I am stealing this quote from Tez3 (sorry Tez3, but you framed it perfectly) to start a new thread. This one dealing with a very basic issue between left and right, between those in favor of government services versus private industry. I will attempt to actually present both sides of the argument. Feel free to correct me.
This is essential. When the state provides services, all citizens receive those services; but all citizens who pay taxes must participate in paying for them. It is not optional. That is fundamentally different than private industry, in which one purchases the services one wants, but if one cannot afford or chooses not to pay for services, one doesn't get any.
Both have positives and negatives. Under private industry, competition can (but does not always) keep costs lower. The downside is that private industry is profit-driven and will seek to not pay for as much as they can. Under state care, all are covered and there is no cost to the consumer at the point of delivery. But costs are hidden in the taxes that all pay, and government-provided services are widely understood to be inefficient, sloppy, careless, and fraught with fraud and abuse.
However, setting all that aside, I'd like to return to Tez3's point. The basic statement, "...the taxpayer/state should have a damn say in it..." is absolutely true. When purchasing an optional service from a private provider, the consumer does not have the right to attempt to control costs by 'having a say' in the matter. Their choice is to purchase or not purchase the service. They have no power and no leverage, other than by withholding their dollars. In a state-run system, one has no choice but to participate, and yes, it is quite reasonable for the taxpayer to have a say in how those tax dollars are spent. In fact, in a representative form of government, taxpayers must absolutely have a say in how tax dollars are spent, otherwise the government could hardly be said to be democratic.
But this leads us to a fundamental disagreement in philosophy, exemplified in Tez3's statement above.
If we choose to live in a society which provides essential services such as health care exclusively, and if citizens have no choice about whether or not to pay for it via taxes, then yes, Tez3 is right; taxpayers must be allowed to set standards. In the previous discussion, we were talking about state-provided contraceptives for children without their parent's knowledge or consent. Leaving aside all other discussions about the various facets of that issue, let's look at JUST the financial aspect.
It cannot be argued that parents all provide sufficient levels of education and guidance to children to prevent unwanted pregnancies; and it cannot be argued that society often ends up paying many of the costs involved in unwanted teen pregnancies. This is true. Parents abdicate, and society suffers.
From a purely financial standpoint, in a national or state-provided health care setting, this would end the discussion. That is, assuming no other factors applied than financial applied.
However, in a setting where private industry provides health care that people can purchase or not purchase, the taxpayer has less to say about it. Certainly 'society' still ends up picking up the tab for parents and children who make poor choices, but it is less directly-traceable to the right of the taxpayer to control the actions of the individual making poor choices.
The end result in either state-run or private-industry is that poor choices end up causing society to suffer. The only difference is whether or not the taxpayer has the right to step in and demand that poor choices be controlled through the power of the state.
I stand opposite Tez3 in philosophy. I am horrified by the very notion that the state would require a permission slip from parents for a child to go on a field trip, but not to implant that same child with birth control chemicals on demand. However, I do not live in a society of state-provided health care - yet. I can at least claim that the taxpayer has less of a say in what the state may do.
Expanding the logic, however, I find more to object to. This is something I have pointed out before as a necessary downside to state-run mandatory health care. As Tez3 says, when all taxpayers must pay, they must also have a say.
That would include drunk driving. In the USA, fully 50% of all traffic fatalities are alcohol-related. That means, if we have state-run care in the USA and the taxpayer has a say, booze MUST be outlawed. We pay FAR more in costs than we do for unwanted pregnancies.
That would include eating the wrong things, and being overweight. If we have state-run health care, you WILL lose weight and you WILL exercise, under penalty of law. There is a direct link between obesity and heart disease. You have no choice in the matter; if you will not make the right choice, society will make it for you. Taxpayers have a right to control costs if they have no choice about paying into the system.
You may not smoke.
You may not engage in risky sex. By the by, like it or not, that does mean unprotected sex is out, and it definitely means unprotected sex between males is out. Personal choices aside; and without rancor or any equal rights issues considered, if we are talking about financial costs, then this is something the taxpayer definitely has a right to have a say about.
You may not engage in extreme sports. The rising costs of treating weekend warriors banged up from various bizarre athletic attempts are astronomical.
I could go on. But the point is this; I am not using a 'slippery slope' argument; this is straight-line logic. If the taxpayer has a say (and I agree that in a state-provided health system they do) in controlling behavior to control costs, then they have a say - PERIOD. Contraceptives for children? Certainly. Also, close all the bars and liquor stores. Remember, the taxpayer has the right to control costs when they have no choice but to pay for services.
And please, no wingeing when we wake up and find we've traded our freedom away for a lower tax bill. This is a simple logical line.
The other way? It's got huge problems as well. As clearly pointed out, when parents abdicate, society pays. When people get drunk and drive around, society pays. When people are fat and out of shape, society pays.
The only real question is which society would you rather live in? One in which personal choice and parental authority is preserved, though abused; or one in which costs are controlled, but one hasn't the right to do much of anything if it involves placing risk of cost on society? Money or freedom? Hmmm. I really do like both...
I choose the former. I understand why people choose the latter, but it's just not something I'm interested in.
And yes, I do understand that it's not quite that black-and-white in reality. Both sides have blends of the other in them. But to break it down to the basic components, I simplified for the sake of argument.
This is essential. When the state provides services, all citizens receive those services; but all citizens who pay taxes must participate in paying for them. It is not optional. That is fundamentally different than private industry, in which one purchases the services one wants, but if one cannot afford or chooses not to pay for services, one doesn't get any.
Both have positives and negatives. Under private industry, competition can (but does not always) keep costs lower. The downside is that private industry is profit-driven and will seek to not pay for as much as they can. Under state care, all are covered and there is no cost to the consumer at the point of delivery. But costs are hidden in the taxes that all pay, and government-provided services are widely understood to be inefficient, sloppy, careless, and fraught with fraud and abuse.
However, setting all that aside, I'd like to return to Tez3's point. The basic statement, "...the taxpayer/state should have a damn say in it..." is absolutely true. When purchasing an optional service from a private provider, the consumer does not have the right to attempt to control costs by 'having a say' in the matter. Their choice is to purchase or not purchase the service. They have no power and no leverage, other than by withholding their dollars. In a state-run system, one has no choice but to participate, and yes, it is quite reasonable for the taxpayer to have a say in how those tax dollars are spent. In fact, in a representative form of government, taxpayers must absolutely have a say in how tax dollars are spent, otherwise the government could hardly be said to be democratic.
But this leads us to a fundamental disagreement in philosophy, exemplified in Tez3's statement above.
If we choose to live in a society which provides essential services such as health care exclusively, and if citizens have no choice about whether or not to pay for it via taxes, then yes, Tez3 is right; taxpayers must be allowed to set standards. In the previous discussion, we were talking about state-provided contraceptives for children without their parent's knowledge or consent. Leaving aside all other discussions about the various facets of that issue, let's look at JUST the financial aspect.
It cannot be argued that parents all provide sufficient levels of education and guidance to children to prevent unwanted pregnancies; and it cannot be argued that society often ends up paying many of the costs involved in unwanted teen pregnancies. This is true. Parents abdicate, and society suffers.
From a purely financial standpoint, in a national or state-provided health care setting, this would end the discussion. That is, assuming no other factors applied than financial applied.
However, in a setting where private industry provides health care that people can purchase or not purchase, the taxpayer has less to say about it. Certainly 'society' still ends up picking up the tab for parents and children who make poor choices, but it is less directly-traceable to the right of the taxpayer to control the actions of the individual making poor choices.
The end result in either state-run or private-industry is that poor choices end up causing society to suffer. The only difference is whether or not the taxpayer has the right to step in and demand that poor choices be controlled through the power of the state.
I stand opposite Tez3 in philosophy. I am horrified by the very notion that the state would require a permission slip from parents for a child to go on a field trip, but not to implant that same child with birth control chemicals on demand. However, I do not live in a society of state-provided health care - yet. I can at least claim that the taxpayer has less of a say in what the state may do.
Expanding the logic, however, I find more to object to. This is something I have pointed out before as a necessary downside to state-run mandatory health care. As Tez3 says, when all taxpayers must pay, they must also have a say.
That would include drunk driving. In the USA, fully 50% of all traffic fatalities are alcohol-related. That means, if we have state-run care in the USA and the taxpayer has a say, booze MUST be outlawed. We pay FAR more in costs than we do for unwanted pregnancies.
That would include eating the wrong things, and being overweight. If we have state-run health care, you WILL lose weight and you WILL exercise, under penalty of law. There is a direct link between obesity and heart disease. You have no choice in the matter; if you will not make the right choice, society will make it for you. Taxpayers have a right to control costs if they have no choice about paying into the system.
You may not smoke.
You may not engage in risky sex. By the by, like it or not, that does mean unprotected sex is out, and it definitely means unprotected sex between males is out. Personal choices aside; and without rancor or any equal rights issues considered, if we are talking about financial costs, then this is something the taxpayer definitely has a right to have a say about.
You may not engage in extreme sports. The rising costs of treating weekend warriors banged up from various bizarre athletic attempts are astronomical.
I could go on. But the point is this; I am not using a 'slippery slope' argument; this is straight-line logic. If the taxpayer has a say (and I agree that in a state-provided health system they do) in controlling behavior to control costs, then they have a say - PERIOD. Contraceptives for children? Certainly. Also, close all the bars and liquor stores. Remember, the taxpayer has the right to control costs when they have no choice but to pay for services.
And please, no wingeing when we wake up and find we've traded our freedom away for a lower tax bill. This is a simple logical line.
The other way? It's got huge problems as well. As clearly pointed out, when parents abdicate, society pays. When people get drunk and drive around, society pays. When people are fat and out of shape, society pays.
The only real question is which society would you rather live in? One in which personal choice and parental authority is preserved, though abused; or one in which costs are controlled, but one hasn't the right to do much of anything if it involves placing risk of cost on society? Money or freedom? Hmmm. I really do like both...
I choose the former. I understand why people choose the latter, but it's just not something I'm interested in.
And yes, I do understand that it's not quite that black-and-white in reality. Both sides have blends of the other in them. But to break it down to the basic components, I simplified for the sake of argument.
