Quote:
Originally Posted by TLAM Strike
What if you had a contagious virus and did not seek treatment? That would be a concern of mine and society. Or if you did not maintain your heath due to lack of access and became sick with an otherwise avoidable illness due to a weakend immune system and you spread that virus, thats a concern of mine because I could get sick, and becomes a concern of society since I would miss work depriving the customers of that establishment of our product and reducing my wages lowering the amount of income tax the goverment recives from me which also increases the burden on other tax payers.
Or if you had a physical injury that prevented you from working but was treatable should you be able to pay for it. In that case you would be draining the coffers of the goverment for the rest of your life on disablity while contributing less to the tax base (because you don't work and thus pay little in taxes) insted of reciving a one time treatment at the goverments expense that you end up repaying via your future income taxes.
|
Lots of what-ifs there. And like I said, these type of arguments are based on fear of what-ifs. I say we quarantine you if you become some viral plague infected sop. Like we currently would. And as would be the case if a nanny state solution was in place. Do you think viruses or contagions couldn't/don't happen where there is nanny state health care like the UK or Canada? If so, stop fooling yourself. This is mere deflection of the main argument. Who's domain does your personal healthcare belong to. I guess you can make these same tax base draining arguments for some sort of government sponsored single payer universal auto insurance as well. Right? As too many collisions among uninsured motorists could drain the taxpayers coffers all the same. Right? In effect, you can make the same nanny statism argument for many things. But where does it end TLAM? You're almost saying that individual's personal healthcare is some sort of "right" that you're "entitled" to receive. Of course there's issues there.
The bottom line in health care is, in order for you to receive health care services, someone has to provide you with that service. This means that someone has to expend time, energy, intellectual property etc. to provide you with YOUR health care. Usually this health care provider is compensated for their time and property. But if healthcare is a "right", or could cause undue "burdens" on the taxpayers dole, and is provided by the "government" "free of charge", then that would mean that you are legally entitled to the healthcare provider's time and property. Sorry, but your own personal healthcare does not belong to me or any physician. Nor do I feel compelled to pay for you.