Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevy Baby
The problem is that many people DON'T know that "free" health care is paid via taxes. While all involved in this discussion and even most all on this board in general may know how things would work, I don't believe the masses do. I see a MAJOR fallacy in continuing to call this "free" health care - it is misleading and deceptive.
I firmly believe that individuals are generally fairly smart, but that the masses are generally pretty stupid.
Why is the term "taken to the extremes" coming up? This isn't about any extreme. It is simply a question of whether health care should be brought under the wings of the US Government. And I have yet to see anything that would indicate that the government could do even as good as what we have now. Most indicators point in the other direction.
And darn it - Alex already addressed the police/fire example far better than I could imagine. However, I will add one more tidbit: I don't know of any city that isn't constantly in need of additional police - there always seem to be a shortage.
|
Many of the arguments I hear against nationalized health care (or any health care reform period) come down to “Why should my taxes pay for someone else’s health care?” I was trying to point out that this argument, taken to the extremes, could create an America where only the “haves” can access basic government services.
Most will agree that some services should be provided to all Americans for free (or “without direct user fees”, if you prefer). The main argument is where to draw the line in the sand. Some of us believe health care is on one side of the line, some argue that it is on the other. All we’re really accomplishing here is pushing little piles of sand around.