should taxation pay for health care

This is an ethical question based on the fact that a society has a duty to care for its weak and infirmed
In the UK and other welfare states - people pay a certain amount of tax - called national insurance toward covering the cost of health care for all - everyone pays it and everyone regardless of income is allowed to use the hospitals even when in need of the most expensive treatments.
Do you agree this is better than everyone having to take out their own health insurance?

My own personal sentiment is that health care is fair when paid for out of taxation and in fact the amount of tax and national insurance should be raised to better cover the costs. I dont mind paying more than I do through taxation
because the alternatives are much worse

 

there is no rational or even moral reason, what is taken from the public, should not be put to the public bennifit. healthcare is certainly one way of doing so.

indeed there is no other moraly legitimate justification for the existence any government in any form then the well being of the governed, without whome, it could and would, of course not exist nor be able to.

=^^=
.../\...

 

We deserve the SAME health care our legislators have voted for themselves.The right wingers always say "the Canadians come over here to get care".Maybe some,but I'll bet most are damn glad to have a socialist system.It would be easy to do if enough brain power was put towards finding a PERFECT system.The government wastes enough money to do it with no problem.Health is life it's self.Doesn't everyone deserve it?

 

I think health care is a basic human right and the majority of the money needed has to come from taxation. And ethics only enter the picture when it comes time to figure out the best way to spend or abuse those tax dollars.

 

I agree with johnny up there^^^

We shouldnt be afraid to get sick or hurt.....most of the time, it is beyond our power. I believe that is is every humans right to get well. To tell you a slight anecdote, the first time that I heard that health care wasn't affordable to everyone, I was shocked(to say the least). Dammit, we have the technology and know-how.....

 

You have a right to health care but you don't have the right to force people to pay for your health care. Think about it. Why should people be forced to pay for something they don't believe in? Isn't this wrong? People should be free to be left alone......public health care means those people living green have to suffer.

Universal health care sounds great on the surface.......until you see how it is funded. It is funded by the very institution that forces money from us to invade countries that never aggressed against us (like Iraq). Taxation is wrong and fundamentally immoral......it involves force and no one should be forced to support something they don't believe in. It is no different than forcing someone to not take a substance......you are forcing your opinion upon others.

There are alternatives to state socialism. It's called libertarian socialism through private charity or worker collectives. Using private charity or local worker collectives is voluntary and this is moral and ethical.

People need to get out of the whole "government should provide universal health care". If you rely on the government to take care of you, then there is no reason for a government to recognize individual liberty. Instead people who want to help the poor get health care should start an organization or charity and donate as much as they can in order to help the poor. At the same time local workers collectives can be set up where each worker looks after each other, including paying for each others health care.

 

Obviously by now there are not enough charitable organizations to support healthcare as much as it needs to be, else this wouldn't be much of a topic. Relying on the ethics of the rich to support the poor will go no where. People are greedy by nature. Sure, they should do it, but are by no means obligated to do anything. That is why the government would need to step in to effectively pull off widespread healthcare.

Workers collectives would not work so well for those earning near minimum wage. There would have to be a ton of workers contributing to pay for just one worker's medical needs. What if people don't have the money to contribute to a collective? Are they just left out to suffer?

 

Well why isn't there enough charitable organizations? Because people in developed countries are now looking to government. These include people who care for the poor and would otherwise start some charities....but instead they tend to go with the flow try to make change happen through politics, even though that is a dangerous road that leads to the destruction of liberty.

Workers collectives barely exist beyond labor unions now a days. They aren't much more developed because of our corporate system, which itself is a product of the government. You talk about the rich being greedy but how could they be anything but greedy when the state gives corporations limited liability as well as requiring them by law to care about profit first and only? Why does the rich even exist in the first place? Would big business that hogs a lot of the wealth exist if we lived in a true free market without the state? Of course not! Without the anti-competition regulations, patents, subsidies, ect. big business wouldn't have the power it does to 1. Charge whatever it wants and 2. Become so wealthy.

Public Health Care is just another way for the government to get more control over more aspects of our lives. Once they control health care......why should there be anything that would keep them from banning snack "junk" foods and any drug that is legal?

The government right now has both left and right arguing over it......it basically leads to a dead end. The "socialists" (the way the state socialists use it) are busy trying to get what they want passed which means more control over the means of production (in this case, control over the health care industry) while the "capitalists" (used in the conservative capitalist sense of the word) want to use government for more business protection (in this case protection to health care corporations and companies), even in areas where business protection is stepping over the boundary.

There are names for where these type of governments end up. One is fascism (or corporate socialism, broadly defined), where the corporations team up with the government for exclusive monopoly privileges. The other is communism, where the state controls all means of production. Both are basically the same thing (ultra-statism) coming from two different political camps. It's all about the divide and conquer strategy. Keep the people arguing over what they want forced through government when they should be abolishing the same thing that leads to massive inequality and destruction of liberty: the state itself.

If the people started using the free market (in the true sense of the words) instead of the government, they can do a lot of good. Free market in any case leads to better quality and quantity goods at the cheapest price. Sadly enough.....while true command economies exist (ie North Korea), there are no true free markets in what Jefferson, Tucker, and Proudhoun mean the market to be. But if people started relying on the free market (voluntary exchanges between people) and less on government, we would be able to have long term solutions to our problems.

Using the state as I said before is force. You may believe people's money should be taken from them to fund something they don't support. But that is your opinion. You have no right to force your opinion upon others. There are more peaceful alternatives.

If we lived in a true free market people would be able to afford health care, whether from a small business insurance company, private charity, local workers collectives, or whatever the innovative free market creates. But let's say for a moment that the free market couldn't do all these things. What then? Should a government step in? Well let me ask you.......wouldn't you believe food, clothing, and shelter are as important as health care? Would you want to give these services to the state? Without a proper grasp of economics it is easy to say "yes" but this would be the suicide of a nation. If you put the food supply for example in the government's hand you not only risk massive government inefficiency (as was seen in the former Soviet Union, where they had massive shortages because of government wastage), but you are also giving the power of food in the hands of a few bureaucrats that have no incentive to work for the people. Giving your food supply to the state is like telling the state would give it unlimited powers to tear down freedom over what we can eat. The same applies to every other good and service (including health care).

 

yes-it works well in belgium

 

personally, i think any country which values its paying customers over the well being of its citizens isnt a very good country at all

 

wait until you get older or sick,then you know why you have paid taxes to finance social security.

 

At the cost of who? Other people! That is why tax-payed anything is fucked up. It involves forcing and coercing other people to give up their person or property for someone else. You may think it works well in Belgium but you haven't really experienced how much better free market health care is (And I'm not talking about the US or any mixed economies fascist health care system).

Well being of it's citizens? You my friend have fallen into the statist trap of thinking of "well-being of citizens" as being equal to government force. And look how you equate "government" with "country". I think you should pay close attention to this quote by Carl Hess;

“I have an idea that one of these days there will be another language in which we can talk about preserve the country, the landscape, the neighborhoods, the people, the communities, without talking about preserving the state. At which point there would be a lot of radical farmers, factory workers, and small town residents in this country.”

And do you really think government is for the well-being of citizens? Well I guess if you don't care about freedom it could. True hippies are different. That is why most hippies during the 60s were socialist anarchists or libertarian socialists, not communists or state socialists.

Except it is the individual's responsibility to pay for his own retirement or health care, and to rely on voluntary help from caring people or charities when he needs help. All of this is voluntary, taxes are not.

Your against drug prohibition are you not? Why can't you apply the same logic I am using to taxes to prohibition? Freedom can't be in one area and not in another. That would be a violation of principle and lead to ethical inconsistency.

 

now everyone can see who is selfish and who is willing to help his fellow man.

 

Now everyone can see who fell for the government's "you don't care about your fellow man" trap by not supporting government control .

And we can also see who didn't fall for the government's trap. People who instead decided that they will keep their freedom and help their fellow man themselves, instead of making it the state's job. And we also see who needs to read up on economics to understand why state intervention causes more harm than good and why welfare and charity should be let to the People, not the government.

 

everyone has its own opinion and i respect yours--peace bro

 

As a uk resident where we've had free healthcare since the 40's paid for out of a special tax called 'national insurance', it looks like places without such provision are pretty much lagging behind on the social level.

It's unimaginable to me to pay to see a doctor or recieve treatment..Can't say I'd consider myself more free if I had to pay.

 

In the us at least most of our health care is provided for by employers. this means that they have to offset these costs by providing the lowest-cost coverage and passing the buck onto the consumer. so in essence, we are already paying a "hidden" sales and payroll tax for the private sector to carry the burden of healthcare.
A lot of people believe that the laws of the free market will provide adequately for everyone, but unfortunately healthcare doesn't conform to these laws. each hospital is a monopoly (you don't shop around when your appendix bursts), whose costs are hidden, and can charge whatever they want.
this high price makes healthcare unavailable to a large segment of the population, and everybody else suffers (sick people tend to create more sick people).
now, if we socialised, we would have better oversight of the spending (the government is much more scrutinized than private corporations) and costs of healthcare, as well as removing a burden from our private sector and lowering costs of basic services across the board.

 

Silver---the differance between "forcing" people to pay and all GLADLY paying, so that all can enjoy a decent life without the worry of losing everything they have worked for because of medical bills, is what we're talking about.Those that don't want to be involved in a single pay system should not pay taxes to support it,but of course,should continue to pay for their own health care out of pocket.It's the differance between "we're all in this together" or "I got mine,the hell with the rest of you".My opinion.

 

it is wrong to force all of us to pay for something we may not need or want. i live in canada and there are so many people wasting our money by abusing the system. most people dont even realize that they are abusing the system, because they dont have to pay for the services they take them for granted.

in canada there are so many people with medical problems because of an unhealthy lifestyle. why do i have to pay for the medical bill of a life long alcoholic thats smokes three packs of cigarettes a day? that is their mistake coming out of my pocket.

also, a lot of people who are afraid of death may see it worth while to spend thousands of their grand childrens money to live another decade. i would miss them but i can find better ways to spend my money then keeping an old cranky grandmother around. when it is your time to go, why fight it - this is my outlook, so it seems unfair that i should pay for someone else to live longer when i wouldnt pay to keep myself around longer.

if canada was a country where you had to pay for your own health care i would be better off then i am now.

 

I voted no. A smoker shouldn't get chemo and a double lung transplant on the tax payers. Also, with socalized medicine in the US you would have emergency rooms even more crowded with people who sneezed or have a little cut on their finger.