Uncategorized

Free Healthcare for Everyone

“If people don’t have to pay, they will overuse”

“When people have to pay, they won’t get treatment”

“They have to pay anyway, in the form of higher premiums or taxes”

“They don’t connect higher taxes or deficits with going to the doctor more: it isn’t salient enough to benefit from price sensitivity”

“Increasing access to healthcare means chronically unemployed will get jobs after getting treatment”

“No. Spending more money on disabled people just means they go to the doctor more. They won’t get jobs because they are disabled.”

“There is low-hanging fruit, such as treating addiction.”

“It is immoral for homeless drug addicts to free ride off my taxes and get better healthcare.”

“Those homeless drug addicts will get off the street, start paying taxes, and become functioning citizens if they get treatment.”

“They are just trading a drug for another drug.”

“Type 2 diabetes is “self-inflicted” and treatment includes medication.”

“Type 2 diabetics never lied, cheated, and stole from the society to get sugar.”

“Most of those homeless drug addicts who are addicted to heroin got started because of shady marketing and leadership practices by big pharma through elected leadership.”

“Well healthcare costs are already out of control. Reducing the out of pocket costs will only reduce price-sensitivity because the costs are too far removed. Especially when government deficits seem to be increasing indefinitely.”

“Those deficits are not just a function of spending. It also has to do with reducing taxes. If we want to lower the deficit, companies should also have to pay taxes.”

“TAXING CORPORATIONS CAUSES LESS OF AN INCENTIVE TO INNOVATE.”

“If they reduce their net income (taxable income) by increasing investment into research and development, it could have the opposite effect. Not taxing corporations with huge profits and cash on the balance sheet reduces the incentive to incur expenses.”

“That doesn’t matter! What matters is the headlines, not the details. Two words: Animal Spirits.”

“So we are increasing the deficit so that big corporations can pay less taxes, but are reluctant to invest in treating addiction caused by poorly regulating big corporations? There seems to be something wrong with that.”

“Those homeless drug addicts deserve what they got! It is there fault, and this is all just a mirage to relieve them of their deserved shame.”

“Introducing morality into medicine is a lingering disease from centuries ago. Treat addiction so these people can be functioning members of society, instead of in an endless cycle that is killing millions.”

“Trading a drug for a drug is just trading addiction for addiction!”

“Tell that to the parents who lost children, and the children who lost parents. That attitude is contributing to the death, but is a valid concern because of how pharmaceutical companies and medical professionals contributed to this mess.”

Controversial Issues

Universal Basic Income

“People in a society that has the means should have their basic needs met.”

“Being made to provide for others infringes on my freedom; people should earn their keep.”

“Humans are not free until self-actualization; if a society can provide freedom to all, it should.”

“Our society cannot afford to give enough money for everyone to live.”

“If technology automates the jobs and leaves profits, we can tax the capital for a freedom dividend.”

“If people don’t have to work, they won’t work: a Universal Basic Income is bad for progress”

“If people don’t have to work because they live in a rich successful society, they will be free to contribute back to the society that provided them that freedom.”

Questions

Do we live in a society that can afford financial freedom for every citizen? What effect would this have on purchasing power? Is it possible to tax capital in a way to lower the deficit, provide a Universal Basic Income, and grow the economy by incentivizing technological advancement? Is a UBI (Universal Basic Income) the first step in an unraveling of the global financial system to a chaotic meltdown, the beginning of the end of history, or has their not been enough technological advancement, so our society cannot yet afford it?

@argumentlabs, you forgot… [insert response here]