Universal Health Care

Are you, Caroline, saying that people who don't know Bob should be robbed by the state to save Bob from turburculosis? Awww, where's the justice in that? :sarcastic:

Taxes are robbery? Sounds like someone has forgotten their social contract theory.... which happens to be sort of foundational in most western democracies.

Whose Bob brightmoon? Im talking about helping people, humanity, can you not see the justice? You have to try to see in order to understand, you have to help people if they want to be helped no matter how ill they are, they cannot help it, sometimes illness is inflicted on them by no other then the Devil himself/herself, I mean equal rights.

I would think that people should not be so selfish as to call taxes robbery when they go to help a fellow human being...

Obama's campaign cost something like 2 billion Dollars. You could've done a lot of good with that. But instead you spend it to get the government to make the successful to pay for it.
That's not charity, that's the very opposite.

Would you D.T. agree with me that taxes for the purpose of national defense are appropriate and justified by the social constract: i.e. not robbery? I'm sure you will. Would you say that taxes levelled on the people so that the treasury secretary can drive around in a solid gold minivan would be appropriate: i.e. not robbery? No, I sure you would say that they are innapropriate, that amounts to robbery! Certainly. My point is that taxation is not robbery, taxation is neccessary, taxation is indeed fiundemental for the social contract; but ataxation for what purposes?

I find public health care to not be a part of the ideal social contract, and so I consider taxes levelled for the funding thereof to be innapropriate: i.e. tantamount to robbery.

So if they become rich by exploiting those people, they have an obligation to look after their healthcare costs.

Would you D.T. agree with me that taxes for the purpose of national defense are appropriate and justified by the social constract: i.e. not robbery? I'm sure you will. Would you say that taxes levelled on the people so that the treasury secretary can drive around in a solid gold minivan would be appropriate: i.e. not robbery? No, I sure you would say that they are innapropriate, that amounts to robbery! Certainly. My point is that taxation is not robbery, taxation is neccessary, taxation is indeed fiundemental for the social contract; but ataxation for what purposes?

I find public health care to not be a part of the ideal social contract, and so I consider taxes levelled for the funding thereof to be innapropriate: i.e. tantamount to robbery.

Why is healthcare impossible to incorporate into the social contract, yet aggressive military funding permissible?

It is the way that they are going about doing it which is problematic both from a practical sense and possibly a lawful sense. Telling people that they have to buy insurance or else pay a penalty may very well be unconstitutional.

Now, if they taxed everyone, this is more plausible.

You can tax goods that people use - i.e. a value added tax. But can you penalize people for not using? Now, this is a whole new prerogative of the government that has yet to be tested. To be seen.

The military is not a good or service that I use, yet I am penalized if I refuse to pay taxes for the military.

Also, as I have pointed out to you before, Nero, the "successful", as you term them (i.e. rich), are by and large successful by oppressing and exploiting the poor, and only by that. If there are no poor people, there are no rich people. It is as simple as that. Anyone with even the loosest grasp of political philosophy understands that.

The military is not a good or service that I use, yet I am penalized if I refuse to pay taxes for the military.

That's a Marxist distortion of reality. It's really funny that anybody believes that, especially since Marx couldn't sufficiently show that this is the case at all.

Arrrr.

That's easy to say afterrr it protected you for your entire life. Matey.
It's like a druggie saying "I can stop any day if I want".
Maybe you justs don't realize what the military has done for you.

The issue is penalizing a particular individual for not participating in a particular program. This is unprecedented.

No, it's quite precendented for requiring drivers to have car insurance, for instance. I've never been in a car accident, and I'm a safe driver, so why should my legal right to drive be contingent upon buying an auto insurance policy?

I understand your concern as well, because I only go to the doctor for emergencies. The last thing I want to do is help pay for people to continue shoving Big Macs in their face as they end up with serious health concerns.

My concern is for people, such as myself, that do take care of themselves, and then end up with a potentially deadly disease, and get stuck with choices like death or debt. Not to mention, worrying if I can even get the medical care I need. I cannot get health insurance because it is considered a preexisting condition so I am forced to either figure out how to pay for the care I need out of my pocket, which would drain my funding for my tuition, or very likely facing death. Good people that mean well die everyday because they cannot get the proper care that they need, because they either cannot afford health insurance or cannot get coverage from a health care insurer due to preexisting medical conditions.