Do you think your taxes should pay for other people healthcare?

Do you think your taxes should pay for other people healthcare?

yes

because when i have a health problem, others will pay for me as well

leaf

Fuck. No.

No because I am under 40 and physically fit so I will essentially never need to see a doctor.

It means I will be punished for my healthy lifestyle choices while people who make poor decisions will be rewarded.

Yes. Because few people are actually aiming to have bad health and risk prematurely dying just to rort healthcare. The ones that are risking bad health and dying need to be identified and given treatment for their mental illness, and I want there to be no shame in that also.

i dont think i should have to pay taxes. what it's spent on is a secondary concern

or, you should pay for yours and yours only

No. They need to face the consequences of their actions. Unaccountability is destroying societies.

fucking leaf

Yes, net savings due to universal participation and increased availability of preventative medicine.

No, not in the current system.

A system that keeps people accountable, I would support.

Cutting off healthcare for people who don't practice proper nutrition, exercise, or drink/smoke would be ideal.

Yes, I'm 33, I have no job or insurance and I had blood clots in my legs that traveled to my lungs on top of an infection caused by lack of showering and if be dead right now if it wasn't for you guys. I love you guys and thank you for loving me too

You mean pay for the AIDs medication for some faggot who stuck his dik up 30 black assholes last weekend? Sign me up.

Yes, because some people are born with conditions, or fall upon bad luck and need help that they may not be able to afford. Those who self inflict their health problems such as morbid obesity or throat cancer from smoking should have to pay for their own healthcare however.

Only if I don't live in USA, a country full of niggers and +300 punds people would put the country in bankruptcy in a couple of years

agreed
how would they keep track of that?
would it account for people who can't take proper care of themselves because of mental illnesses?

Why can't we just forcibly starve morbidly obese people?

should people born with genetic conditions be allowed to reproduce then perpetuating such conditions?

Not my taxes. My ensurance payments should cover it.

40% of my paycheck is taken by the government, then 14% gets lopped off every time I buy something, then I pay $4000 every year in property tax. Oh yeah and my dollar is only worth 73 cents.

STOP FUCKING TAXING ME YOU CUNTS!

Maybe very basic medical care, like one that takes an insignificant amount out of my paycheck, for like, children and shit.
Other than that, no.

you will wait 6 months tho. go ahead. refute this. ill wait.

I think that whether 'a government is collecting money from me to pool with the money of others for a [service]' or 'a business is collecting money from me to pool with the money of others for a [service]' is ultimately a false dichotomy.

I think that if in either situation if the [service provider] is profiting from this exchange, then that is a problem.

I think that if in either situation if the [service provider] refuses to provide the [service] after collecting money from me, then that is a problem.

I think that if in either situation if the economic situation has come to the point that the service is realistically unattainable except through a [service provider], then that is a problem.

Aren't services voluntary?

Not when a [service provider] has brought the economic situation to the point that it is realistically impossible to attain the [service] without them.

No.

Isn't that racketeering?

In America we call it health insurance.

>has brought the economic situation
that only happens because of market regulation by the state
the same regulation that forces taxes for health care
THERE IS NO MONOPOLY IN A FREE MARKET
MONOPOLIES ONLY TAKE PLACE IF THEY ARE PROTECTED BY THE STATE
such an hypothetical monopoly as the one you described means that it provides the best cost-benefit for the consumers so it's not a problem if it's the only way to attain the service

At this point I can't even tell if you're serious or being facetious posting that 'typical libertarian' response BR.

How does a government monopoly offer the best cost-benefit for the consumers, Ronaldo?

i'm serious
why wouldn't i be?

it doesn't
that's why the state shouldn't regulate the market
so businesses can provide better cost-benefit for consumers

PAAAAYYYYY

Ole Barnacle Bill

What a fucking crybaby that fatso was.

"WAHHHH MY LEGS HURT!"

"WAAAAHHH I GAINED 100 POUNDS THE SCALE MUST BE WRONG"

"I SWEAR I"M STILL NOT EATING 5 BUCKETS OF CHICKEN EVERY DAY"

What a disgrace.

we dont love you

>why wouldn't i be?

Because no one of sound mind would ever suggest that 'MONOPOLIES ONLY TAKE PLACE IF THEY ARE PROTECTED BY THE STATE'.

How are the cartels down your way this time of year anyhoo?

Yes. It's cheaper to treat everyone earlier then when they are critical.

Yeah I do, Australia has better health outcomes and a lower GDP spent on health than the US. A public health system costs the country less and delivers better results. But ultimately its up to you seppos to decide whether you want it or not.

Hmmm.

I think "acts of god" should be covered by a public insurance we all pay into.

Take a snake bite received on a popular hiking trail. Antivenom can cost ENORMOUS amounts of money. But snake bites really aren't that common. But the people who milk the snakes in order to make the antivenom (it's a very involved process if I recall correctly) deserve to get paid for their efforts. So I think the public should pay for that antivenom.

I think the we the people should pay for things like that.

We should NOT pay for obesity related diseases. Dumb fuck thrill seekers falling off bridges trying to take the next great selfie. Drug addicts. Alcoholics. Anything like that.

I think you should have a "Health Score" the same way you have a "Credit Score".

What % of your health woes come from self inflicted damage?

For that matter, what % of all health woes come from self inflicted damage, from being a dumbass, drinking too much, doing drugs, eating too much, smoking cigarettes, etc?

I don't think we should subsidize self inflicted damage.

But shit that's 100% out of your control no matter how healthy you live your life I could see helping out with.

You are a burden on everyone. Your existence is a net loss on society and human progress.

you mean the cartels that are allowed to continue thanks to the corrupt state of our police system? they are doing just fine.
but seriously monopolies do get formed more often under strict state control than otherwise.

Yes, but after we cull everyone with mental/physical defects.

not until we restore our social compact. i'd rather die than pay a dime to 3rd world invaders

>I'd rather die than pay a dime to 3rd world invaders
Why not both?

It's more like Libertarians are unable to distinguish cause and effect when it comes to monopolies. When private entities use force to manipulate a government to do what they want then Libs blame government and when private entities use force to directly get people do do what they want they say that 'they're basically a government' anyways.

no, I want mine to be private, nothing wrong with some privacy.

Source of the video ?

>When private entities use force to manipulate a government
in the end the manipulated government is regulating the market.
that that out and those entities can't have any power through government but only by consumer acceptance.
you just agreed with me that state intervention is what causes monopolies.
what's so hard about it to understand?

what I don't want is taxes to increase. I get why taxes exist but increasing taxes so much is just stupid, it will become theft.

if the government wasn't so strong there in the first place there would be no way for the private entities to manipulate them in a self beneficial way.
Seriously, when the state got more power over here it killed small business. IT WAS DIRECT CAUSE AND EFFECT.

take that out*

In The Walking Dead the "good guys" thought giving half their earnings was unacceptable and wanted to kill Neegan rather than comply. Why are we such sheep under our own governments? We're all giving up half our earnings.

>only gives half of his earnings in taxes
kek get on my level scrub.

Sure, the government killed small business. I'm sure it has nothing to do with armed robbery or anything.

>that that out and those entities can't have any power through government but only by consumer acceptance.

>there would be no way for the private entities to manipulate them in a self beneficial way.


And now we go back to the cartels who would be more than willing to kill you to get what they want even without the government lapdogs.

What's important is use of/monopolization of force, libertarians just have this automatic and irrational assumption built into their rhetoric that only governments can use force.

that too
our leftist government made the population unarmed to defend themselves

>What's important is use of/monopolization of force, libertarians just have this automatic and irrational assumption built into their rhetoric that only governments can use force.
governments should have the monopoly of force and use it to protect the free market
taxes should be minimum and be used mostly on the army and police forces and law system

Only in homogeneous societies where there's a sense of trust and community. Same goes for welfare.

As it stands, both universal healthcare and welfare are unsustainable in most western countries, and in terms of taxes, only white men break even or contribute, while all other groups, including white women, cost society more than they contribute.
The welfare state simply can't exist in the long run, particularly if you fill western countries with shitskins who are incapable of contributing, leech off the state and erode social cohesion.

To an extent I like the idea of public health. But fucks like the one in ops pic should be left to rot.

no it actually was the government, at least for the majority. you pay so much in taxes if you open your won company that you can't survive with what you make. companies them have gone bankrupt, which caused unemployment, which cause an spike in the crime rate. trust me crime is only a small part of the problems entrepreneurs have in their way to start a business.

SOMEONES TAXES GOTTA PAY FOR MINE SINCE I DON'T PAY THEM OR HEALTHCARE

>governments should have the monopoly of force and use it to protect the free market

But that would be regulating the free market, further there is a fundamental issue of who determines what is threatening the free market.

in an ideal society with ideal citizens,yes
we do not live in that society
as other countries start to become more obese and let in more illegal immigrants they too will start to understand why its not a good idea to keep such a law in place after things start to go south

Ps. But Id sooner give money for that fucks health before Israel gets another fucking dime.

a free market is one that is not attacked by forces the way the governments do nowadays indirectly

What the fuck are those bed sores? Jesus fucking wept.

i think that the only way for a market to flourish freely is by having a unified military force protecting private property
so this means taxes but only for this kind of necessity

In the Walking Dead, the series takes place in Georgia, a state known for not giving a fuck about what the government wants.

>not forced to pay for health care
>exercise, eat well, take care of myself
>can save more money and have more buying power
>pay for health care when I need it because I have tons of disposable income because I'm not taxed like a bitch
>can pick and choose health care providers because it's my money and my choice
>health care providers need to compete with each other so prices go down
>fat fucks die early because they're constantly sick - they have to sleep in the bed they made and I don't have to pay for it

What exactly is wrong with this economic model?

Which would include regulations to break up monopolies, so therefore any effort the government makes to protect the free market would also be an attack on the free market; infinite circular logic.

Monopolies form from government action, not from government inaction.

Old fag here.

I have not been this disturbed since I saw that US contractor get beheaded by hajis.

Damn.

>Which would include regulations to break up monopolies
of course not
because monopolies in a free market means that the company defeated the competition by providing the best cost-benefit for the consumer and that's the optimal scenario.

i'm not arguing for a annulment of the government, the protection of the laws is a necessity which can't be overlooked. but the unnecessary control over the flow of goods does nobody a favor. the role of the government should be limited in the economical sphere and that has been proven time and time again.

but that does not mean that the government completely lack power to inform the rights of it's citizen. Arresting a robber is not interfering with the flow of goods but taxing the product is.

makes sense

Lol the majority of Americans in this thread. What a selfish obstinate mess.

>the most american person in the planet

would you be so selfless to let me stick my brown cock into your wife, cuck?

But if the military interferes with the actions of a cartel for example then they are interfering in the market. Wouldn't destroying/seizure of the cartel's property by the military inherently violate your belief in an absolute right to private property?

Read the quote chain before commenting, my response to you is already in the thread.

>because monopolies in a free market means that the company defeated the competition by providing the best cost-benefit for the consumer and that's the optimal scenario.
And that's a naive conclusion based on absolutely nothing, see: Cartels.

...

>heterosexual male
>Brazilian

Pick one

>But if the military interferes with the actions of a cartel
but cartels are formed by state intervention.
if the state isn't regulating the economical sphere there would be no cartels for the military to dismantle.

Oh for crying out loud.

cartels are enforced by state corruption

leaf questioning someone's sexuality
kek

That's how we get so fat

The issue is not as simple as a robber or a murder though; the issue is when businesses operate with impunity to achieve ends which are inherently outside the realm of consideration of Libertarianism which simply says 'that can't happen, that won't happen, if it happens is must be the government's fault'

Think it was my 600lb. life season 5, the James K episode.

It's probably on pirate bay.

A big fat disgusting piece of shit.

cranky Brazilians, I fucked one of your women a few years back. She wasnt too bad in the sack.

PAY

Forcing the healthy to pay for the unhealthy is foundamentally unjust and against evolution.

while you were here your women were definetly taking brown cock

No, this is why public healthcare is best, since you pay less and you pay for your own health, not for intermediary businessmen and insurance companies and so on with deductables, out-of-pocket...etc.

My faggot status has no bearing on your dubious requests.

Yes and no.

If we're going to have taxes or a federally influenced private monetary system, then we might as well use those taxes for free health care.

If taxes are voluntary, then no.

Why do I say this?
Because I think governance is wrong to begin with, and I think it's wrong to tax people.

>we should have the government provide healthcare
>but only for people who meet my arbitrary criteria
how about you fuck off, and everybody just pays for their own shit?

Except that when the state can't interfere with the actions of private business they have no ability to prevent the formation of cartels. You are basically saying that 'niggers only rob stores because the police exist.' Criminal behavior will exist with or without government intervention.