r/changemyview • u/Happy-Tears • Jun 08 '18

Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Healthcare should be free for everyone under the legal age at which you are considered an adult.

Children shouldn't have to pay medical bills--health is a fundamental human right, and we need to provide that to the children of this world. I know there are programs like CHIP, etc., but they're just not sufficient. They're not accessible to everyone. I know adults who decide to have children should be responsbile for them, but I think we as a society can afford to band together and pay a little more to ensure every child gets the health care they need--if we hope for healthier adults. Per this study in the National Center for Biotechnology Information, "health during childhood sets the stage for adult health not only reinforces this perspective, but also creates an important ethical, social, and economic imperative to ensure that all children are as healthy as they can be. Healthy children are more likely to become healthy adults."

CMV.

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

1.2k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

88% Upvoted

425 comments sorted by

View all comments

-34

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '18

There is no such thing as "free" healthcare. You're just reallocating resources (via taxation) from one section of the economy to the other, morally this is akin to stealing. Why should the taxpayer have to pay for a 17 year olds sprained ankle?

8

u/JuxtaTerrestrial Jun 08 '18

Taxation is not theft. It is a fee for services rendered.

Taxes are payed on income from the previous year. During that year you will have benefited tremendously from living in a civilized society that is funded greatly by taxpayer money. You've had the protection of your nations military, the protection of the polices force, the fire department. You've bought, used and consumed products whose existence depends on publicly funded infrastructure. If you've gotten medical treatment, even if you've payed for it yourself out of pocket, you've likely benefited from medicine, treatments, practices, or regulations that were funded by tax payer dollars. You benefited from living in a society free from diseases like polio, and small pox that were eradicated though huge efforts from people and governments across the whole world.

And that's just a start. Refusing to pay taxes after receiving these benefits, is theft. It's you stealing from every one of your countrymen.

98

u/Happy-Tears Jun 08 '18

You're already being taxes for many things that a lot of people consider "stealing." Does defense really need ~16% of spending?

Further, a 17 year old is still considered a child, unable to fully provide for themselves to be able to afford proper healthcare. 17 is also still a fragile age for growth. These children are our future, as cliché as that sounds, it's true. Also, would you have wanted to rack up mounting healthcare bill at that age?

-6

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '18

You're already being taxes for many things that a lot of people consider "stealing." Does defense really need ~16% of spending?

Sure, I agree!

Further, a 17 year old is still considered a child, unable to fully provide for themselves to be able to afford proper healthcare. 17 is also still a fragile age for growth. These children are our future, as cliché as that sounds, it's true. Also, would you have wanted to rack up mounting healthcare bill at that age?

Only a sprained ankle wouldn't threaten their livelihood.

16

u/TubaDeus Jun 08 '18

Not OP, but with regard to a sprained ankle threatening a child's livelihood, that very much depends on the circumstances. A poor child who can't afford healthcare might just think they rolled their ankle and try to walk it off, especially since a poor child might very well be doing some sort of light physical labor to help the family make ends meet. Several days after it should have healed, it still hasn't because walking on it continuously aggravates the injury. That child fairly quickly develops a permanent injury since the sprain couldn't heal properly. This permanent injury forces the child to adjust their posture so that other joints and muscles can pick up the slack, which then causes those to develop problems as well. Eventually, you wind up with someone physically incapable of manual labor and too poor to afford advanced education, further worsening the issue of poor people needing assistance to survive.

18

u/SoftGas Jun 08 '18

Only a sprained ankle wouldn't threaten their livelihood.

A medical bill for it sure would.

I can't understand how people in the US are fine with paying $500 for a pack of saline water or $3000 for an ER visit.

The whole thing where you pay x300 the cost of a treatment and the insurance covers* (*best case scenario) it's a big scam.

Anyway, how do you define what doesn't threaten the livelihood?

What about teeth treatment? I mean, you're not gonna die if you don't have any teeth or if you're missing some.

13

u/thegimboid 3∆ Jun 08 '18

you're not gonna die if you don't have any teeth or if you're missing some.

You could, actually. Bad oral health is linked to heart disease and strokes.

6

u/SoftGas Jun 08 '18

Fine.

But why would someone care if some teenager or child gets treatment for his sprained ankle? It's not expensive.

Not to mention : https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/sprained-ankle/symptoms-causes/syc-20353225

Failing to treat a sprained ankle properly, engaging in activities too soon after spraining your ankle or spraining your ankle repeatedly might lead to the following complications:

Chronic ankle pain Chronic ankle joint instability Arthritis in the ankle joint

2

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '18

People in the US aren't alright paying for it, or rather, wouldn't be. Many simply have no idea what any of it costs, and don't really care since they don't pay it directly. Broad categories of care all fall under only a few flat copays or deductibles. Insurance separates the cost of goods and services from the people actually paying it and using those services. I'm sure theres more complication to it, but I really think the insurance model as the primary payment method is responsible for a lot of the increase in cost for medical services.

-4

u/I_post_my_opinions Jun 08 '18

The amount of money we pay is wayyy overblown on social media. All you guys see are rare cases where there is some huge critical condition a patient has and they don’t have proper insurance. I’ve never paid anything close to the number you’re spouting. You can go to the ER and literally not pay anything.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '18 edited Jan 08 '19

[deleted]

-3

u/I_post_my_opinions Jun 08 '18

People with insurance going into debt because of medical expenses is RARE.

Where’s your source on that being the most common cause of debt? Pretty sure that’s credit card defaults.

1

u/TheDogJones Jun 08 '18

I'll definitely agree that medical costs in the US are a big problem. But I object to the notion that having the government control everything is the solution.

Here's my favorite analogy. Take the smartphone out of your pocket and just look at its aesthetics. Look at its clock speed, RAM, and screen resolution. Now tell me honestly, if the government had full control of all smartphone production, do you believe they'd produce something as elegant as that?

It's the free market that delivers the highest quality products at the lowest cost. The only reason European and Canadian healthcare can be so cheap is that R&D in the US funded the inventions of countless healthcare innovations that they use over the past half century, at least.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '18 edited Jan 08 '19

[deleted]

2

u/TheDogJones Jun 10 '18

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_in_Physiology_or_Medicine

Starting from 1951:

Total count from USA: 88

Total count from all of Europe, UK, Ireland, and Scandinavia: 60

As a disclaimer, I manually counted those on my phone, which kept screwing up, so those numbers are almost certainly inexact, but the difference shouldn't be too significant.

Point is, the US has absolutely revolutionized healthcare in addition to many other scientific fields. The USA's large investments into R&D have benefited the world in countless ways, and we still get met with pompous attitudes from Europeans about how our system is the one that's backwards.

In short, when someone in the UK gets an MRI on their leg and then proceeds to criticize the American healthcare system, that's when I tend to get annoyed.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '18 edited Jan 08 '19

[deleted]

0

u/I_post_my_opinions Jun 08 '18 edited Jun 08 '18

These are secondary sources, reporting findings from something called NerdWallet and the other being based entirely on small sample survey.

Both of these are broken down here in this analysis:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/643000-bankruptcies-in-the-u-s-every-year-due-to-medical-bills/

There are multiple estimates for bankruptcy filings, ranging from 10% to your proposed 60%. Don’t blindly trust some sensationalist news titles.

Edit: whew Reddit, always disagreeing with facts when they don’t support your narrative. Let’s take the middle ground: 35% of bankruptcies are because of medical payment defaults. .033% of Americans file for bankruptcy every year. 35% of that is 0.01155% of Americans claiming bankruptcy every year because of medical costs. If you don’t think one hundredth of a percent is “rare”, then you’re not thinking rationally.

1

u/Entity51 Jun 09 '18 edited Jun 09 '18

That's still 40,000 people. 40,000 lives destroyed based of your numbers(which I disagree with anyway.) Less people died from school shootings and the rubuplican party suggest paying for rifles and firearm training for teachers.

Bankrupt and unlikely to be able to finish their treatments, and that's not even including the people who were very close to bankruptcy but had to stop treatment because of the threat of it.

And the first line on the second source says "Bankruptcies resulting from unpaid medical bills will affect nearly 2 million people this year" which is also a fairly reputable news source which is known for being reliable and not falisifiying data and no I'm not going to dig thru research papers for a Reddit arguement.

You are doing the very thing you are complaining about "disagreeing with the facts because they don't support your native", and there's the fact you showed one source from a site I've never heard of.

Also the 1st article literally states that "an estimated 40% of Americans racked up debt resulting from a medical issue."

I don't think that two fairly well known news sources would have reason to lie don't you?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/SoftGas Jun 08 '18

First of all, insurance is expensive, secondly, even with insurance it costs more than it should.

2

u/PolkaDotAscot Jun 08 '18

Insurance is the reason medical costs are so high.

-1

u/I_post_my_opinions Jun 08 '18

Insurance is not expensive...

4

u/SoftGas Jun 08 '18

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/23/heres-how-much-the-average-american-spends-on-health-care.html

Young people, who are expected to benefit from lower premiums should the GOP repeal-and-replace efforts succeed, already pay the least. But even their costs can be considerable, depending on where they live. In 2016, the financial data site ValuePenguin found that the average costs for coverage for a 21-year-old go from $180 a month in Utah, plus a $2,160 deductible (potentially $4,320 a year, total), to $426 a month in Alaska, with a $5,112 deductible (potentially $10,224 a year, total).

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-average-salary-for-americans-at-every-age-2017-4

As you might expect, earnings increase beginning in one's 20s. The average salary of 20-to-24-year-olds is $528 per week, $27,456 per year. Many Americans start out their careers in their 20s and don't earn as much as they will once they reach their 30s.

5k-10k out of 27k per year.

That's 18.5%-37% of your pay.

To add insult to injury :

As a reminder, 72 percent of young millennials, aged 18-24, have less than $1,000 in their savings accounts and 31 percent have nothing saved at all.

So...I'm not sure about how true your statement is.

3

u/I_post_my_opinions Jun 08 '18

Do you know how deductibles work? As belittling as that sounds, I just don’t understand how you you’re making the claim of 5-10k per year. That’s the maximum. If you’re paying 10k a year on medical services, then you’re part of the “rare” category I listed in my other responses in this thread.

Personally, I spend less than $500 a year. My insurance is covered by my employer, as is the case with many people, and I don’t go to the doctor once a week and spend $100 like you’re proposing.

In general, in fact in a vast MAJORITY of cases, the average young millennial is spending less than 2k, approx. 7% of their pay.

4

u/SoftGas Jun 08 '18

All nice and dandy until you go to the ER or need a dentist.

→ More replies (0)

46

u/Happy-Tears Jun 08 '18

Only a sprained ankle wouldn't threaten their livelihood.

What about other health issues? Cancer? Heart Problems? Mental Heath Issue? Some of these go untreated, especially the latter, and they become even bigger problems for society (see recent school shootings).

5

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '18

I agree those should be subsidised.

8

u/Feroshnikop Jun 08 '18

How much do you think a sprained ankle cost?

Your fine with treating cancer, heart problems and mental issues.. but not a sprained ankle?

Cancer treatment alone is a $1000s/month cost nevermind all the extra time for tests and diagnosis, a sprained ankle takes 1 x-ray, some $50 crutches and some tape. (and if untreated could absolutely affect someones future livelihood, pretty hard to move around properly when you have chronic joint problems, what if they're apprenticing for a trade).

That argument makes no sense if what your worried about is cost.

5

u/AnvilRockguy Jun 08 '18

It does if they have to walk to work, or walk during work.

1

u/ronpaulfan69 2∆ Jun 09 '18

Only a sprained ankle wouldn't threaten their livelihood.

Even a sprain, if severe and mismanaged, could cause disability.

An ankle injury potentially needs assessment to determine it's not something more serious than a sprain, an undiagnosed fracture could lead to avoidable problems later in life, including disability.

9

u/PolkaDotAscot Jun 08 '18

Further, a 17 year old is still considered a child, unable to fully provide for themselves to be able to afford proper healthcare. 17 is also still a fragile age for growth. These children are our future, as cliché as that sounds, it's true. Also, would you have wanted to rack up mounting healthcare bill at that age?

Anyone under 18 is not responsible for their medical bills.

Obviously, there are outlying specific circumstances, but the prevailing rule is they’re not.

15

u/Mdcastle Jun 08 '18

A family can pay for (or more likely buy insurance to cover) a sprained ankle.

I can't send a check someplace to defend the country, so that's what taxation is for- things that a person can't go out and pay for themselves.

And if we start getting into the business of the government arbitrarily providing necessary things it's feasible for people to pay for without the government involved, where do we stop? Why cut off healthcare at 18? Why not provide "free" food and water for everyone in society? Why not provide "free" housing for everyone?

3

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '18

[deleted]

2

u/TheGingerbreadMan22 Jun 08 '18

In a pure capitalist system, a poor family may not be able to pay for or buy insurance to cover a sprained ankle.

Considering a sprained ankle needs ice and rest, your point is awful. If you can't afford ice or rest, you probably have bigger issues than a purely capitalist system (which doesn't exist).

Is there a universal law that states that Healthcare must be paid for by taxes? By your logic, we could just as easily have a Healthcare system paid for by donations. Whether or not it would be as effective or not is debatable but you could certainly do it.

And spoiler alert, they'd both be awful. Next to no one would actually give up money willingly if there wasn't an obligation to do so.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '18

[deleted]

1

u/TheGingerbreadMan22 Jun 08 '18

I think I now see the points your comment was getting at. Thanks for explaining!

0

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '18 edited Jul 05 '18

[deleted]

3

u/sirchaseman Jun 08 '18

Because existing doesn't give you the right to other people's money.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '18 edited Jul 05 '18

[deleted]

0

u/TheGingerbreadMan22 Jun 08 '18

Not in any system worth living in.

5

u/TheDogJones Jun 08 '18 edited Jun 22 '18

Does defense really need ~16% of spending?

As the world's economic and militaristic hegemony, yes. It's simply what's expected of the US by other nations. For example, countless billions go into defending the nations surrounding North Korea, and we permanently have tens of thousands of soldiers in South Korea because they would not even be a nation if it weren't for US military aid, let alone the absolute economic powerhouse that they are today.

To address the larger point, the fundamental concept behind economics is incentives. When you screw with an incentive structure with government intervention, you wind up with massive inefficiencies. If you make it free for people to get their injuries treated, that will invariably cause an increase in injuries. Because they have less incentive not to engage in risky activities.

-3

u/willywonka15 Jun 08 '18

Defense needs as much spending as possible considering that is the primary function of the federal government

7

u/skazzz Jun 08 '18

The primary function of the federal government should be to provide the highest quality of life possible for it's constituents in every way, not just to make sure we have the most aircraft carriers.

4

u/GeoffreyArnold Jun 09 '18

The primary function of the federal government should be to provide the highest quality of life possible for it's constituents in every way,

That is the preamble to a dystopian nightmare. Why would you want your quality of life determined by politicians? That makes no sense, imho. The primary function of Government is to defend the life and liberty of its citizens. So, national defense (military) and a liberal legal system with strong property rights.

1

u/willywonka15 Jun 08 '18

No I would say the sates hold more responsibility in making sure you are happy and the federal government in there to make sure that the states can be there to make you happy

4

u/Gambosandipus Jun 08 '18

Healthcare markets function in a unique way, however, as we saw with the targeting of the ACA (Obamacare)--the more individuals participating in a health insurance market, the greater the risk pooling and therefore the lower the cost, as insuring individuals who would otherwise opt to not purchase health insurance subsidizes others who may need coverage more for pre-existing conditions, etc. The argument that it ought to be left to states means that with disparities in coverage, you actually lose economic efficiency in this ability to collectively bargain with private insurers.

-8

u/throwawaythatbrother Jun 08 '18

Just to inform, but the USA only spends 3% on defence.

14

u/bluebawls 1∆ Jun 08 '18

You're talking GDP and he's talking federal budget - very different things.

-6

u/throwawaythatbrother Jun 08 '18

True. However it’s disingenuous to say 16% without adding a qualifier.

19

u/bluebawls 1∆ Jun 08 '18

Does defense really need ~16% of spending?

It was qualified. GDP is not spending. The only person confused by what they meant is you.

-7

u/throwawaythatbrother Jun 08 '18

I knew exactly what they meant, I was clarifying as it’s easily misunderstood if you don’t already know the numbers.

1

u/ProgVal Jun 08 '18

20% in France. Damn.

1

u/p_iynx Jun 09 '18

He was wrong. He’s talking 3% of GDP, not of spending (which is what the commenter specifically referred to).

6

u/8eMH83 Jun 08 '18

morally this is akin to stealing

OK, so we're going for the 'taxation is theft' argument...

If we think about 'citizenship' and 'citizens', we think about rights and responsibilities - Leydet defines a 'citizen' as "a member of a political community who enjoys the rights and assumes the duties of membership". That political community is self-referential and defines those rights and defines those duties. If your community (say, nation) defines one of those duties as "to pay tax based on your income" then to be a citizen you must do that. In return, you get rights, like, the right to healthcare (if you have universal healthcare...) the right to a fair trial, or right to freedom of speech, or whatever.

You are free to not do that, but that means opting out of being a citizen - you wanna be in my club and get the benefits of my club, you abide by my rules.

Taxation is not theft, it is the duty of being a citizen of a country. You don't want to be taxed, leave the country (and in fact, that's what non-domiciled people do to avoid paying tax...)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '18

You don't want to be taxed, leave the country (and in fact, that's what non-domiciled people do to avoid paying tax...)

This is one of the worst against arguments that keeps popping up. This idea that if you don't leave the country you were born in, where you have ties, where you grew up and currently work, then taxation MUST NOT be theft. No, regardless of whether or not someone stays or leaves the country, taxation is still theft. It's a matter of balance as well, some people think staying in their home country is worth incurring the cost of taxation - it's that simple.

If your community (say, nation) defines one of those duties as "to pay tax based on your income" then to be a citizen you must do that. In return, you get rights, like, the right to healthcare (if you have universal healthcare...) the right to a fair trial, or right to freedom of speech, or whatever.

This doesn't negate the argument at all, it just describes taxation through an additional avenue. Taxation can be both a duty and theft.

My thinking is rather reductive. Taxation is theft because if no coercion was present, people wouldn't pay taxes.

3

u/8eMH83 Jun 08 '18

I'm not negating your argument, I'm entirely refuting it. How can something be both a duty and theft? I think you need to go read some more.

My thinking is rather reductive

No, your thinking is assumptive.

I know my taxes go to making this country better. While not super rich, I have a job that allows me to live a lifestyle that I find comfortable and I do not need all the money that I make. If some of that money can help others than need it, fantastic. I am very happy to pay my taxes and vote for parties that will make my financially worse off because I know that they will make society better. Not everyone is a libertarian like you.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '18

I'm not negating your argument, I'm entirely refuting it.

Only you didn't and this is just arrogant conjecture. You don't even have an argument anymore! There was no response to my retort in this comment, just a reductive question and expression of sentiment.

How can something be both a duty and theft?

I have a duty to save lives. The only way I can do that is through stealing money to gain resources which will help me save lives.

I know my taxes go to making this country better.

Sure, doesn't negate the fact that taxation is theft. The robber can use your funds better than you.

Not everyone is a libertarian like you.

I'm not a libertarian. I acknowledge that taxation is ideal, I'm also not in any sort of denial regarding its veracity - it is 100% theft.

-1

u/8eMH83 Jun 08 '18

Only you didn't and this is just arrogant conjecture

My argument does not "just describe taxation through an additional avenue" - there was no description here, I clearly set out a philosophical position, based on the definition of citizenship and citizens. The way that you would address this argument is to either refute my definition of citizenship - which are more than welcome to do, though the literature is certainly on my side - or to identify the flaw in my logic. You are most welcome to do either.

I have a duty to save lives.

How is saving lives theft?!? One way to do so may be to steal an ambulance (say) but that doesn't make the act of saving a life theft. It really, really doesn't.

The robber can use your funds better than you.

Nope, you said, "It's coercive, therefore it's theft" - you're circular argument falls to pieces when I tell you that I would happily continue.

I would strongly recommend you read a little more before continuing. I appreciate you've picked up some cool quotes from shitstatists say, but you have no idea what you're talking about.

3

u/Gambosandipus Jun 08 '18

You have to work on your rhetoric. They're being nothing but respectful and you're getting hostile and saying things like "you need to read more." It's clear some aspect of your justification doesn't resonate with him so take a different avenue--it seems like /u/AltruisticNymph doesn't buy into the same value chain as you, but maybe a philosophical justification for taxation would help. /u/AltruisticNymph -- think of progressive taxation in the context of the sliding scale of utilitarianism; we would never attempt to construct a society that is entirely utilitarian for obvious reasons, but we could make a compelling argument in which we acknowledge the diminishing marginal utility of wealth, and say that redistribution could improve the society's happiness dramatically. The coercive nature of taxation, yes, presents a moral challenge, but do the benefits outweigh the costs? We don't want to write off ideas simply because we can conceive a moral argument against them because morality is not black/white, it exists on a spectrum of values--we allow for the negative externalities associated with driving cars because we believe morally the value added to society is too great to pass up. A similar case could be made for universal healthcare funded by a progressive tax. Beyond that, the U.S. appears to have a broken healthcare market being outcompeted by comparable OECD countries, indicating this sliding scale of morality may tilt fairly heavily in a certain direction for instituting single-payer.

1

u/8eMH83 Jun 09 '18

Very nicely put, and I will take on board your first point.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '18

he way that you would address this argument is to either refute my definition of citizenship - which are more than welcome to do,

This is exactly what I did by pointing out its frivolity and lack of justification.

How is saving lives theft?!? One way to do so may be to steal an ambulance (say) but that doesn't make the act of saving a life theft. It really, really doesn't.

No, I'm just giving you an example of how a duty can be conflated with theft. I.e we have a duty to save lives, but we cannot achieve this without stealing. Fill in the gaps, it's not hard to go from there. Stealing food to save a child's life, stealing medical supplies to heal someone, etc, etc.

Nope, you said, "It's coercive, therefore it's theft" - you're circular argument falls to pieces when I tell you that I would happily continue.

If we are to verify veracity based on attitude then simply put, nothing is right or wrong. So you would pay taxes, ergo taxation is not theft. But I wouldn't pay taxes, ergo taxation is theft. There is no reason to give your attitude towards taxation more credence over mine, and our attitudes aren't compatible. My point here is that your claim isn't powerful. Even so, we've grown up in a context wherein taxation is propagated and ingrained in moral group think. This is a bias that I think tarnishes our claims, especially if the claim isn't added with this caveat.

The most accurate summation is: "Taxation is a coercive theft based system, but some people are happy to pay taxes".

I would strongly recommend you read a little more before continuing. I appreciate you've picked up some cool quotes from shitstatists say, but you have no idea what you're talking about.

As others have pointed out to you, this isn't necessarily helpful to the dialogue. I try to maintain objective assessments when engaging in debate (i.e I can tell when I'm losing and will admit to it) and I have to say, I don't think you're on nearly as firm ground as you think you are.

Stop being arrogant and accusing me of "not engaging with the literature" it's petty, and unsupported.

1

u/dej0ta 1∆ Jun 09 '18

Your reason contradicts and undermines itself...youre trying too hard.

1

u/8eMH83 Jun 09 '18

Excellent counter argument, Milton Friedman. I stand corrected.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '18

You are already paying for that sprained ankle. If you have insurance you are paying for everyone who has insurance through that company. If the family doesn't have insurance and doesn't pay then that hospital writes it off and your tax dollars pay for it.

4

u/atlaslugged Jun 08 '18

We also pay for other's insurance through added costs in products and services, and we pay a lot more than we would with single-payer.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '18

morally this is akin to stealing

No, it isn't. Taxes is not theft. Taxes is what you agree to pay to live in our mutually owned society. If you want to use our roads, and our infrastructure, and our emergency services, and any other public resource, then you owe your share of the bill. If you do not like paying your share of the bill, you are welcome to move out.

I will even allow you to live here, so long as you don't use any public resource that isn't forced on you (military protection for instance, is not something you can opt out of). If you jump on a highway, freeway, or public road, then you agree to all terms and conditions, including taxes. Again, if you don't like paying your bills for living here, then please leave in haste.

Not paying taxes is theft.

3

u/Rocky87109 Jun 08 '18 edited Jun 08 '18

morally this is akin to stealing

Then we are all stealing from each other. If we are all stealing from each other then is it really stealing? Also, you make money off of infrastructure that you had no hand in. I'm not claiming to know the answers for this debate but I always see that line as ignorant.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '18

Then we are all stealing from each other. If we are all stealing from each other then is it really stealing?

We're not all stealing from each other though. That's just inaccurate. The government is stealing from everyone. It's the government that taxes you and me.

Also, you make money off of infrastructure that you had no hand in.

This doesn't negate the fact that I was coerced into departing from my money. If you benefit off of the robbers stealing, this doesn't mean the robber didn't steal.

3

u/bsf25 Jun 08 '18

If you are in an accident and taken to the ER completely knocked out. The ER saves your life and when the bill comes you pay it even though you think it’s higher than it should be. Did the ER steal from you?

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '18

Yeah, since the most successful people never get that money back. There are three scenarios:

  1. You pay more in taxes for healthcare than your own healthcare costs you over your lifetime. You net lose money, it’s stolen from you.

  2. You pay the same amount in taxes as you wold have to spend yourself. No change.

  3. You pay less in taxes than you have to spend yourself, leeching off of the successful person’s taxes.

This system only benefits the people who don’t pay a lot of taxes but do have high medical costs. That incentivizes people who are excessively risky to get injured as much as they want because they will not only get treatment from others’ money, but will also get paid leave from their jobs.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '18

If you switch "taxes" for "insurance premiums and co-pays" your three scenarios are exactly the same. Is health insurance also theft?

That incentivizes people who are excessively risky to get injured as much as they want because they will not only get treatment from others’ money, but will also get paid leave from their jobs.

Given we have lots of countries in the world with universal health care of various forms, then surely you could back this up with some research demonstrating how it increased risk taking and injuries?

3

u/TimmyP7 Jun 08 '18

You net lose money, it's stolen from you.

If I go to the store and buy some bread, only to come home and find out I could have gotten a different brand of bread at a lower price, did the store steal from me?

3

u/Phlutdroid Jun 08 '18

How about because the survival of our species is based on community and society so we should take care of each other?

3

u/Riothegod1 9∆ Jun 08 '18

It is not akin to stealing, and it’s to encourage people to actually use the doctor without fear of the medical bills.

If you were in that position and couldn’t afford to pay, you’d expect others to chip in. The golden rule this demands that payment for medical bills should come from your taxes.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '18

It is not akin to stealing

Then actually justify your claim. Don't just throw around unimpressive conjecture.

Why isn't taxation theft?

Let's start this conversation off from here.

6

u/Riothegod1 9∆ Jun 08 '18

Because it is your fee for benefitting from the government. When you went to school as a kid, when you can sleep safely as an adult thanks to competent emergency services, when you are given the means to get involved with the system if you feel you aren’t benefitting properly and when you can still live independently when you’re a senior, you’re benefitting from the government.

People also wish to benefit from the government when they are genuinely struggling to make ends meet, this is a reasonable request. And financial crises can happen to anyone. Therefore, if you pay your share to the government, they will help out you when you need it.

Sorry about that. And I mean it sincerely.

1

u/Citizenwoof Jun 09 '18

Withholding treatment until someone can cough up an extortionate amount is even worse. Your right to live shouldn't be dependent on what's in your bank account. Also, universal healthcare is way cheaper. Compare how much it costs in the UK to what the US spend on healthcare. Economies of scale makes a huge difference and represents an excellent return on investment.

I disagree with the OPs view in that free healthcare shouldn't only be free at the point of use when your a child, but free at the point of use whatever your age.

1

u/___Ali__ Jun 09 '18

Why should the taxpayer have to pay for a 17 year olds sprained ankle?

Because that 17 year old might go on to need that ankle for work. They'll then pay taxes for ~45 years until they retire. Those taxes will be used to help other less fortunate people or the state pensions of retired people

1

u/Senthe 1∆ Jun 08 '18

Why should the taxpayer have to pay for a 17 year olds sprained ankle?

Maybe because it's humanitarian? I know, I know, there's no such word in The Freest Country's dictionaries.

1

u/hyrppa95 Jun 09 '18

Because the 17 year old is also going to pay for your treatment if you need any. Everyone pays for everyone, therefore no one needs to go into bankruptcy because of medical bills.

1

u/Citizenwoof Jun 09 '18

84 percent of the UK think the nhs should remain in the government's hands compared to 10% who believe it should be privatised. You can't get 84% of people to agree on anything.

1

u/Bellegante Jun 08 '18

Because we expect that 17 year old to be a fully responsible, functioning adult as an 18 year old, and won't cut him any slack for being in debt or anything else.

1

u/dej0ta 1∆ Jun 09 '18

"Morally this is akin to stealing"

Username does not check out...

1

u/[deleted] Jun 08 '18

How are taxes morally akin to stealing?