A New Threat to Civil Liberties

Consider for a moment if, as the leftists want, we socialize health care. 

What will this lead to? Obviously, the state would be playing a larger role in the health care industry, possibly even running the whole thing itself.  But the important thing is who picks up the tab.  As long as the individual, not the state, is paying his own bills, it is fine to say he should be able to take whatever risky decisions he wants to with his body, since he is paying his own bills for the possible results of said risky decisions. 

In a socialized health system, where health care is 'free', and no individual is paying his own bill individually, there is a present and great incentive for the people to vote for infringements of civil liberties - to ban certain activities that, in a capitalistic health care system would be entirely acceptable due to the fact that the individual is picking up his own bill.

If you are a civil liberties advocate who cares little about economic freedom, you should consider this before you join the ranks of the socialized medicine supporters.  Once socialized health care gets passed, you will find yourself fighting an uphill battle to protect a great many non-economic freedoms.

For a quick example.  If health care is socialized, there will be an increasing incentive for the state to ban smoking or drinking because it is very unhealthy. 

In a socialist system, the state must pay the bills of the people who drinks or smokes, not the individual.  The result? In a universal health care system, the public has an interest in somehow forcing you to act the way they want you to - an incentive they would not have in a capitalistic system.

This line of thinking, when combined with a socialized universal health care system would, without a doubt, lead to more infringements of personal freedom and choice down the road.  Freedoms that you take for granted now to do all manner of unhealthy things from smoking to drinking to eating ice cream or  engaging in any other unhealthy activity if you want are suddenly more likely to be in the crosshairs of public debate in the future, if socialized health care is implimented. 

Any personal freedom that is unhealthy will be up in the air as long as it is arguable that it is likely to result in the state paying some form of bill or other, rather than the individual taking the risk.  Socialist health care will invariably lead to a reduction of personal freedom and choice in our society, if implimented. 

>>40
Hey, you know what also imposes on human rights? existing, because all your going to do is die. HEY GUYS AM I COOOL LIKE CAMU?

This is for >>31 I am >>25

I am a Communist and an Anarchist

A Nationalist will reject any attempt to introduce international Law as he believes in the Law of the Jungle between Nations, the weak nations have no rights against the strong nations. International law violates his Nation's sovereignty.

An Anarchist rejects not just international law, but ALL law, as the weak classes have no rights against the strong class, the Working Class. law only exists to protect the weak, namely the feeble classes we call the Middle class and the Ruling Class and oppresses and violates the sovereignty, independence and freedom of the Working Class, the strongest Class.

Every human being is a sovereign, independent state, not subject to law or any form of higher authority. These Free States will form federations to promote their interests with lethal force if nessacary and defend their pooled sovereignty from the worthless classes.

As Anarchists we believe that each individual is a sovereign, independant state with the power to make war and as such can enter and withdraw from treaties, alliances, federations, confederations, with other sovereign, independant states, thus for those within a federation will have certain rights and responsibilities to fulfil as part of such a treaty, for those
outside of such a treaty, nothing except the survival of the fittest, the law of the jungle, we do not believe in concepts that protect the rich such as universal law, religion, right or wrong, morality, ethics or any other unscientific rubbish. Darwinism and Dialectical Materialism are the only truths and we will defend them fanatically and ruthlessly to the grave. Humans are simply animals locked in a never ending struggle for survival in which the strongest always wins. Ours is the strongest class and will prevail, it is nature's way and is historically inenvitable.

We are not universalists, We are not interested in equality, we are openly particularist, openly expansionist, we are openly Class Supremacist and call for total war against all enemies of our people, total war against the middle and upper class, total war against Leninists, Maoists, Trotskyists, Stalinists and all those that claim to speak for our class yet would violate our sovereignty given the chance.

Anarchy is the Law of the Jungle between sovereign individuals, who federate horizontally to annihilate and exterminate, root and branch, systematically and ruthlessly the sub-human parasites known as the Middle Class and Ruling Class. They will be given an ultimatum SURRENDER OR BE DESTROYED IMMEDIATELY!

DEATH TO CLASS MINORITIES!

http://www.londonclasswar.org/images/sticksnew/HEALTH%20copy.jpg

>>39
Precisely.

>>1
Yeah, we'd better be careful about socialized health care, or we'll end up banning alcohol and tobacco, just like Australia.

>>42
Fallacious. People with the guns will team up and declare people without guns to be the "worthless classes" and you will have only succeeded in turning a democracy into a tyranny.

>>1
Sweden has had a socialized healthcare system for almost 100 years, tobacco and alcohol still not banned. There are high VATs on those products though, so that the consumers will pay for the increased future healthcare demand and the increased medical research needed. Its seems fair, no?

>>46
What if they use the tobacco to polish their shoes and the alcohol for medicinal purposes (sterile fluid)?

>>47
Then they can aply for tax deductions.

>>48
Maybe things shouldn't be taxed at all.

>>49
Yeah, and maybe people shouldnt starve when food is burned instead of given away.

>>49

or maybe people should just use SHOE POLISH for polishing their shoes, or buy MEDICINAL ALCOHOL (not taxed but undrinkable) for medicinal purposes.

>>46
"Sweden has had a socialized healthcare system for almost 100 years, tobacco and alcohol still not banned. There are high VATs on those products though, so that the consumers will pay for the increased future healthcare demand and the increased medical research needed. Its seems fair, no?"

No.  People should be able to buy products at whatever price a seller is willing to sell them for.  Taxes should not be used to restrict a person's lifestyle or purchasing habits.  How is buying a product different from having sex? Both are private, voluntary actions committed by consenting adults.  To be willing to compromise on one of these areas and to allow the other is logically inconsistent. 

This is yet another reason why I am so anti-nationalized medicine.  It is a slippery slope.  I support a deregulated capitalist health care system.  We could lower the cost of health care without nationalizing the industry by cutting senseless regulatory measures that raise the cost of health care and health insurance.

>>52
The point is is that in a free market, the individual can smoke, drink, or use drugs if he wants, but he must then pay his own bills at the price demanded of him as is set by the market.

>>52
Look at it this way: the additional health insurance is being paid in the higher tax.

You think the private insurance companies in the US don't take these factors into account when coming up with a premium?

>>54
In a truly free society, you still have the choice of whether or not to have health insurance.  Some people don't buy health insurance. 

>>55
Some people don't buy health insurance.
Because they can't afford it.

Who in there right mind would not have health insurance?

*their

You don't have the right to healthcare you dumb nuts (who think they do). Either you work hard enough so that you can afford it or die. Why should I have to pay for people that are too lazy or too stupid to figure out how to take care of themselves? Keeping them alive thins out the gene pool... life isn't meant to be a bag full of fun. Considering the USA has a HUGE problem with borders and illegals, how well the government handles everything, and how they managed the war (like pussies)... do you really expect them to do socialized medicine right?

Those who think so are fucking psychopaths.

The problem with even a deregulated capitalist health care system is that a capitalist health care system wants to make money. The system itself isn't interested in a population of healthy individuals. A capitalist health care system loves unnecessary procedures, drugs, operations(as long as they don't get them sued, but there's malpractice insurance for that). A capitalist health care system loves drugs that prolong their illnesses, because they have to sell more of them. A capitalist health care system loves routine circumcision, because they get paid for each operation. A capitalist health care system will do anything that gives them profit, and, contrary to what some people seem to think, profit often doesn't have anything to do with raising the quality of life of anyone but the side profiting.

Meanwhile, a socialist health care system wants people to be healthy. It would love a cheap, one-shot procedure that cures a disease utterly(something that is likely never to come again out of a capitalist health care system) It wants people to be healthy, and it is encouraged to improve itself not just to keep the public's faith, but to increase efficiency and reduce costs(the opposite of a private health care system). With the same amount of money going in, a socialized system will far better serve ALL people, as the money going in has to go somewhere, and they don't want people coming back.

Of course, if these measures aren't enough to reduce costs, then a socialist health care system will have to do more, infringing on our god-given right to kill ourselves slowly and painfully. It might even be tempted to deny treatment to hopeless cases rather than treat them indefinitely. There's also the problem that building hospitals costs money too, and increasing capacity means there will be more patients who need treatment, decreasing the likelihood that it will get done.

Now, private health care, being motivated by making money, has..well..money. No surprise there. The trick lies in getting benefits of socialism(health care driven to benefit the individual) along with the benefits of capitalism(Moneys, yay!), with as few of their problems as possible.

Now, the majority of the health industry's income comes from two things, insurance companies, and drug money. Insurance companies are capitalism's version of socialized health care. Only they're actually stealing money, because they're out to keep as much of it as they can.(Arr) So we're already ahead on that one. So how do we pull in the income that you can only get from legalized exorbitantly priced and aggressively marketed drugs?

No, seriously, how. Drug companies are fucking evil masterminds.

Well, having the taxes that come from smoking, drinking, and using other unhealthy drugs go toward the system that researches and treats the problems that come from them is a nice start, and makes perfect sense even by a capitalistic standpoint. Raising the taxes to a point where the people who demand them can't use them would just be utterly foolish.

But that's probably not enough, and you'll still have the rich people who think they deserve better, and will continue to give private health care a market. As well, new technology costs money to implement, and so does increasing the capacity of the institution itself. Well, why not allow people to make their own donations? Rich folk can buy their local hospital an extra wing or two, new equipment, whatever they need, and in addition to a nice charitable tax writeoff, they get to help ensure their future health, as they'll be more likely to trust a place they've invested in. Woohoo. Everybody wins.

>>58
Those who think so are fucking psychopaths.

Do you know what a psychopath is? Someone who is self-centered and does not care about the suffering of others. In other words, someone like you. Reread your post, then read this:

A psychopath is defined as a person having no concerns for the feelings of others and a complete disregard for any sense of social obligation. They seem egocentric and lack insight and any sense of responsibility or consequence. Their emotions are thought to be superficial and shallow, if they exist at all. They are considered callous, manipulative, and incapable of forming lasting relationships, let alone of any meaningful love.

The irony of your post is hilarious.

>>60
Agreed.

>>58
While the fact that everyone must work in order to get high quality healthcare and wealth is true and it is unfair to take from people who work and give it to lazy bums, I find what you have said to be very disturbing it gives me some idea as to why so many people emotionally react and join extremists groups like fascists and socialists.

This doesn't justify people who join reactionary groups, they're still stupid for not listenning to reason. However it is unavoidable and there is something admirable about striking out against profiteers and money lenders. Not every unemployed German living in poverty in the period between 1929 and 1933 was a lazy bum, they were hard workers during the 20s, many of them risked their lives and saw their friends die for their country during ww1. You cannot dismiss someone as lazy if they risked their lives and were working hard before circumstance saw their businesses collapse. If you were to call such a German man a lazy bum he would not mumble something and go back to the gutter to drink his malt liquor, you'd get a wrathful punch square in the jaw. On the other hand if you were to persuade this German man his problems are due to your political enemies, then the rest is history.

Springtime for Hitler....

I really have to point out that if you want to keep yourself healthy and safe, you need to give the poorest members something.

Unless you like the thought of being attacked by armed people or catching rampant contagious diseases. Or you could just shoot them all... hope shit never happens and you become poor, bud.

>>64
So we should give in to their threats? NEVAR!!