This is just a touch insulting isn't it? If we don't take things from rich people and give them to poor people, the poor will attack everyone. I don't think that being poor equals being violent. This is like arguing that we should kill ourselves prophylactically in order to prevent someone from killing us.
It's hardly insulting to point out a historical fact. The rise of communism/socialism throughout the world was fueled precisely by this phenomenon. Being poor does not equal being violent. But being hungry does. Providing basic needs for those who cannot provide them for themselves
is a mechanism of societal protection.
False, concensus and majority doesn't equal moral superiority. We'll conveniently ignore the fact that most national elections are choices between members of two monopoly parties who come from the same "evil" wealth class that you decry. If a majority vote that we should kill someone, should we? If a majority think that we should seize all of your assets and give them to me, should we?
Consensus doesn't equal moral superiority, but consensus does fuel action in a representative democracy. I am highly skeptical of the two party system, but thus far we seem to be functioning fairly well with it, and it certainly preferable to the traditional alternatives of fascism/oligarchy/monarchy.
And for the record, yes, if the majority votes to seize all my assets and give them to you, it will happen. It is, of course, not moral, but in the presence of overriding social benefit, it is at least justifiable. Hence our concept of imminent domain.
Taking money from someone who doesn't want to give it to you is stealing. Even our founding fathers argued that the government collected taxes as part of a social contract through voluntary association. This was at a time when secession was possible and individuals could take their property and leave the fragile union. If I declared my property independent today, I would be taken at gun point to prison. Therefore, my taxes are not voluntary, the social contract is void, and taxation is stealing.
Taxation has a firm basis in both legislation and judicial decisions. You are making the specious arguments of the Tax Protester. This issue has been settled repeatedly. I am suprised that any reasonable person could put any stock in this nonsense. Hopefully you don't practice what you preach, or you won't be in business long.
Except that they all did before Medicare came into existance in the 60s. Healthcare has evolved independently of market forces for the last 40 years, and we can follow the progression of the disaster. I think we should phase out these programs, take away hospital pseudo-monopoly status imposed in jurisdictions and free up healthcare to market forces. Medicare exclusion is feared because that is the coverage that patients have. If it didn't exist, the system would be different.
Despite your obvious education in history, you are conveniently ignoring it. Prior to the 1960s when Medicare came into being, medical practice was relatively low-tech, consisting mainly of a limited pharmacopeia, some surgery, and xrays. The rise of technology has greatly expanded our diagnostic/therapeutic interventions, and also drastically increased our costs. Fifty years ago people could easily pay for the available medical treatments, but in an age of MRI/CT, interventional radiology, plethora of blood tests, etc this is simply no longer feasible. On a cash basis, it would be impossible for anyone but the richest to pay for these things. Hence our implementation of Medicare and rise of health insurance (the health paying for the sick).
"A healthcare system subject to market forces" sounds fantastic, but is simply not feasible due to the costs involved. It is analgous to requiring individuals to pay for their own police/fire/military protection. While you might be comfortable turning down high-tech medical care to those who cannot pay, most of us are not. That is why we will continue to seek ways to provide health issurance to the underinsured.
Also, I am really getting annoyed with your accusation of my hatred for the underclass. I believe that the "underclass" are people that have the same priveleges and responsibilities as the "overclass." I believe that they are equal. You are the one who argues that this is a "class" prone to spontaneous bouts of violence and incapable of self-preservation. That IS insulting.
You make the typical Libertarian argument that 'providing help' = contempt. No one buys it, which is why Libertarians are consistently rejected in the electoral process. In truth, you want to protect your own interests, even if that means children don't get medicine and the injured don't get cared for. The theme of Objectivism/Libertarianism/Natural Selection runs deep throughout all your posts. I am suprised you don't just embrace it, rather than taking accurate descriptions of your tone as an "insult".
I'm sure that what really burns you up about all of this, is that it is the public who voted for these representatives who are instituting health care reform. Clearly America rejects your viewpoint, even if you can find a few self-interested SDN posters who agree with you
... I'm not headed to CA anytime soon. But seriously, the pundits are saying this is supposed to generate a lot of income for physicians and hospitals ... and this is supposed to justify the proposed 2% tax on physician income (and 4% tax on hospital revenues). Somehow I'm not sure I agree with singling out physicians and hospitals for taxes on healthcare (even if it's just a pass-thru).
