Do you support universal healthcare?

Equality, what does in mean to live in a society then?

The Antique wrote: Because 10% of $10,000 and 10% of $1,000,000 are definitely equivalent burdens for people to bear (pick any percentage, whatever you think the flat tax should be, my point still stands).

A definite yes. However it's funded, any citizen of a civilised country should be able to get health care that is free at the point of delivery.  

Equality 7-2521 wrote: The right stems very concretely from Article I Section VIII of the Constitution which details the very limited uses for which Congress may tax. Welfare systems certainly don't fit into this. Also the use of a graduated tax systems totally b*****dizes the whole ordeal. I'm for tax collection for basic manners much along the lines detailed in the Constitution, but only assuming it is done so as a flat tax.

As far as I know that section speaks of "general welfare of the United States" ... I don't see why that should not include the health of the people. Using taxes to pay for antibiotics and vaccines would be a good start.

The Antique wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: The right stems very concretely from Article I Section VIII of the Constitution which details the very limited uses for which Congress may tax. Welfare systems certainly don't fit into this. Also the use of a graduated tax systems totally b*****dizes the whole ordeal. I'm for tax collection for basic manners much along the lines detailed in the Constitution, but only assuming it is done so as a flat tax. Because 10% of $10,000 and 10% of $1,000,000 are definitely equivalent burdens for people to bear (pick any percentage, whatever you think the flat tax should be, my point still stands).

I am fully convinced that not a single person on this forum knows what communism is.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: The right stems very concretely from Article I Section VIII of the Constitution which details the very limited uses for which Congress may tax. Welfare systems certainly don't fit into this. Also the use of a graduated tax systems totally b*****dizes the whole ordeal. I'm for tax collection for basic manners much along the lines detailed in the Constitution, but only assuming it is done so as a flat tax.

Because 10% of $10,000 and 10% of $1,000,000 are definitely equivalent burdens for people to bear (pick any percentage, whatever you think the flat tax should be, my point still stands).

I don't know how you speak of fair while identifying a group which is expected to shoulders others burdens under coercion from a government.

I speak of fair because those people, while paying more money, are not facing any greater of a burden because of this extra cost. They have more money, so they can afford to pay more. Moreover, need I remind you, we are part of a community. Helping out those who have less than you is something that needs to happen in a community. If people are too greedy to do that enough in order to get what needs to be done done, then the only alternative is for the government to coerce them. Not getting it done is defeatist and is not acceptable.

So the general rule is to be defined by the most extreme cases? Swings from one end of the spectrum to another I'll admit are not going to occur. However, a wide amount of fluctuation is possible in the middle stages. Aside from a few savants you meet you'll find the smartest, most athletic, proficient people are the ones who have put the most time into their field be it economics, swimming, playing piano, whatever.

Yes, fluctuation is possible in terms of what people can do with their natural assets, and yes, people who put in hard work are going to do better (as they should). But a lot of people work very hard, but do so in thankless jobs (due in part to their natural abilities/the situation into which they were born, and due to the fact that someone has to do those jobs), and are hardly able to make a living wage.

Pure free market capitalism is not a meritocracy based solely on how hard you work, and thus the division of wealth it creates is plagued by arbitrary, unfair inequalities.

If people all gravitated to "high paying jobs" the cost of these jobs would simply skyrocket and the need would inevitably be filled. Also, there will always be lazy, bottom feeders in society, as well as unfortunate cases of good people drawing a short straw which I think are fewer than people care to admit.

But people don't all gravitate to high-paying jobs and the pay for jobs like janitors is not skyrocketing. I'm sorry, but you're not going to convince me that all people with poorly-paying jobs are lazy bottom feeders, or that people who spend all day working two jobs just to feed their family, but who can't afford health insurance, deserve their situation. These people are not exceptions, they are common and it is not morally acceptable.

You haven't demonstrated this, and the conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. The distribution being arbitrary gives the government no moral or certainly constitutional right to correct it. The distribution of blue eyes is arbitrary in a population, but the government hardly has a right to force eye transplants so that everyone may have one blue and one brown eye for some patchwork equality. I know it's a laughable example, but clearly you can think of many horrendous acts which could be justified with that argument. But while as a society we maintain there's something off limits about ones body, we have lost that the same applies to ones money. We have begun to see it as a mere purchasing tool than the direct fruits of ones labor deserving of the same reservations.

It absolutely gives the government a moral right to correct it. Unlike blue eyes (which is indeed arbitrary), unequal wealth distribution has a profound negative effect on people's lives. It is this negative impact (coupled with the arbitrariness of the distribution) that gives the government it's moral right to correct the situation, not the arbitrariness alone. Moreover, stop treating this like an absolute principle. You can take ANY absolute moral principle and justify horrible things with it. I am not proposing hard and fast principles, just guidelines.

While high taxes may be prima facie wrong (aka to be avoided if possible), letting people die because they cannot afford health care is also prima facie wrong, and strikes me as far worse than those taxes.

My wife (also a doctor) have been talking about ways to make this possible for people...most of my visits probably are worth about a dozen truly free range eggs....mmmmm. Not much chance of those in the middle of the city though.

I'm not sure because when it comes to some complex political issues I try to research the subject as much as possible before forming an opinion. I tend not to believe any media sources because I look at Fox News and see so many lies that I can't be sure whether CNN or MSNBC are saying equally false things.
If I had to pick one I'd be in favor of universal health care but that is due to a lack of proper research.

Many many young women have to have their gallbladder out. An unpredictable but common surgery, usually goes well and one night in the hospital. Anywhere from 10-30 thousand dollars charges. This isn't a meteor.....or an appendix - potentially deadly but routinely cared for.

Edited by Negoba - August 31 2009 at 13:45