Socialized Medicine - Let's Discuss!
 

This is a very popular thing with some people and an equally unpopular thing with other people. I love free stuff and cooperation, but I've a couple snags with regards to socialized medicine.

1. Is it wise to indefinitely care for those who are unable or unwilling to care for themselves? I guess the more basic question here is, "Are all individuals equally beneficial to society?" If not, why is it reasonable to subsidized less desirable outcomes?

2. How is it less selfish to take something for nothing than it is to refuse to give something for nothing?


And before somebody cleverly points out that babies are unable to care for themselves, I'll try not to be stupid if you will do the same ^^

It's not free. Someone else pays for it.

No. People aren't equal. A crackhead on the street is less valuable than someone selling me a service I want.

It is unreasonable to subsidize less desirable outcomes. Why incentivize less desirable outcomes? People in a society shouldn't be forced to subsidize degenerates. Subsidizing degenerates only incentivizes their behavior and dependence.

It's not about refusing to give. It's a matter of whether to legalizing theft. Also, why does selfishness matter in this context? That's not relevant to the issue. Selfishness is not immoral, if that's what you're getting at.

The problem with welfare isn't that it does legitimately helps some people. The problem is it incentivizes degenerate behavior on other peoples dime, rather than being productive and saving for your own retirement/emergencies/etc.

In a low trust society (e.g. society with severe multiculturalism), the negatives outweigh the positives.

Socialized medicine is great if everyone is contributing. When you have a sizeable segment of the population getting benefits but not contributing the rest have to pay more.

There's also the bigger problem of cost, at least in the US. The cost of care is through the roof and so far nothing at all has been done to address it. You can try to force every citizen to purchase health insurance (which I still say is unconstitutional) but all that does is benefit the insurance companies. It does nothing to address the cost of care. Too much profit at stake.

Health insurance is a form of socialism.

The problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money.

A really dumb quote. If you actually think about it a second you'd realize there wouldn't be any money if that ever happened. That's a different problem.

This is the true problem with US healthcare... Socialism debate is just loaded words to distract you from the cost of drugs/healthcare/procedures compared to other countries.

I'm not following your reasoning, but it seems you are a socialist, so I'm fine with that.

Anyone have thoughts on either of my two conundra? They really apply more broadly to social aid and redistribution in general, not just medicine. Looking for alternative views, because there are a lot of people who support redistribution on moral grounds, rational grounds or both. How do you get passed those question? Have they occurred to you? Do you ignore them? Do you care about humanity as a whole? How do you reconcile the conflicts?

i only support redistribution if a for-profit company gets to take a cut.