Is it just me or is distaste for Libertarianism contradictory to discordianism?

[BabylonHoruv]

So, abolish all medical insurance, then?

And when someone's grandmother gets bone cancer and can't afford treatment, they die, yes?

It's either that or let the smokers and fat people have public healthcare too.  Everything in between is a pretty shitty compromise that the insurance companies get rich off of.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

So, abolish all medical insurance, then?

And when someone's grandmother gets bone cancer and can't afford treatment, they die, yes?

Well, she's gonna die anyway at some point. Likely she won't have a very good time with the chemo and will waste away slowly while paying for the Doctor's kids to go to college and watching her family struggle to deal with their lives and her constant needs.

Personally, I'm all for optional government sponsored health care... as long as it doesn't come with mandates about what legal activites one can and cannot be involved in (smoking, fornication, gluttony etc). Educate people as to the dangers, sure... make any demands, hell no.

[navkat]

all that would be against your constitution

Uh, what? I am pretty sure that smoking, abortion, STD and national healthcare aren't covered by the Constitution.

No, she's technically right. I mean: we're supposed to have the right to be secure in our persons and possessions in this country under the Fourth, and the Tenth precludes the Federal Government from being allowed to assume powers not specifically granted in the original Bill of Rights and that all other matters should default to the States and The People. The Tenth was effectively abolished with the Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson administrations otherwise "National Healthcare" would be off the table entirely.

[LMNO]

I think we're wandering away from the point.

Nav thought smoking doesn't affect anyone but the smoker.

Smokers who need expensive medical treatment rely on either taxpayers or people belonging to the same insurance company.

The medical costs of all the people smoking in the us each year add up to about $90 billion.  Smokers are not the only people who ultimately pay these costs.

Therefore, smoking affects other people.

[navkat]

So, abolish all medical insurance, then?

And when someone's grandmother gets bone cancer and can't afford treatment, they die, yes?

Medical Insurance is a product.

National Healthcare is a policy.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think we're wandering away from the point.

Nav thought smoking doesn't affect anyone but the smoker.

Smokers who need expensive medical treatment rely on either taxpayers or people belonging to the same insurance company.

The medical costs of all the people smoking in the us each year add up to about $90 billion.  Smokers are not the only people who ultimately pay these costs.

Therefore, smoking affects other people.

Therefore anything you do that might possibly risk your health affects other people. Bunjee Jumping, Driving a Car, not getting proper rest, drinking alcohol, sitting on your ass at PD.com rather than getting good daily exercise...

To tie smoking effects through healthcare seems a bit disingenuous.

[fomenter]

I think we're wandering away from the point.

Nav thought smoking doesn't affect anyone but the smoker.

Smokers who need expensive medical treatment rely on either taxpayers or people belonging to the same insurance company.

The medical costs of all the people smoking in the us each year add up to about $90 billion.  Smokers are not the only people who ultimately pay these costs.

Therefore, smoking affects other people.

don't smokers pay higher amounts for insurance and more in taxes with the cigarette tax ? i would think between the two the extra cost would almost be negated?

[LMNO]

My point exactly, Rat.

In a society, everything we do can be connected to a large amount of other people.

The notion of "what I do to myself doesn't affect anyone else" is a specious argument.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

My point exactly, Rat.

In a society, everything we do can be connected to a large amount of other people.

The notion of "what I do to myself doesn't affect anyone else" is a specious argument.

Well, sure I mean if we back it up far enough every electron interacts with other electrons so were all one living creature the size of the universe. I'm pretty sure the initial comment was talking about direct effects, not artificially created effects due to insurance companies.

[LMNO]

So, then a libertarian government would allow a person's pocketbook to determine their health?

[Cain]

So, then a libertarian government would allow a person's pocketbook to determine their health?

No.  It would allow it to determine everything.

[LMNO]

So, then a libertarian government would allow a person's pocketbook to determine their health?

No.  It would allow it to determine everything.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

2) Adam, when someone is diagnosed with cancer due to smoking, it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat.  The individual smoker doesn't pay that entire cost.  The rest of the public does.

Yes but it also costs hundreds of thousands if you die from something not related to smoking too.  Pretty much everyone will rack up a massive hospital bill towards the end.

While it's true that the overall cost of healthcare is about the same (possibly a little more for nonsmokers because they incur more costs over the span of their longer life) nonsmokers live longer and are productive for more years, paying more into the healthcare system over their life spans.

The argument about health costs for smoking is stupid, particularly now in light of the current administration's plans. Either healthcare is something everyone chips in on and helps out with, or people fund their own. You don't get to say "Well, I would like everyone to pay for healthcare together... also, you can't smoke because it will waste my money!"

I mean, hell what happens when some Christian fundie gets into office and decides that premarital sex is unacceptable because it costs too much in STD treatments, abortions, pregnancies etc? Or abortions aren't covered, or the Pill or ...

If universal healthcare is the goal, then it needs to be universal for all citizens, however they desire to spend their time. If thats not acceptable, then don't stick your money in the group kitty.

I wasn't arguing whether anything is acceptable or consistent. I was only saying that overall, nonsmokers contribute more... if you don't have a cigarette tax, which is a recent introduction here in Oregon.

Stating a fact does not require taking a position.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

So, then a libertarian government would allow a person's pocketbook to determine their health?

No.  It would allow it to determine everything.

Libertarianism defeats the purpose of civilization and, indeed, society itself.

[LMNO]

Why do you hate Personal Freedom™?