• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Stossel Solves the Health Crisis with Capitalism

You are now just repeating yourself. As has been explained a few times there is no way unless you remove the concept of insurance from your health system that you can avoid paying for other people's health-care.
Click to expand...

Forget that. One day I wake up and decide I don't need insurance and I won't be willing to pay for other peoples any longer. Why should I be forced to?
 
No - go back and look at the birth/death figures - the USA are higher than most countries with a universal health care system. A reasonable conclusion is that means more babies are dying from preventable causes in the USA than in a country like the UK.
Click to expand...

total: 4.93 deaths/1,000 live births UK

total: 6.3 deaths/1,000 live births US

Not much of a difference.
 
You shouldn't be, and as far as I am aware in countries like the USA and the UK you aren't.
Click to expand...

You pay for HC with tax money in Bloody Ole England, don't you?
 
Last edited:
The vast majority of children who die while hospitalized are newborns, according to a new nationwide study. Additionally, death rates are higher for hospitalized children without insurance compared to those with insurance, the researchers found.
Click to expand...

So not having insurance killed these kids??
 
Last edited:
But ignoring the above quibble yes the NHS is funded from general taxation.
Click to expand...

Then you ARE forced to pay for HC? My question is why should someone be forced to pay a percentage of tax for others or face jail?
 
My God, this is circular!

Rolfe said:
I understand that .... in your country, just as in ours, you do not have the option of opting out of the taxes that pay for other people's healthcare.

So what "freedom" would you lose if you moved to a system where you were actually entitled to benefit from the healthcare system your taxes are paying for?
Click to expand...


Dan, you repeatedly say that you'd "lose" freedom if you were participating in a universal healthcare system.

Please explain what freedom you have NOW that you would lose, in that situation.

Then explain in what way it is better to pay x dollars in tax to fund a healthcare system that you cannot access, than to pay x dollars in tax to fund a healthcare system that will take care of all your personal healthcare needs.

Rolfe.
 
Dan, you repeatedly say that you'd "lose" freedom if you were participating in a universal healthcare system.
Click to expand...

No, I said I'd be less free than if I could opt-out without being punished. Does it completely escape you that some people may not want anything to do with others?
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
And as I said, as far as I am aware, this is not true for the USA or the UK.
Click to expand...


Oh, I think it is. Remember the poll tax protest? Didn't those people go to jail for refusing to pay that? Or some of them anyway.

Also, if you join CND or the World Court Project or whatever, it is carefully explained to you that you can opt to pay your tax personally (not PAYE) and send the Inland Revenue their cheque with the proportional amount that would go to fund nuclear weapons deducted. The likelihood is that you will end up in jail if you do this.

I just don't see where the US and the US are so different here. Dan already pays a proportion in tax to fund other people's healthcare, and I suspect he'd end up in jail if he persistently refused to hand that over. So what's different about the UK?

Oh yes, that in that situation the tax he's objecting to is being spent on something he is actually entitled to benefit from.

I'm trying to find out why he sees that as a loss of freedom, but I'm not getting an answer.

Rolfe.
 
DaN K. StAnLeY said:
So that means he would have died in the US?? That's bloody rubbish mate!
Click to expand...

But less "rubbish" than your original statement that he wouldn't.

As the article linked to above shows, non-insured babies are more likely to die. Since MarkCorrigan's parents did not have him insured under your system his probability of dying would have been higher than under the NHS (never mind some of the other UHC systems around which have even better statistics than the UK's NHS has managed to achieve).
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom