also a huge contributor to the slippery slope of government power and authority which eventually leads to escalation of all manner of atrocities and abuse, which in turn eventually leads to hell on earth.
I agree with your second paragraph completely. I also agree that if charitable groups want to cover the difference, that is all on them.
I want you to understand though that charitable groups will not be able to afford the difference. If your entire argument is based on this presumption that by privatization healthcare it will reduce the cost such that charity groups can easily make up the difference for those who can't afford healthcare, you are wrong. You're selling yourself a fantasy in order to not have to deal with the moral conundrum of not wanting public healthcare but also wanting all people who can't afford healthcare to get treatment. It's a fairy tale and it's why leftists are so opposed to your arguments because they know it's wrong. You will get some donations and some charity but you will not get enough and that's fine. You're going to need to come to terms with that.
Part of the reason charity is better than government is it allows people to control the funds. Perhaps they only want the funds to go toward healthcare related to issues that aren't drug related. That's good. Let them direct the funds on a manner they are most appropriate. It's their money. Only want to treat white people and not blacks? By all mean. Let them. But don't expect there to be enough funds because there won't be.
Also, healthcare will in fact get more expensive not less because the price will properly reflect the supply and demand but this is a good thing. Those with money to spend will spend it which will increase wages in the industry to leading to more innovation and better quality treatment which in the end is a better outcome for society as a whole. Socialized healthcare reduces the innovation in the industry and leads to less effieicnt. We don't divert resources properly given the supply and demand. This is what leads to shortages of workers, not enough hospital beds, not enough doctors, surgeons etc... (Though the doctors guilds and their monopoly on training/certification needs to be abolished also). Privatized healthcare will likely lead to a result where the most cutting edge and best healthcare goes up in price significantly, the average healthcare treatments goes up a little but with much better quality of service. You'll start to see more disparity in the quality of healthcare such as say the difference between money managers that manage $100k at a retail bank vs. money managers that manage $100,000,000 in net worth at a wealth management firm. Middle-class people will have access to better quality healthcare if they are willing to pay for it. Good doctors will be paid more. Bad doctors will be paid less. People will start shopping with their wallet and that's a good thing. The outcome is better. Privatized healthcare is superior in all regards.
I just want to reiterate though that if you fully privatize healthcare some people will not get enough money to get their treatment even with charities funding people and that's fine. If you don't think that's fine you shouldn't promote privatized healthcare. You're just fooling yourself because you can't take the next logical step morally and lose this idea that human life is worth saving for its mere sake. It's not. Your existence doesn't mean you have value and if you don't have value, no one has any reason to save you and no one should be under any obligation to save you if they don't want to.
There's actually nothing wrong with this. Healthcare shouldn't be universal or socialized. It should be privatized and then many people would die simply because they couldn't afford healthcare and that's a good thing. We shouldn't be investing resources into worthless people.
This place sometimes feels like an open-air asylum.
The guy did say elsewhere in this thread that he does not believe in human rights.
Logically, by his own beliefs, killing him is not wrong. No right to life.
Funny, because I consider the people who think people deserve healthcare simply because they exist to be the insane ones. If anything given to you requires the labor of another, that is slavery. It's fine if you negotiate a fair price for someone to work for you but if you require them to do work for you in the name of socialism that's as slavery as it gets.
Those are not the only two options. But it's far more insane to think that Taylor Lorenz, Joe Biden and Mark Zuckerberg deserve health care, but someone who's out of work due to government policy deserves to die and he's a good thing.
Slavery is ownership of another person. But I notice that you aren't even trying to defend your claim that it is a good thing if people who can't afford health care die.
This isn't a very good argument against someone who's talking about their opposition to socialism: if someone is out of work due to "government policy," that's a whole different failure that has nothing to do with whether or not healthcare is 'affordable'.
The only reason you think the people you listed don't deserve healthcare over another is because of the inherent corruption in our system. We don't promote a moral national capitalist system and instead promote an immoral international capitalist system so those who climb within the system are often not virtuous people. However, there are many that do climb who are virtuous and just because you don't have money doesn't mean you are virtuous. Many who lack resources in our society do in fact lack value. Overall, our system would be better if we only have healthcare to those who could afford it. We should also make strides towards promoting a more moral nationalist capitalist system so that men like Biden or Zuckerberg aren't able to exploit the system through immoral means to gain resources. That's a separate issue though and shouldn't be conflated.
If all you are to this society is a worker at McDonalds without a strong family who has proven their worth to this society and you get sick with $10,000,000 worth of healthcare, if you cannot plead your case to another rich person willing to volunteer their funds away to pay for your care, then yes, you should die. The strain on our society by diverting resources toward people who contribute very little to keep them alive for the sake of keeping them alive is immense and doesn't actually produce a better society in the end. Every one is going to die. Keeping people alive as long as possible for the sake of doing isn't productive at all nor is it even a good thing. We could be better diverting our resources to other ventures that are better for society.
Now, there are other issues. I get that. Why can drug companies have patents on drugs in the manner in which they do for the length of that that they do. Are IP laws even a good thing? Those are questions we can ask and perhaps make changes to. I will admit that our system is far from perfect but just because the system is imperfect doesn't mean we must promote socialism in healthcare because such a system is also far from the ideal. We should be instead making grounds toward better systems which means tweaking things like IP law and enforcing morality upon society to ensure those who get ahead do so for the right reasons and not for the sake of profit-seeking over exploiting others and promoting moral degeneracy or other ventures that are overall net negatives to the culture of our society.
Ideally speaking, if we have a perfect meritocracy grounded in good solid objective morals then those who can't afford healthcare do in fact deserve to die because only those who can pay for the healthcare themselves or solicit the help of their social networks have contributed enough to society to make keeping them alive worthwhile and in society's interest. This is true equity and justice. Keeping people alive for the sake of keeping people alive is unjust because you are wasting the resources of society as a whole against that society's will to promote a value that by no means is actually a good one. You're throwing valuable resources at a dead end (literally).
There are certain considerations when talking healthcare. What is ideal isn't necessarily attainable given certain realities. The most practical solution to healthcare is to have a bare minimum healthcare that is socialized. Something like that is not too strenuous on resources. You break your arm, you get patched up. You catch an STI, you get some antibiotics. However, all healthcare beyond this should be privatized. You want cutting edge treatment for some rare disease only 3 people in the country also have, then you pay out of pocket.
No, people dying because they can’t afford healthcare isn’t a good thing, it’s a bad thing, a terrible thing.
The good news is that privatized healthcare would be far cheaper than government healthcare, and any remaining gap could be covered by charitable and religious organizations.
Government healthcare isn’t a problem just because it’s expensive, inefficient and eventually leads to government encouraging people to kill themselves like in Canada, but because it’s also a huge contributor to the slippery slope of government power and authority which eventually leads to escalation of all manner of atrocities and abuse, which in turn eventually leads to hell on earth.
I agree with your second paragraph completely. I also agree that if charitable groups want to cover the difference, that is all on them.
I want you to understand though that charitable groups will not be able to afford the difference. If your entire argument is based on this presumption that by privatization healthcare it will reduce the cost such that charity groups can easily make up the difference for those who can't afford healthcare, you are wrong. You're selling yourself a fantasy in order to not have to deal with the moral conundrum of not wanting public healthcare but also wanting all people who can't afford healthcare to get treatment. It's a fairy tale and it's why leftists are so opposed to your arguments because they know it's wrong. You will get some donations and some charity but you will not get enough and that's fine. You're going to need to come to terms with that.
Part of the reason charity is better than government is it allows people to control the funds. Perhaps they only want the funds to go toward healthcare related to issues that aren't drug related. That's good. Let them direct the funds on a manner they are most appropriate. It's their money. Only want to treat white people and not blacks? By all mean. Let them. But don't expect there to be enough funds because there won't be.
Also, healthcare will in fact get more expensive not less because the price will properly reflect the supply and demand but this is a good thing. Those with money to spend will spend it which will increase wages in the industry to leading to more innovation and better quality treatment which in the end is a better outcome for society as a whole. Socialized healthcare reduces the innovation in the industry and leads to less effieicnt. We don't divert resources properly given the supply and demand. This is what leads to shortages of workers, not enough hospital beds, not enough doctors, surgeons etc... (Though the doctors guilds and their monopoly on training/certification needs to be abolished also). Privatized healthcare will likely lead to a result where the most cutting edge and best healthcare goes up in price significantly, the average healthcare treatments goes up a little but with much better quality of service. You'll start to see more disparity in the quality of healthcare such as say the difference between money managers that manage $100k at a retail bank vs. money managers that manage $100,000,000 in net worth at a wealth management firm. Middle-class people will have access to better quality healthcare if they are willing to pay for it. Good doctors will be paid more. Bad doctors will be paid less. People will start shopping with their wallet and that's a good thing. The outcome is better. Privatized healthcare is superior in all regards.
I just want to reiterate though that if you fully privatize healthcare some people will not get enough money to get their treatment even with charities funding people and that's fine. If you don't think that's fine you shouldn't promote privatized healthcare. You're just fooling yourself because you can't take the next logical step morally and lose this idea that human life is worth saving for its mere sake. It's not. Your existence doesn't mean you have value and if you don't have value, no one has any reason to save you and no one should be under any obligation to save you if they don't want to.