[TI] Sitting Duck,
You started with: "Content > Rhetoric."
You went on: "The purpose of state provided healthcare is to provide for everyone, because if it was not there many people would not be able to afford healthcare and would be forced to go without. This is bad for those who would not have enough money to pay for healthcare...."
Yet, I had just stated: "I have no problem with safety-net programs for the poor."
You're not even responding to what I said. I said that there are systemic problems with what you propose. You're just repeating theoretical garbage about what you imagine because everything I said is, apparently, over your head. I explained my objections to what you propose. I used simple language. You're just repeating yourself--things I already responded to. You're shitting all over over the forum.
"Who would be the arbiter who decided whether someone's values are acceptable enough to be granted treatment? Would you still advocate such a judgement if it turned out that you yourself failed the test?"
You JUST advocated using their age. I JUST pointed out that no system can make such judgements for shit. What you JUST said was that a 20 year old crackhead alcoholic should be given more state funds for healthcare than an 80 year old grandfather of 10 who's healthy and has worked all of his life to provide for himself and his family.
"You are right that I can't advocate state provided healthcare without accepting that we will all have to pay a bit more tax to get it, I didn't say I could, but you haven't really shown why that is a bad thing. "
I have. Very clearly. It was over your head.
"What are the "freedoms" we lose in the UK?"
I refer to you to yourself: "and the middle classes who can't afford both the extra taxation and private health care cover only really lose the freedom to choose between healthcare providers, but is that a bad thing?"
YES. Loss of freedom is a BAD thing. No wonder most of what I've said has gone over your head and been completely ignored: You don't even accept that freedom is inherently better than slavery.
"I'm not convinced that the existence of multiple competing health care providers improves standards as you suggest it does (are there any impartial studies on this?)"\
Hahahahahhahaahaha. Yeah, there's a couple. You're trolling, right? Pretty good. Props man.
"But what it does do is cause healthcare providers to spend significant proportions of their budgets on advertising or superficial aspects of healthcare. It also encourages healthcare providers to treat patients in the manner which would bring in more revenue as opposed to giving the most appropriate treatment."
There are significant problems with US healthcare, but those problems are by-and-large caused by government, not lack of it. Those problems are not caused by the free market. The free market encourages people to shop for the best value for their dollar--which negates causing healthcare providers to have to spend X on advertising. While some healthcare providers (ie crooks) are encouraged to treat patients in such a manner as to bring in more revenue, there are free market solutions to this, and government-run healthcare does not remove this incentive and often makes it worse as payments are continually reduced.
There are free market solutions to thievery and corruption. Amerika hasn't got the standard of care available to its middle class that it has by being entirely robbed blind. Our current healthcare-insurer model generally removes consumers entirely from decision-making processes. There are positively ways to get consumers more involved in their own healthcare which produce monumentally better results than getting government involved as a substitute. You're proposing that government bureaucrats can make better decisions for consumers than consumers can make for themselves. I'll be frank: That's retarded.
"Whether the twenty year old smokes cannabis or drinks alcohol or is on welfare (especially if he's on welfare) is irrelevant."
It's irrelevant to the value of him to society and his quality of him life to himself? You JUST argued that such a system should be used. You seem rather ambivalent about what you've proposed. You propose it, but you hate it?
You... again, missed the point. Rather than respond, you equivocate over whether minor/moderate alcohol/pot consumption/temporary unemployment are inherently bad. I didn't equivocate over the morality of cannabis. I said he's an alcoholic pothead on welfare, ie he has no job, he has no intention of getting a job, and he's on drugs all of the time. I said your system of "value" based on age was atrocious and inherently flawed.
"In the UK healthcare provision is not used either as a reward for good behaviour or withheld as a punishment, nor do I think it should be. Is this what you are insinuating in your third paragraph?"
My point, clearly stated, is that stealing people's freedom from them and distributing it to them as you see fit damages incentives for productivity. The free market rewards productivity--for both the consumer to earn more wealth and the providers of healthcare to develop better techniques/equipment--incentivizing (along with many other things) more productivity by everyone and more advancements in medical science as a whole. What you propose dampens both positive effects on standard of living and mankind's scientific advancement in general.
"If you support safety net programs for the poor, then surely this causes a tax burden where people pay for a service they don't use? How can you be so vehemently against universal health care but still support a program for the poor? Is it not just a matter of degree? And where do you draw the line in terms of how much the government is willing to spend on a patient? How would you do it differently to me?"
If they make enough money to purchase quality catastrophic care on their own, then they shouldn't be society's problem or burden. The free market sets this price, which isn't all that bad. It's made worse by corrupt government involvement right now in Amerika--It could be better. Amerika's healthcare system has major problems, but they're virtually all the result of corrupt government overreach, not the free market. Most of the poor in Amerika on welfare have cable TV, air conditioning, and cell phones. Decent healthcare is not that out of reach for low-to-middle income earners if they want it.
If you've had such bad luck and made such poor decisions that you're scrubbing pots at the age of 40 and can't afford healthcare, I don't have a problem subsidizing your purchase of healthcare in the free market through government assistance. If you're a middle-income earner at 40 and you can afford healthcare, but you'd rather pay for an overly expensive car and save up for a boat, I'd tell you to go [cluck] yourself. That's where I draw the line. I don't know where that line would be at the current time, and it depends on dependents as well, but it's a far cry from "universal" healthcare in which everyone is paying for a huge garbage system which results in poor care like England has with its NHS.
And if you don't think Amerika has better high-end healthcare available than England, even to its middle-class who aren't fools, I'd like to share something with you: Hahahahahahahahahahahaha 
"p.s. I never claimed to be either God or a genius, and I am humble and sensible enough to realise that there are many things about which I am ignorant, but I am not an idiot and I am pretty sure by most rationale standards I don't hold very many morally atrocious views. You should tone down your language and ease off the stupids, idiots, repugnants and disgustings. It is reflecting far worse on you than it is me."
You aren't even responding to what I said. I could give a damn if I'm being polite. I figure you're probably a troll, because you're ignoring my arguments or you really don't understand them, as simple as they are. I do agree that discourse should ideally be civil and polite, but there are limitations.
For instance, I can only respond to a stupid, cocky 12 year old for so long before questioning if this is a good place for him to share his intellectual drivel. IMHO, a lack of stupid, cocky 12 year olds is a good thing, and my slightly less-than-warm reception would benefit the entire forum. Obviously, you enjoy "exchanges" with stupid, cocky 12 year olds. Agree to disagree.
You describe yourself as humble and sensible enough to realize your limitations. But you're arrogant enough to be proposing rationing of care based on government standards. But you're arrogant enough to gloss over not understanding my moral objections to such a system.
I'm hardly alone in believing freedom is inherently better than slavery. The more you ignore the arguments I've made in favor of freedom (against the bureaucratic tyranny you propose), it's not me it reflects poorly upon.
[I wish I could obey forum rules]
