When health care is considered a right, then the country cannot become anything other than a completely socialistic country. Government will have to regulate virtually every aspect of life and business in order to pay for universal health care by keeping costs down.

When a country becomes socialistic, a in increasing section of the population works for the government. This increases the amount of money the government needs, and so in order to satisfy the costs the government will eventually have to run for-profit businesses.

The only way to prevent the USA from become a socialist state is through the perspective that health care is not a right.

Scott wrote:There are plenty of non-socialist countries where education is a right. Why is health care different than education in that respect?

That's like asking me why an apple is different from an orange. If government provides everyone with healthcare, then it has the responsibility to regulate anything and everything that impacts the cost of that healthcare; that includes virtually every aspect of the US economy.

Regardless, I don't see what health care being considered a right has to do with the topic of this thread. Meleagar, if the government even in a non-socialist is going to be spending money on health care, do you want unhealthy behaviors like purchasing cigarettes, alcohol and soda to be taxed to help pay for ensuing health care costs? If not, then where do you suggest we get the revenue to pay for the extra health care costs caused by some people's unhealthy choices?

The short answer is that private healthcare companies get to decide who they will and will not contractually cover via privately-held insurance agreements or through other means that they deem appropriate and according to standard contractual law. IOW, those who cannot afford health care and cannot find a way to obtain it privately (through charitable organizations, family, etc.) do not get health care.

Meleagar, if the government is going to get the same total amount of revenue either way, would you prefer taxes on unhealthy behaviors like purchasing cigarettes, alcohol or soda to be increased and have taxes on income and property to be decreased or not? In other words, would you rather discourage and punish through taxation unhealthy behaviors like cigarette smoking or discourage and punish people for earning more money at their job?

I don't wish to discourage unhealthy behavior at all.

In an ideal society maybe nobody would be taxed at all. But right now in are unideal society governments all over the world are spending money. Someone and something has to be taxed to pay for that. Do we tax income and property solely, or do we at least get some of the tax revenue from taxing unhealthy behaviors so that income and property taxes don't have to be so high?

There's no reason to tax for an expense if you cut out the expense. I'd rather my taxes go to national defense, not correcting the bad health habits of others.

Scott wrote:What you say to one who argues, when education is considered a right, then the country cannot become anything other than a completely socialistic country? What if they claimed, if government provides everyone with education, then it has the responsibility to regulate anything and everything that impacts the cost of that education; that includes virtually every aspect of the US economy?

I would say that if the federal government took over education, it might not necessarily lead to socialism because it doesn't have nearly the same economy-wide impact (in terms of expense and regulation) that federal healthcare would. Healthcare is a considerable portion of the US Economy; education isn't even close.

Still, I wouldn't advise a federal takeover of education because it would further facilitate a slide towards socialism.

In this thread, I'm not saying I support the government spending money to subsidize health care. If a government is spending money on health care, then I would prefer that that government at least in part tax unhealthy behaviors like smoking cigarettes to pay for that spending than solely tax things income and property; wouldn't you?

No, because it's an erosion of freedom. I'm not in favor of the government establishing a system of fining people for non-criminal behaviors, which is what such taxes are.

Scott wrote:Meleagar, if the government is going to get the same total amount of revenue either way, would you prefer taxes on unhealthy behaviors like purchasing cigarettes, alcohol or soda to be increased and have taxes on income and property to be decreased or not?

The reason I didn't respond to your O.P. and was instead responding to a later post was because I consider the question posed by your O.P. to be of the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" variety; you offer a rigged choice.

Instead of fining or taxing behaviors that might or might not cause health system burdens on down the road, how about we just fine or tax the actual health burdens when they show up by charging them (even if over time) for their health care?

That way we can make sure that those who actually need the
extra health care are those who pay extra for their burden, instead of using statistical and often unreliable medical information, which is subject to politicization and corruption, and which change over time.

Nor would it erode any freedoms or subject the population to behavioral-conditioning fines for non-criminal activity.

Scott wrote: Don't you agree with that? If not, why not?

Because a complex, punitive tax code invites abuse and corruption and erodes personal liberty, responsibility and authority. The only tax the federal government should be able to levy on citizens is a flat tax.

Scott wrote:But I don't see anything inherently simpler about an income tax than a sales tax.

There isn't anything inherently simpler if the sales tax is a flat sales tax applied to all products. However, if one is able to charge different rates of tax for different products, then the potential for manipulative abuse rises.

Any attempt to decree one lifestyle or set of choices as more favorable than another through manipulations of tax code is IMO not only contrary to the principle of liberty from government intrusion and coercion, but is also an invitation to corruption.

Scott wrote:If the government is going to spend money on health care namely in a single payer universal health care system paid for through taxes, it clearly seems to me much fairer to charge more to the people who choose to engage in unnecessary activities that increase the average cost of insuring them, which we can easily and simply do by charging a sales tax on such activities or the purchase of things used in such activities.

If fairness is your target, it's hardly fair to tax people extra for services they might never use. A fair sytem of health-care specific variable taxation would be a flat tax (say, 2% of income) that goes up after one has exceeded a basic amount of health care cost. IOW, the variable amount of increased taxation is directly correlated to actual use over time.

That's fair, and doesn't penalize the 40-year smoker that never develops any health problems.

The flat rate (whatever it is set at) would have to be set in relation to the projected total health care costs of the entire population to begin with.

Of course, that's just a solution for the sake of argument. I'd prefer that government not get involved, but if they do, then they need to keep the system flat or with a tax curve that matches actual use in order to avoid abuse.

Belinda wrote:I think you are right, Dewey. But we cannot make up our collective mind until we know the facts. Alethia is right, and we should all cook and bake helathy food, therefore cookery and household management should be taught to all.Therefore, the powers of the multinationals should be curbed by central government because the multinationals are often detrimental to our health and the sustaining environment.The Nanny State need to exist in proportion to the dangers to those many citizens ill-equipped to deal with the dangers to health in modern living.

The Nanny State is easy to legislate for, quantify and qualify, but the dangers to gullible citizens have to be quantified and qualified too and this is not so simple especially when the multinationals and nationals do such efficient lying for PR.I hardly have to provide examples of lies, seductiveness,suggestiveness, and exaggerations within current advertisements do I?

The expectation that "the nanny state" will act with less corruption, or more in the best interests of the population, than a competing arrangement of corporations, has - as far as I know - never been qualitatively or quantitatvely substantiated.

In practical construction and application, "the nanny state" is simply another form of corporation, with income, expenses, and a president, board, and staff. The power that corrupts corporations equally corrupts governments.

Giving "the nanny state" power over all only lends absolute power toward absolute corruption, which is why history tells us that socialist systems almost inevitably lead to tyranny.

When corporations and wealthy individuals can compete against any particular ideology in the administration of government, and compete against each other via free speech and a free marketplace, then such power is broken up over the political and economic landscape. While some might see this as imperfect, it's still, IMO, better than providing tyrannical forces the engine (socialism) by which they can accumulate and employ absolute power over a society.