MayorQuimby
Gold Member
- Feb 4, 2024
- 3,368
- 1,426
- 208
Hi. There are basically two competing schools of thoughts: one side says that healthcare is a personal responsibility, people should take care of their own health to avoid getting sick, and they should also work on obtaining coverage as well on saving money in the event they get sick. And more importantly, they believe that it is immoral for the state to coerce people to participate in healthcare decisions. The other school believes that healthcare should be a universal right, and the poor, those too sick to work, the young, the dependent, the uninsurable should not be denied care just because they don't have the financial means. And furthermore, when a society is healthy, everybody wins. I might have over-simplified these positions, but I think I got the gist of it right.
I have a tiny, humble little proposal, I would like to hear your thought on it. Basically, it works similar to Social security. Think of it as mandatory personal healthcare account. The government takes a portion of your paycheck and deposit it into this account. This account is entirely your own, it doesn't get mixed in with other people's. And then when you get sick, you can use the money in this account to pay for your doctor's visits, emergency visits..etc.
I think this idea could work, even though there is still an element of coercion (as in, government is making you save a portion of your pay), however, my reasoning is that something similar is already in place. So people cannot be for that but against this. Secondly, it gives ground to the folks who believe that healthcare should be a personal responsibility. Here we are using our own money to take care of our own healthcare needs, it goes along with the principle of it nicely. And in the event of an infant or young person who hasn't had the time to save enough, this is the only situation the government steps in, out of compassionate concern. And the care for such young individuals will come form taxes. Yes I realize that taxes carry the implication of coercion, which goes against people's principle, however, this is already a more moderate position. It walks the middle ground between two extremes, aka, complete and total no state coercion, which means some people who fall on hard times will get no help, and the other side which argues we owe everybody in society healthcare because it's a universal right, and so we should force people to pay for other people's healthcare.
Of course, there are other difficulties that I haven't thought of, which you are welcome to point out. I just think that my position is sound and philosophically consistent. And it seems to approach a happy line in the middle, where the two sides get a little bit of what they each want, and they also make a little bit of concession to get that which they want, which is how a society should work where there are lots of people with different and competing priorities.
I would love your thoughts.
I have a tiny, humble little proposal, I would like to hear your thought on it. Basically, it works similar to Social security. Think of it as mandatory personal healthcare account. The government takes a portion of your paycheck and deposit it into this account. This account is entirely your own, it doesn't get mixed in with other people's. And then when you get sick, you can use the money in this account to pay for your doctor's visits, emergency visits..etc.
I think this idea could work, even though there is still an element of coercion (as in, government is making you save a portion of your pay), however, my reasoning is that something similar is already in place. So people cannot be for that but against this. Secondly, it gives ground to the folks who believe that healthcare should be a personal responsibility. Here we are using our own money to take care of our own healthcare needs, it goes along with the principle of it nicely. And in the event of an infant or young person who hasn't had the time to save enough, this is the only situation the government steps in, out of compassionate concern. And the care for such young individuals will come form taxes. Yes I realize that taxes carry the implication of coercion, which goes against people's principle, however, this is already a more moderate position. It walks the middle ground between two extremes, aka, complete and total no state coercion, which means some people who fall on hard times will get no help, and the other side which argues we owe everybody in society healthcare because it's a universal right, and so we should force people to pay for other people's healthcare.
Of course, there are other difficulties that I haven't thought of, which you are welcome to point out. I just think that my position is sound and philosophically consistent. And it seems to approach a happy line in the middle, where the two sides get a little bit of what they each want, and they also make a little bit of concession to get that which they want, which is how a society should work where there are lots of people with different and competing priorities.
I would love your thoughts.
