posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 09:42 AM
Basically the argument of socialized healthcare comes down to whether or not one man should pay for, or help pay for the treatment of another man.
The premise is that if a man gets sick, he has been dealt a poor hand in life and he may be a good man who gets mired in debt as a result of needing
The key points here are that the man cannot afford to provide for himself? Why? Was he born into an abusive family? Was he born into a low income
family and attended a sub par school?
The second point is why did this man get ill. Was he truly the victim of bad luck? In the UK, there is an epidemic of drink related hospitalizations.
Visit any major A&E in a UK city on a friday night and you'll see drunken louts with injuries being treated on the NHS. And how about those who smoke
and bring lung cancer upon themselves? And those who eat too much and bring on diabetes, heart disease and obesity?
You see socialized healthcare is a noble premise to consider mentally, because it paints a picture of the struggling working class man who through no
fault of his own got ill and is now in trouble with debt. In reality, this may well not be the case.
Forcibly extracting money from taxpayers (and due to progressive taxation this means taking wealth away from the wealth creators and employers), to
pay for the healthcare provisions of other people is itself a controversial idea. Why must one man be penalised if another has had bad luck?
Personally I don't think this should be the case, but even if we work on the assumption that it is moral to take money forcibly from one man to pay
for medicine for another man, we hit a wall.
Why must my hard earned money be taken from me to pay for treatment for an illness brought on by the patient? If a smoker develops lung cancer, why
the hell must I be penalised to provide chemotherapy for him?
I balk at this concept. I am repulsed by its premise, which seeks to idealise the conditions of the poor and makes excuses for those who cannot even
provide for themselves.
I have seen great things done by many men who have come from beginnings and conditions more humble than you can even imagine. I have met men who have
ascended from tiny, impoverished rural villages in third world countries and are now multimillionaires through their own ability and determination.
You show me a poor man and I will show you how he keeps himself in his condition. Providing all the necessities in life to such people will only
result in their reliance upon the state and result in them becoming a burden on other taxpayers.
The incentive of LIFE is enough to spur people to better their own condition in terms of their income; or to lead a healthier lifestyle. Take away
this incentive and you will create the benefits class (who currently exist in the UK), devoid of character, devoid of ambition and devoid of
The buck has to stop somewhere. Someone has to pay for treatment, regardless of the case. Using euphemisms like "socialized healthcare" really
conceal the true fact : that those who cannot pay for their own lives will seek to force others to pay for it.
It is almost unthinkable for British people to concieve of the notion that each man is responsible for himself, but is that not the basis of life? If
a man has bad luck, so be it; perhaps he should have saved up some money for a rainy day... a concept that is largely lost on most people today. If
most people can afford BMW 3 series cars (most common car in Britain), then why can't people afford to pay for the basics of life? If people choose
to spend money on stupidly prices shoes and clothes, racking up massive amounts of credit card debt (£6000 per person average), then why cant they be
made to pay for their own medicine.
You see handouts almost invariably work like that. The sum effect is that the affluent end up paying for (indirectly) the creature comforts for the
lower class. Its the same if you give a hobo some change, only for him to spend it on alcohol; or if you are forced to pay for someone's medication
while they buy a new car.
Yes, the NHS works to a large extent. But it is funded in the most immoral, plundering manner I can imagine. However I can see the logic of asking for
a change of funding from other sectors (military) to healthcare. I would like to see a much lower rate of taxation overall, which would mean reduced
expenditure overall, but that isn't likely to happen thanks to the degree of reliance that people have built up on the "government" (aka the
The safety net will always turn into a hammock. That is the nature of man. Denying it will only result in the higher segments of society being pulled
down while the lower segments are left reliant and without ambition.
[edit on 7-11-2008 by 44soulslayer]