Providing sick people with medicine is a completely unnecessary evil?
Do 95% of the population who would be able to pay for medicine in a free market need to be robbed of 30% of their income to pay for the 5% that might need charity?
The government cannot even keep from going broke and you want it to make poor people healthy?
Why not just euthanaze them and get it over with?
No, forcing other people to provide it is.
Do you believe that a sick person should be denied medical treatment if they cannot pay for it?
That is up to those who would have to provide it, is it not?
No. What you believe is up to you. Just answer the question.
So you want me to make this decision for other, hypothetical, people about whose circumstances I know nothing about?
Not that it would be my place to decide for them if I could.
I want you to stop avoiding the question.
Should sick people be denied medicine if they cannot pay for it?
Do you believe you can hold a gun to a medical care giver and force them to provide health care?
Depends on the circumstance and that would be up to the care giver.
No. I also don't believe I can hold a gun to a firefighter and force them to put out fires, or put a gun to a cops head and force them to enforce the law, or put a gun to a teachers head and force them to teach a class.
Yet somehow these things happen without me or my gun. So, whats your point?
So why wouldn't it happen with health care? In fact, historically it was until government started interfering back in the 70s. You can thank Nixon and HMOs for the current state of health care and why charity doesn't cut it anymore.
It wouldnt happen because we consider the medicine and care to be the property of private business, to be given at whatever price they decide. Then, like you said, factor in the private insurance companies (also looking to make as big a profit as possible).
Your initial response is akin to saying "If a persons house is on fire, its up to the owner of the firetruck if they want to use it to put it out. Who are you to hold a gun to the firetruck owners head and tell him he has to put out the fire? Thats against his rights!"
There's a reason fire stations aren't privately owned companies, yeah?
Can you explain why?
If no doctor does it pro bono and if nobody else pays for it, yes.
Thats pure Marxism.
OMGZ!!, the the profit of companies and the costs of competing are so ginormous that socialed anything simply must be more profitable.
Funny how that never turned out that way.
Well it is against his rights.
If however he had a contract with the house owner and refuses to put it out anyway you are perfectly free to sue him.
If someone died because of it, put the firefighter in jail, but, even in this case, not because he was obligated to risk his ass per se, but because he promised to do so and did not which caused harm to a contractual party.
Not the issue here.
Do you believe fire, education, emergency medical services, and law enforcement/protection should all be run by private, for-profit companies?
If yes, why? If no, why not?
This is your problem, lumping in emergency medical services with general healthcare "someone is sick denying them medicine." Your other examples are all things anyone would gladly forfeit taxes for and benefit the entire community (if your house is on fire it behooves me as your neighbor if it is put out or not" not so much if you have a self imposed disease like heart disease (assuming it was induced by lifestyle choices) and can't afford your astronomical bills. In an emergency where people have had an accident and need immediate care then yes I am happy to have my taxes go towars covering some of those costs for the greater good and in case I ever need those services as well. Your type 2 diabetes you brought on yourself cause you eat shit food? Yeah sorry, you pay for it and if you can't then tough titty.
In your argument, only patients have rights, not care givers. If you don't realize this there is no hope for debate here, just chasing your own tail.
Government is force, at least as it is currently contrived. And in most instances. The idea of the free market is voluntary interactions.
So true private business, yes I would choose that over government run any day. Prior to 1930s medical service was readily available and affordable. The GOVERNMENT was the entity that decided it should cost more and be more reclusive.
What do you do for a living? anything, what is your station in life.
See I know both Story420 and I have actually been involved in the healthcare industry, I still am not sure about him. Government has done to medicine and health what it does to every other industry it gets it's hands on, ruined it. Forced huge costs, decreases in services, slowed innovation.
The private sector is better because it forces innovation, to do things better, and more efficiently.
The government and individuals such as yourself who think they have the right to force others to do as they say without a choice int he matter (sounds like enslavement to me) slow this progress. You think you can just take people money, time, life from them and force them to devote it to others. This creates contempt and complacency at best.