So I was arguing with my friends about Health care and why Government should stay out of it when my friend said "how will the homeless get there coverage? who will send an ambulance?"
I tried mentioning charity and how it would increase in a more prosperous society, but my friends said I was just speculating.
is there any way I can support my arguments better in this topic
"No person is so grand or wise or perfect as to be the master of another person." ~ Karl Hess
"look, property is theft, right? Therefore theft is property. Therefore this ship is mine, OK?" ~Zaphod Beeblebrox
fancyshirtman: So I was arguing with my friends about Health care and why Government should stay out of it when my friend said "how will the homeless get there coverage? who will send an ambulance?" I tried mentioning charity and how it would increase in a more prosperous society, but my friends said I was just speculating. is there any way I can support my arguments better in this topic
You're conceding the point when you talk about charity, though it's true. The point is that government interventions necessarily defeat their purpose--helping the parts of society that need it the most. When the government says they want to "control costs" all that means is that they want to limit doctor pay, since they can't control the prices of the machinery and technology employed in the healthcare industry. That could only happen if they controlled the entire economy, that is, the price of the inputs which go into the machinery, ect. When you limit doctor pay you limit the supply of doctors, and therefore reduce the supply of healthcare. You also reduce the quality of healthcare because intelligent individuals who want to become doctors wont saddle themselves with debt and a decade of extreme education for unremunerative salaries. They'll become engineers, lawyers, whatever. Furthermore, how is the government going to finance massive subsidies? If they print the money they will devalue its purchasing power, necessarily impoverishing all of society, especially the poor (and cause business cycles). If they increase taxes they will depress business activity which increases costs, meaning capital and labor flight to other nations, higher prices, and overall lower output. And again, this will impoverish all of society and especially the poor. Ask them how bankrupting America helps the poor. There's really a lot you could talk about.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Homeless people receive an income, usually from charity in the first place. So your assertion of charity being a reasonable means beyond government malfeasance at providing those less-able to afford goods and services assistance is fine.
I'm not homeless, but I do not have a car. Lots of other people have cars! Should I petition the government to get one for me?
Here's a great quote to put in your back pocket.
The Government is very good and doing ONE thing: It's good at breaking your leg, then handing you a crutch and saying, "See, where would you be without me?"
Harry Browne
Not sure if he was the one that came up with it or if he was quoting someone else. Nonetheless, it's one of my favorites.
fancyshirtman: "how will the homeless get there coverage? who will send an ambulance?"
"how will the homeless get there coverage? who will send an ambulance?"
Actually, many (if not most) ambulances operate by private donations; charity.
fancyshirtman:I tried mentioning charity and how it would increase in a more prosperous society, but my friends said I was just speculating.
fancyshirtman:is there any way I can support my arguments better in this topic
Government and charity should never be mixed: that's how we got into the present mess in the first place.
Esuric:When you limit doctor pay you limit the supply of doctors, and therefore reduce the supply of healthcare.
Typical example of applying poison to cure the patient.
It is easy to forget that supply is already limited due to government licensing and regulations (such as those lobbied by the AMA), so that costs are artificially higher then they would be in the free market.
I agree with Esuric's and Conza's strategy, or 'Super Saiyan Socratic Method" as I like to call it. Point out the logical conclusions of their argument, and make it backfire on them. Point out the gun in the room.
Examples:
1. Is something a right if it requires a coerced group of persons to establish? If your comrades say yes, then they've just admitted nothing is true, everything is permissible. IOW: Might makes right, theft is justified, and so are the means to it. Now go steal grandpa a young, untouched kidney.
You'll receive bonus points for asking if they'll practice what they preach. Given that your crew delegates shakedowns, it should have no problem threatening to kidnap or bump off, with the aid of their tommy guns, anyone who skims on the Don's protection swag.
2. If health care is a right because it's integral in sustaining life, then aren't food, water, shelter, hygienic/dental care rights to a greater degree? If the answer is "negative" to socializing those amenities to life, then they're special pleading. If your comrades say yes, then they're shooting themselves in the foot. Anyone who knows the answers to this gets a gold star.
Here's one example for education, courtesy of Murray Rothbard:
"One of the best ways of regarding the problem of compulsory education is to think of the almost exact analogy in the area of that other great educational medium — the newspaper. What would we think of a proposal for the government, Federal or State, to use the taxpayers' money to set up a nationwide chain of public newspapers, and compel all people, or all children, to read them? What would we think furthermore of the government's outlawing all other newspapers, or indeed outlawing all newspapers that do not come up to the "standards" of what a government commission thinks children ought to read? Such a proposal would be generally regarded with horror in America, and yet this is exactly the sort of regime that the government has established in the sphere of scholastic instruction.
Compulsory public presses would be considered an invasion of the basic freedom of the press; yet is not scholastic freedom at least as important as press freedom? Aren't both vital media for public information and education, for free inquiry and the search for truth? It is clear that the suppression of free instruction should be regarded with even greater horror than suppression of free press, since here the unformed minds of children are involved."
I live in one of the most liberal places in the US. I can tell you here that homeless people will be left to die. Especially with state run medicine.
Just tell them that having the homeless die off will improve the human species, then say you believe in property rights because you hate black people and don't like the EPA because you hate the environment because you hate small children.
Response: So you care about the homeless? If this had any standing in the government then there would have to be alot of others who also care about the homeless. Therefore, even in the absence of the sate and the state covering the homeless then individuals can and will pool resources in order to assist in helping the homeless, indeed it would be better if you just stopped trying to find a state solution right now and got your hands dirty and set to work.
fancyshirtman: So I was arguing with my friends about Health care and why Government should stay out of it when my friend said "how will the homeless get there coverage? who will send an ambulance?"
However unfortunate the position of these individuals, two things need to be pointed out:
1) People largely find themselves in such situations (and with such character traits) due to the decay of the community and economy caused by state interventionism into the individual and social life.
2) The (theoretical) disadvantage which is no one's fault of certain individuals does not justify the use or threat of violence, which would be someone's fault. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is far more disrespectful to human dignity than would simply allowing Paul to die for want of medical treatment; or to trot out the old cliche 'two wrongs do not make a right'.
“Laws: We know what they are, and what they are worth! They are spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of the government.” - Proudhon