You can keep saying my explanation is false, but that doesn’t make it so- I’ll assume you’re just trying to convince yourself? Show me why it’s false. I’ve explained the difference between roads and health care, and all you can say it that “it’s wrong”. That doesn’t fly. Justify your statements.

A correlation is the association or relationship between variables. Your two variables were “compulsory education” and the “population being educated”. A relationship between two variables suggests a trend. You have since claimed that you merely made a prediction, but it quite seemed like a statement of fact to me.

I never said anything about a utopia. I never said a utopia was required for universal health care. You’re the one who brought it into the discussion.

Since you did not answer the question I posed to you above, I will restate:

As an additional note, Aj and Gullwatcher, I’d like to see some justification behind why you think universal health care is moral, given that you must take money from those who have it, and give it to those who don’t. (You both seem to be avoiding this very basic fact of universal health care.) Please remember that those who “have money” also fall under the currently struggling middle class. Please spare the “to help our fellow human”- that’s all well and good, and I agree with you, but I want you to justify doing it through public funds. Justify forced charity.

If you can’t be bothered to justify your positions, then please don’t continue this line of discussion.

And the same should be said about anyone who doesn’t vote at all.

Libertarians, in my experience, are mostly conservatives with a single-issue fixation. They’ll vote a party ticket happily as long as it panders to their particular one-string fiddle, then complain like hell about everything else.

But such are far to be preferred than the idiot who proudly tells one “I don’t/didn’t vote.”

If you don’t vote, why not trade places with someone from Iraq, or North Korea, etc? You’ll be just as miserable, but focused, and they’ll be much happier.

This it the last time I’ll say it. The common idea behind universal health care benefits people who cannot afford it and takes away from people in higher financial classes. This is not the same for roads. Roads benefit all.

You’ve just stated the same false claim. I’ll assume you can’t explain it.

I didn’t see it as a prediction. You said: “Without compulsory education places are not just uneducated, many people cannot read or write”

Well that’s an understandable mistake, I’ll try to be clearer in future.

That is not a correlation- it is a counter-example to the supposition that without compulsory education.

It’s a correlation, as a counter example to what you mistakenly considered a correlation.

A correlation suggests a trend, which is what you said.

That’s not what it means, which might be why you’re confused.

I don’t deny, that in a utopia, everyone would have equal access to health care. Unfortunately, a utopia is either impossible to attain or far beyond our life time.

In my countries people have equal access to a health care service. A utopia is not required for that. Universal health care means just that, it never meant any different.

This doesn’t address the absence of an explanation of your repeated claim that a publicly funded health service is different to roads in this regard. The ones that I know of are equal access.

This it the last time I’ll say it. The common idea behind universal health care benefits people who cannot afford it and takes away from people in higher financial classes. This is not the same for roads. Roads benefit all.

Health care here in the US is equal access. However, not everyone can afford it. It depends on what your definition of “equal access” is. Either way, your solution to obtaining “equal access” is to throw more money at those who cannot afford it- thus giving them the money to obtain “equal access.” This isn’t solving the problem, but is like trying to put a band-aide on a bullet wound.

I didn’t state a correlation, I’m pretty sure that’s called a prediction. Free and compulsory education does stop child labour, that is one of the purposes for its creation in many countries including the USA.

I didn’t see it as a prediction. You said: “Without compulsory education places are not just uneducated, many people cannot read or write”- I then provided a counter-example: This country before compulsory education. That is not a correlation- it is a counter-example to the supposition that without compulsory education, “places are not just uneducated, many people cannot read or write.” A correlation suggests a trend, which is what you said. Mine was not a correlation because it was one instance in time, and I was making no generalizations. Simply that people can be educated without compulsory education.

Capitalism does not guarantee the wealth that is required to access a private healthcare service. In what type of libertarian utopia do you suggest that there would ever be universal health care? As the phrase is often used, a health care service provided to all.

Utopia? Hmmm… When did a utopia come into this? You are misunderstanding me. I’m merely stating that I’m not against the intrinsic idea of “health care for all” on its own merit- disregarding any political or economic philosophy. I don’t deny, that in a utopia, everyone would have equal access to health care. Unfortunately, a utopia is either impossible to attain or far beyond our life time.

And you’re right about capitalism and any other economic system. We operate under limited resources.

You’re frequently being far too greedy, and straying from the sensible, rational, libertarian arguments about markets and government inability to deliver.

Why should I speak out against things only because I believe the government can’t deliver? Why would I then trust the government to do anything? I don’t take on the philosophy that the government is intrinsically bad at all things. I take on the philosophy that in most cases, private markets can do better because of competition, and public finances shouldn’t be used for charity.
@Gullwatcher-

No, they are not of equal use. I live in a place where all the basics are within walking distance. All I personally need is a narrow path for walking or bicycling. But I have to pay taxes for expensive paved roads that I don’t need and can’t use for the sake of wealthier people who have cars. Again, how is this fair?

Now you’re being pedantic. Is your place of residence on a private street or a public street? You never walk on steets? You never take buses, taxis, or friend’s vehicles to other locations? Do you want me to honestly believe that you never use the roads- at all? Do you have visitors? Do you receive packages in the mail? Roads are a service that benefits all, even if you don’t walk on them.

If you want to continue being pedantic, then perhaps there is a tax credit for people who never use the roads?

Wrong again. That is exactly what it is about. Just like roads, just like fire departments, just like the post office.

Prove it. I’ve said it enough times. Universal health care means people in higher financial classes are paying for the health care of people who cannot afford it.

Everyone has equal access to health care. Some just cannot afford it. This is the problem that is being remedied by “universal health care.” It is strictly a program designed to help people who cannot afford it. That is what it’s about.

As an additional note, Aj and Gullwatcher, I’d like to see some justification behind why you think universal health care is moral, given that you must take money from those who have it, and give it to those who don’t. (You both seem to be avoiding this very basic fact of universal health care.) Please remember that those who “have money” also fall under the currently struggling middle class. Please spare the “to help our fellow human”- that’s all well and good, and I agree with you, but I want you to justify doing it through public funds. Justify forced charity.

Roads can be used equally by all no matter their financial status- for walking, cycling, bus rides, trolleys, taxi’s, limos, etc. You do not need to drive a car yourself to use the roads.

No, they are not of equal use. I live in a place where all the basics are within walking distance. All I personally need is a narrow path for walking or bicycling. But I have to pay taxes for expensive paved roads that I don’t need and can’t use for the sake of wealthier people who have cars. Again, how is this fair?

Health care for all isn’t about giving everyone equal access to medicine

Wrong again. That is exactly what it is about. Just like roads, just like fire departments, just like the post office.

That’s up to the person. The roads do not benefit any specific financial class. Even people without any money use the roads to walk on, the bus, trolley’s, bicycles, etc. Equal access.

We can agree that there is equal access but don’t tell me that the poor can walk, cycle, or take buses on roads while having the same benefit as the rich. What nonsense, if the road system was made for people who use their legs, bicycles, or buses, it would look very different. It doesn’t take a brilliant mind to imagine how roads could and in reality do benefit specific groups depending on how they are built.

This doesn’t address the absence of an explanation of your repeated claim that a publicly funded health service is different to roads in this regard. The ones that I know of are equal access.

Now you’re using a correlation to try and prove something. The United States, before compulsory education, was one of the more educated society’s on the planet. What does this prove? That “compulsory education” isn’t required to educate.

a) I didn’t state a correlation, I’m pretty sure that’s called a prediction. Free and compulsory education does stop child labour, that is one of the purposes for its creation in many countries including the USA.

b) No one said that compulsory education was required to educate or that the USA couldn’t be one of the most educated countries in the world without it.

c) Is it ironic that you have used a correlation to “prove” your point? That the USA was one of the most educated without compuslory education doesn’t not prove your point at all. It’s merely a correlation.

No. I said the idea of “health care for all” is something I am not intrinsically against. I just recognize that at this juncture in time, it is not possible to attain. Unlimited wants and needs with limited resources (this is the basis of economics) translates into some dying while others live.

There are plenty of examples of health care, a service, that is provided to all. You have decided to use the phrase in a convoluted and unconventional way, to deliberately mislead.

Capitalism does not guarantee the wealth that is required to access a private healthcare service. In what type of libertarian utopia do you suggest that there would ever be universal health care? As the phrase is often used, a health care service provided to all.

You’re frequently being far too greedy, and straying from the sensible, rational, libertarian arguments about markets and government inability to deliver.

@Aj-

Just one of many examples of where roads are not used equally.

That’s up to the person. The roads do not benefit any specific financial class. Even people without any money use the roads to walk on, the bus, trolley’s, bicycles, etc. Equal access.

Without compulsory education places are not just uneducated, many people cannot read or write. I don’t know about the history of your country, but today, if the state doesn’t educate, then there’s going to be an awful lot of poor kids not learning a thing.

Now you’re using a correlation to try and prove something. The United States, before compulsory education, was one of the more educated society’s on the planet. What does this prove? That “compulsory education” isn’t required to educate.

You’re contradicting yourself or have decided to change the definition of words like “all” to mean “some”.

No. I said the idea of “health care for all” is something I am not intrinsically against. I just recognize that at this juncture in time, it is not possible to attain. Unlimited wants and needs with limited resources (this is the basis of economics) translates into some dying while others live.

@Gullwatcher-

Let me make this clear, in the words of one syllable that seem to be necessary here: I do not have any type of wheeled vehicle (sorry, that’s two syllables) that uses a road. I’ll get arrested if I go on an interstate highway without one. Again, how is that fair?

Stop thinking so narrowly. I said, “you do not need a car to use the roads”- you then went on to say you don’t own a car. What are you trying to show? Roads can be used equally by all no matter their financial status- for walking, cycling, bus rides, trolleys, taxi’s, limos, etc. You do not need to drive a car yourself to use the roads.

The other shibboleth that gets trotted out constantly is that “healthcare isn’t a right”. Well, neither are roads, or fire departments for that matter. Not every policy that leads to a better place to live and a better society is a right, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t provide them.

Do it. Just don’t advantage those with a less amount of money. Fire departments and roads do not do this. (You’ll find this difficult to do, however, because the whole point of “health care for all” is providing money to those who cannot afford it- otherwise they would have it and there wouldn’t be a “problem”.) The point of roads or the fire department isn’t to exist because there are people who can’t afford those things- it’s equal access.

It needs fixed, and I don’t see anyone else fixing it. If a government doesn’t protect individuals from greedy and powerful corporations screwing up people’s lives, then it’s not doing its job.

Go read the Wealth of Nations. It might be wise to concentrate on the problem, insurance companies, instead of putting a band-aide on the whole thing and giving handouts to those who can’t afford the insurance.

Then what’s wrong with taxes for health care? You still haven’t given a reason why health care is wrong and roads (or fire departments, or police) are ok. You just keep whining that it’s “socialism” without showing that it is in any way different from other services.

I’m not whining about anything. I have numerous times shown how roads and fire departments are different than “health care for all”. The whole principle behind health care is giving money to those who can’t afford it. This is socialism. I’m not whining about socialism, I am simply showing that the common idea behind “health care for all” is in fact, socialism.

It’s necessary, it’s fair, it will be good for society and this country, and it’s coming. Get used to it.

LOL. It’s not fair. There is a purpose in calling it “forced charity” because “forced charity” isn’t fair… What don’t you understand about that?

I am so getting increasingly sick of whiny pathetic paranoid libertarians and conservatives who insist they shouldn’t be responsible for anyone but themselves. If the government spending $100 of your money on someone else’s sick kid is the worst thing that ever happens to you, then you are damned lucky.

Yeah… because I said that… I’m really paranoid. I’m simply arguing against the principle of health care for all under our Constitution. I’m not sure why you cannot continue a discussion with equanimity.

If you don’t want to be part of a fair and socially responsible society, go live in a cave. Just don’t pretend that you can live in a society without benefiting constantly from other people’s contributions, even if you don’t feel any call to do your part.

Congratulations. You have completely and irrevocably misunderstood everything about what I’ve been saying and the concept of libertarianism.

I don’t pretend anything.

You don’t need us? We don’t need you.

Cool. Are you ready to join an adult conversation now?

There is nothing wrong with charity. In fact, I donate whenever I can, and whenever there’s a blood drive going on at my school, I make every effort to attend. I encourage charity. It’s part of being human. I’m in college, and I have but a few hundred dollars to my name, but I do still try and contribute. Do not take me for a crass old man who doesn’t want anyone touching his money.

No. What I support is the Constitution. It guarantees our right to be free. That includes choosing not to contribute to charity. I support that right.

“Health care for all”, under the current idea, goes against that freedom. Health care for all isn’t about giving everyone equal access to medicine, it’s about helping those who cannot afford it. That’s fantastic. The problem? Don’t force people to help. This rules out using public money to finance such an idea.

I live in Massachusetts, and even though I oppose the new health care system implemented, I still happily pay my taxes. I speak out against the program, but I’m never going to complain about having to actually pay my taxes. I still subscribe to the notion that we live in a representative democracy, and thus, must respect the wishes of the majority. I will however, continue to speak out against things I disagree with.

Your disturbing characterization troubles me, and I somehow doubt you’ll be able to carry on this conversation with equanimity. If you want to give it another go, be by guest. But please, if you continue with broad generalizations and sweeping insults to how I live and think, then consider your rebuke to fall on deaf ears. I expect the same courtesy I’ve extended to you to be extended to me. I think that’s reasonable, no?

Bush is already treading on the territory of being blind to his own faults. Someone stupider than Bush would probably feel even more confident in their ability to make big, sweeping changes without any forethought (e.g. No Child Left Behind). A President ought to be someone smart enough to understand their own limitations. The ideal President is one who can ask other people “Will my idea work?”, and then accept an answer of “No”.

Listen, gullwatcher, people have been posting reasons they don’t want socalist healthcare. *You’re* the one who hasn’t posted an argument, just soundbites.

Wow, you clearly don’t understand the concept of reason and argument since you whiz past mine without even seeing them and offer none of your own. All you can do is label any possible program as socialism and therefore automatically evil – if that’s not a sound bite, I don’t know what is.

Again, you keep trying to dispute the fact that you are proposing a socialist system, while not deigning to explain why forcing everyone to pay for a system they may or may not like, forcing people to accept whatever care the government sees fit to give them for their own money, and ot givign doctors latitude to choose whatever care the patiwnt and doctor like, is is not socalist.

Classic straw man – I’ve already rebutted that that is even the issue or what’s at stake. Possibly it’s a reading comprehension problem on your end?

Economists are going to laugh at you for saying this. We all need food, but grocery stores don’t charge a thousand dollars per egg.

Really, there’s food insurance now? Because unless there is, and it’s so common that it falsely inflates prices, that’s not a valid comparison.

If i pay taxes for healthcare, unless you guarantee i can only touch those dollars, yes, it means i am paying for someone else’s health care.
Now, of course, i do that now with my current health insurance. Difference is, i can shop around for a good plan and doctors, i can keep myself healthy and get discounts and avoid co-pays,etc.

It’s interesting how the libertarian whiners always assume it’s them paying for other people’s health care, when it’s just as likely to be the opposite.

You are living in a fantasy world if you think you are in complete control of your health. Wake up and smell reality – Jim Fixx is dead, and Keith Richards is still alive. Live as healthy as you want, it’s the luck of the draw whether any of the thousands of diseases that can’t be prevented with healthy living comes your way, and you end up getting far more out of the system than you paid in.

@BurntSushi

Wrong. You don’t need a car to use the roads.

Let me make this clear, in the words of one syllable that seem to be necessary here: I do not have any type of wheeled vehicle (sorry, that’s two syllables) that uses a road. I’ll get arrested if I go on an interstate highway without one. Again, how is that fair?

The other shibboleth that gets trotted out constantly is that “healthcare isn’t a right”. Well, neither are roads, or fire departments for that matter. Not every policy that leads to a better place to live and a better society is a right, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t provide them.

That’s another problem entirely, and I see no reason why this problem lends to the conclusion that government has to fix it.

It needs fixed, and I don’t see anyone else fixing it. If a government doesn’t protect individuals from greedy and powerful corporations screwing up people’s lives, then it’s not doing its job.

I’m not against taxes. Taxes are necessary

Then what’s wrong with taxes for health care? You still haven’t given a reason why health care is wrong and roads (or fire departments, or police) are ok. You just keep whining that it’s “socialism” without showing that it is in any way different from other services.

And you know what? Don’t bother -it’s not really the point. You can call it socialism, you can call it forced charity, you can call it Aunt Martha for all I care, and it doesn’t really matter. It’s necessary, it’s fair, it will be good for society and this country, and it’s coming. Get used to it.

I am so getting increasingly sick of whiny pathetic paranoid libertarians and conservatives who insist they shouldn’t be responsible for anyone but themselves. If the government spending $100 of your money on someone else’s sick kid is the worst thing that ever happens to you, then you are damned lucky.

If you don’t want to be part of a fair and socially responsible society, go live in a cave. Just don’t pretend that you can live in a society without benefiting constantly from other people’s contributions, even if you don’t feel any call to do your part.

You don’t need us? We don’t need you.