Nearly one-in-five new HIV cases are the result of drug users sharing dirty needles, an extrodinarily high number. Some cities have attempted to combat the epidemic by giving free clean needles to addicts in exchange for used ones. These programs are highly controversial in the U.S., with many insisting such programs encourage drug use and increase crime. Should your community be funding needle exchange programs?
I am against funding needle exchanges. However, many major cities require a prescription to purchase needles from a drug store which are otherwise inexpensive and easily obtained. These provisions are put in place under the misguided notion that they will prevent drug users from gaining access to needles. Instead, these laws prompt the development of a hypodermic needle black market, and encourage drug abusers to reuse or share needles. If these provisions are repealed, there will be a natural reduction in needle-sharing and reuse, and a corresponding reduction the spread of disease through use of contaminated needles.
No I do not think we should even tho I am all for legalizing marijuana I do believe most drugs use is A major problem for all countries and should not encouraged by no means by giving out clean needles it say's hey we're ok with this if they ain't got enough since to use a clean one then they deserve what they get and if they haven't the money they don't need to be spending what they do have on drug's.
That even if you give people clean needles they are still going to be too lazy to change them after every use or stop sharing them.
Instead of directly giving the easy way out to people and indirectly telling them that we are with you and you can carry on with whatever you are doing, why dont government tries harder to inspire these people to go to rehab and completely get rid of their addiction. There are rehabs like malibu drug rehabilitation with a good success rate. Government should concentrate more on curing them completely instead of telling them that doing this is okie and we will help you do this safely.
“There are rehabs like malibu drug rehabilitation with a good success rate.”
Solid rehab programs are fairly expensive to run, and we are dealing with limited resources.
“Government should concentrate more on curing them completely instead of telling them that doing this is okie and we will help you do this safely.”
The assumption here is that only one possible program can exist at a given time. Needle exchange programs work in conjunction with rehab / counseling programs by limiting the spread of blood born diseases.
This is extremely foolish to even think of. You do illegal drugs, your breaking the law , but LETS give out needles just so these criminals can stay HIV free. No, no, no. It WAS their choice to take the drugs, it's their choice to not get help, it's their choice to use someone else's needle so they can suffer the consequences. All this will do is encourage and promote drug use. This is a foolish program that makes anti-drug promotion ineffective.
OOOORAH!!! well said.
You speak with confidence and conviction, in abstractions, but you do not know what you're talking about.
Try this Marine. More Americans have died of AIDS that died in WW II and Nam, combined. What do you do about an enemy that's spreading geometrically when you know how to prevent a great deal of the spread? Do you do nothing, because you are waiting for some "anti-drug promotion" programs to work when they do clearly not work? Do you watch people die and sit on your can or do you do what you know how to do --- what scientific studies here and all over the world have demonstrated conclusively works --- to protect your brothers & sisters and make the world a little safer for your children ? It was a clear decision for me. Make sure that as many people as possible had clean needles.
I've been taking needle exchange clients to the VA in Menlo Park, CA for 20 years. Many of our clients have been Viet Nam Vets; now more & more are Iraq & Afghanistan vets. There are complex reasons for addiction, but dramatically reducing the spread of HIV among injectors, is relatively straight forward. Needle Exchange Saves Lives. You have no right to call these programs "foolish," considering that you know nothing about them. If you want to learn, I'll be glad to refer you to research that has earned the respect of an overwhelming consensus of medical professionals around the world.
Do not make the mistake of confusing addiction with AIDS. Preventing HIV disease among IDU is efficient and hopeful. Treating addiction is complex, time-consuming, expensive and uncertain. AIDS doesn't wait.
What do you do when it hits the fan? You do what you can.
Anyone that truly want's to help is gonna get off their butt's and DO something to stop the addiction and stop the drug use all together. If my buddy was doing drug's I'd set him straight, and I'd do everything I could to help him stay DRUG free. I'm not gonna give him that needle to make it easier to do drugs . If anything the possibility of getting AIDS is gonna make people think twice about doing drugs and sticking that needle in their arm.
What makes it right to steal?
YEAH how so I agree with with our fellow marine and I am wondering what it is you mean by ur comment.
How so then? Addiction?
IMO, it doesn't matter if private money , city, state or federal money is used for needle exchage programs. Anyone that thinks a junkie can just say no to their addiction is foolishly deluded. They will also use dirty needles if they need a fix due to withdrawal. I would also suggest that we fund EFFECTIVE treatment programs, and that involuntary commitment be used to get junkies clean, whether it takes a day, week, month or year. This is called civic responsibility IMO. Current treatment programs try to do well, but have poor funding and usually cannot provide enough treatment to be effective in the long term.
Simply put, "DEAD ADDICTS DO NOT RECOVER''. Yes, rehab works for a great deal of people, although sometimes many attempts are required in order to lead a sober life. Offering clean needles to addicts isn't going to make them use more, just safely. Not only does using dirty "works" increase the chances of contracting HIV or Hepatitis C, but also increases chances of an addict injecting other contaminates into the bloodstream, causing infections & abscesses. If an abscess occurs, they likely don't have a Primary Care Physician. This means they are likely going to an ER, usually without insurance. Which costs taxpayers more money ? Hospital visits. Please put your thoughts away concerning your view on drugs "being bad", addiction is a disease, not necessarily a choice. Read some medical research on the subject.
People who are addicted to drugs , which IV heroin users usually are, are not criminals for their use of drugs. Sure, like other criminals, they are likely to commit crimes to support their habit, but the habit itself should not be a crime . Just the habit supporting illegal acts.
It is too simplistic to lump them together as criminal behavior. It is bad public policy to try and protect people from themselves. It is an attack on personal liberty and by refusing to allow heroin addicts the opportunity to reach the point in their lives where they have to choose between their drug or their life, we as a society are effectively enabling them to continue.
I change my vote from "uncommitted" to "yes".
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
"It is bad public policy to try and protect people from themselves."
However, you are supporting the opposite. Who chooses to use dirty needles? Who are we protecting by handing out free ones?
No, they are not criminals. They have every right to do whatever they want to their own bodies. We shouldn't be paying for their choices.
Causes less impact on system due to expensive treatments of Hepatitis, HIV , AIDS , and abscess/infection. Clean needles can easily be seen as charitable giving, in this case.
Alternatively, I see your point and agree to a point. Charity should not be forced as are taxes . And I admit that taxes are the source of revenue for this program. The enigma occurs when we consider how impossible it would be for the church to acquire donations for clean needles for drug addicts.
I guess this is a case where, given the circumstances, the ends might justify the means.
WWJD?
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Why not offer rehab rather then needles
Needle exchange is a good program,as long as we keep it out of the govt.hands.
Dr. Martin posts succinct and complete arguments in favor of syringe exchange and as the Yes side we heartedly concur!
Chicago seems to be the source of all the dumb socialism????
It must be the water !
I GUESS I vote yes for this issue, but there is no distinction between private assistance and tax-funded programs. If they mean the city govt. should pay for it then I would say no.
City govt.should not be forced to pay.Private assistance can and do a good job at this with out govt.
As needle exchange programs have been shown to reduce the spread of HIV and hepatitis there seems to be no reason not to fund them out of the public purse. Keeping people alive and healthy will save on health costs. Having people sick and dying of hepatitis and AIDS reduces the tax base, so an opposition to government-funded needle exchange programs could end up costing more.
M. Glass
If the government would give some tax money to the priate assistance groups to help I would say using tax money would be fine.
We do not need any more government ran programs they waste to much and the people in need never get there needs filled.
Government programs have been shown to fail all over the place but still tax money should not be used for this. People can voluntarily donate if they believe in the cause.
Tax money should only ever be used for services that have a direct benefit to everyone equally.
“Tax money should only ever be used for services that have a direct benefit to everyone equally.”
That means no federal tax dollars spent at the local level… No federal support for research… no federal support for education .
This ignores the fact that we all benefit from reduced instances of blood born diseases… Most are also sexually transmittable, and all can be transmitted from a mother to a child. Thus by preventing the spread of those diseases we help contain the health costs of those STDs (free needles are far cheaper then an the anti-virals used to control HIV ).
"That means no federal tax dollars spent at the local level… No federal support for research… no federal support for education ."
These services should be paid for by voluntary donations! If we reduce taxes to the minimum people would actually have money to donate! Especially if there were tax incentives to do so as there are now. Also, education should be a private business because it would be more efficient, cost effective, and the quality of education would increase tremendously.
Just as health care should be a private industry for the same reasons. We don't ALL benefit from reducing blood born diseases. SOME people benefit, some people don't. Overgeneralize much?
National parks?
What about the internet ? The military ? Law enforcement? Border patrols? Roads?
"If we reduce taxes to the minimum people would actually have money to donate!"
And you can offer evidence to support this claim?
"Also, education should be a private business because it would be more efficient, cost effective, and the quality of education would increase tremendously."
So the level of education would increase if there was no public funds available for schools ?
"We don't ALL benefit from reducing blood born diseases."
We actually all do benefit. By preventing the spread of blood born diseases among drug users we are preventing the spread of those diseases to the general population. We also reduce hospital costs by reducing the number of drug users who require medical care.
Private organizations or businesses.
Maybe you missed my above comment but all protection ( military , police , coast guard) should be funded by gov.
Everything else should be privately run. The level of education would increase without public funding. Since nobody is quite ready to believe that however, I am all for the idea of mimicking education as a business by funding schools based on their attendance rate and letting parents choose where to send their kids . A charter system of sorts. Taking it completely out of taxes however, would let parents choose where to send their kid and would let parents' money go directly to that school. The way it is now is that adults with no children subsidize education for other people's kids. Why?
I won't offer evidence because I rely on logic primarily with the belief that spitting numbers debases the scientific process because statistics are sooo poorly used these days. Some represent truth but most are used to prove something that they don't prove at all.
I am a firm believer in free market and having the government so involved in our lives means the money we earn is taken from some and given to others in very large quantities and as much as that's acting Robin Hood, I still see him as a thief.
And no, we don't ALL benefit from reducing blood born disease. Again, you use the term "general population" to support your claim. You are still overgeneralizing. Health care right now is still private. Hospitals pick up the tab for unpaid emergency care. If I don't use that hospital and I don't have health insurance , I am not paying for addicts at all. Except through the proposed "free" needles program. So "general population" does not apply here because it is a sad overgeneralization that is used far too much. Even if you can point out how I am paying for the treatment of AIDS , I will still disagree with funding needles through taxation because taxation needs to be dramatically decreased instead of raised. Already people can't afford mortgages and you want to buy needles for addicts instead???? Smart spending.
Just one last question: How the hell is the government funding the internet !!!???? Ever heard of Comcast or Verizon!!???
“Maybe you missed my above comment but all protection ( military , police , coast guard) should be funded by gov.”
I agree that the military and police should be funded to protect my location… but why should my money be spent to defend California or Maine? The same goes for the Coast Guard… I do not own, operate, or even spend time on boats… why should my money go to support those groups?
“The level of education would increase without public funding.”
On what factual basis to you rest this claim?
“Taking it completely out of taxes however, would let parents choose where to send their kid and would let parents' money go directly to that school.
Except for parents that live paycheck to paycheck and cannot afford the additional expense.
“The way it is now is that adults with no children subsidize education for other people's kids . Why?”
Because they benefit from educating other peoples children. Those who are educated are much better equipped to get and hold jobs . Thus they are better able to contribute to the economy and are in a better position to support themselves economically. Furthermore since crime rises as more people enter the lower economic brackets, and since education decreases the number of people in the lower economic brackets public education reduced the crime rate… which is of benefit to everyone
“I won't offer evidence because I rely on logic primarily with the belief that spitting numbers debases the scientific process because statistics are sooo poorly used these days.“
{ Our opinions are worthwhile only to the extent that we support them with credible evidence and sound reasoning. Everything else is either superstition or the same hot air we can get from a drunk in a gin mill }
-PZ Myers
“I am a firm believer in free market and having the government so involved in our lives means the money we earn is taken from some and given to others in very large quantities and as much as that's acting Robin Hood, I still see him as a thief.”
The free market is very powerful, but it is not a perfect system.
“And no, we don't ALL benefit from reducing blood born disease. Again, you use the term "general population" to support your claim. You are still overgeneralizing.”
Yet by that logic I do not benefit from the Coast Guard if I live in Nebraska… I don’t benefit from police operating in California if I live in Rhode Island… I do not benefit from contract enforcement in Florida if I live in Alaska… and I don’t benefit from the military at all.
No federal program can explicitly benefit each individual equally.
“Hospitals pick up the tab for unpaid emergency care.”
You are fond of saying that nothing is free… who do you think carries the resultant cost? It is passed on to those who use the hospital.
“If I don't use that hospital and I don't have health insurance , I am not paying for addicts at all.”
So if you break an arm or come down with pneumonia what are you going to do? It benefits you, even if you are not in need of medical care to have a hospital near by… because you do not know when you are going to become sick or injured.
“Even if you can point out how I am paying for the treatment of AIDS , I will still disagree with funding needles through taxation because taxation needs to be dramatically decreased instead of raised.”
The funding received by needle programs is a metaphorical ‘drop in the bucket’ compared to areas of serious government waste. Though I do agree that the government lower taxes and scale back in some areas that does not mean the abandonment of a program proven to help.
“Just one last question: How the hell is the government funding the internet !!!???? Ever heard of Comcast or Verizon!!???”
I am referring to the origin of the Internet… created at a public university for use by the military and the scientific community.
Everything else should be privately run. The level of education would increase without public funding. Since nobody is quite ready to believe that however, I am all for the idea of mimicking education as a business by funding schools based on their attendance rate and letting parents choose where to send their kids . A charter system of sorts. Taking it completely out of taxes however, would let parents choose where to send their kid and would let parents' money go directly to that school . The way it is now is that adults with no children subsidize education for other people's kids. Why?
I won't offer evidence because I rely on logic primarily with the belief that spitting numbers debases the scientific process because statistics are sooo poorly used these days. Some represent truth but most are used to prove something that they don't prove at all.
==============================
Tax Reserves
Everything else should be privately run. The level of education would increase without public funding. Since nobody is quite ready to believe that however, I am all for the idea of mimicking education as a business by funding schools based on their attendance rate and letting parents choose where to send their kids . A charter system of sorts. Taking it completely out of taxes however, would let parents choose where to send their kid and would let parents' money go directly to that school . The way it is now is that adults with no children subsidize education for other people's kids. Why?
I won't offer evidence because I rely on logic primarily with the belief that spitting numbers debases the scientific process because statistics are sooo poorly used these days. Some represent truth but most are used to prove something that they don't prove at all.
your logic seems based on the assumption that the free market can fix most problems, which isn't remotely true.
The level of education would decrease and the cost of education would rise under a purely private scheme. Further there would be no incentive for education companies to bring their product into areas where it wasn't profitable (such as low density rural areas and economically disadvantaged areas).
Adults with no children subsidize other peoples kids because they benefit from having those kids educated. A more educated populous is generally wealthier and has lower crime , further businesses benefit from having an educated population from which to pull their workers .
1. You have a great point. You should not be funding police in california and since police is funded by a mix of state and town taxes , you are not. As for the coast guard, I agree that you should not be funding it. It could certainly be removed from government control and handed over to the current privately owned business that protects boaters and assists the coast guard when they need help. I forget the name of the company but it's similar to AAA but for boaters. Military however, does provide equal service to all US citizens in that they protect our country and defend our beliefs. If you disagree with the beliefs that this country was founded on then you disagree with our country and why do you live here? You can move out if you don't want to fund our belief system.
2. I base the claim that privately funded education would be better on the fact that comparing public education to private today, private education produces higher test scores. I could go find statistics but not only is it a rational argument, but it is a waste of my time to research this when I need to research for my job. I enjoy debating but to waste hours searching for reputable studies comparing private to public education is ridiculous since it is commonly accepted that if you want your kids to have a better education, you send them to private school. For parents who live paycheck to paycheck, well, don't they pay taxes for education right now? What would happen to that money if those taxes were reduced? I think they would have that extra money and if they couldn't hold on to it to pay for education, then they're just really bad at budgeting.
3. I like how you quoted someone else on the issue of finding evidence. I form opinions based on all the information that comes in and as a perceiving type personality, that's a lot of information. I use sound reasoning for arguing online because I don't have the time to find credible evidence. I have such a high standard for evidence that I can't post anything remotely skewed. Therefore, finding credible evidence would take me hours. Reasoning takes me a couple minutes.
4. The free market is the best system we have ever found in this world. It's not perfect but it's the most functional.
5. We do all benefit by reducing air born disease. We don't all benefit from reducing blood born disease.
6. Yes, nothing is free. The insurance company of people who use the hospital do pick up the tab for unpaid emergency care. And then that tab is transferred to the people who pay their insurance company. It is a stupid system because
“1.”
I was referring to national policing agencies such as the FBI and the ATF, not just local policing efforts. I’m also wondering about funding for things like domestic violence or child protective services… I’m not living with anyone, and I have no children .. why should my money go to fund those things?
As to the military … How so? Are we being invaded? Protecting the rights of Californians does not directly and explicitly protect me over in Virginia.
“2.”
A quality private education costs far more then those in the lower economic rungs can afford (they are already paying almost no taxes due to their low income ). There are also larger reasons behind why children in private schools do better then those in public schools. The first is that private schools can be selective in their enrollment. Parents who can afford private school are, on average, wealthier then their public school counterparts and are thus more educated. They are also more engaged with their children, and have more free time to spend with their children.
You also stated “I think they would have that extra money and if they couldn't hold on to it to pay for education, then they're just really bad at budgeting” which ignores the fact that it is not the parents that suffer from that poor budgeting… it is their children that would not receive an education and would thusly be confined to the lowest economic rungs.
“3.”
Then you can understand my incredulity when you make unsupported claims?
“4.”
I agree that it is a powerful system, however you have also already agreed with me that a pure free market system is not the best possible system, that some level of government involvement is needed to support and protect a society … we are just quibbling over the level.
5. We do all benefit by reducing air born disease. We don't all benefit from reducing blood born disease.
And I have repeatedly stated that we all do benefit from reducing blood born diseases, because by doing so among addicts we reduce the chance to pass those diseases along to the general population. We also reduce the cost of emergency health care by preventing those addicts from becoming seriously ill.
1. Hmmm.. perhaps on tax forms there should be an option to pay for some of these things? I certainly don't believe that I'm God with all the answers. However, this country was based on military . We are a powerful nation because our military is exceptional. That doesn't mean an ideal country would have a military but it means America does and always will. At this point, without a military, we'd have many more terrorist attacks than we'd care for.
2. Yes, private education is currently expensive. That doesn't mean it has to be. Profit can be made at any financial level based on efficiency, cost savings, etc. The quality of education may not be stellar but it will be fair. You get what you pay for.
3. Of course, if I don't support my claims with reason then clearly I'm doing it wrong.
4. Government involvement is only necessary in the protection areas. States should decide their level of protection, towns should decide silly little things at the town level, etc. However, no government should ever try to change or effect the economic system. The free market concept is purely economic in nature. It should only be broken for military etc, as discussed. Health, no. (Not even city level).
5. We may have to disagree on this one. I have never come across a blood born disease threat and I never expect to. (Because I know how to avoid it). And the cost again, since I believe that emergency health care should be covered by charities, I should not be paying for it. (Unless I want to).
6. No. I'm suggesting that hospitals either start their own charity programs or independent charities can cover these costs. As soon as they run out however, then yes. Treatment should be denied until money is assured. As a side note, I have been thinking about a quick and easy way to assure care for people with insurance. I think insurance companies should send each client a health bracelet or something that should be worn at all times. Or something. Or who knows, maybe by the time this could even take effect we'd develop little chips to implant so that a bracelet couldn't be cut or torn off. Shrug. So many possibilities.
7. Yes I am subsidizing people and unfortunately since I have the Mass Colleges State health plan, I am probably subsidizing a ton of people. However, I have no choice because I live in MA. How do you know very little would get done? I disagree, I think a lot would get done for cheaper, better, and more options. If you only bought what you yourself used or wanted, how much more money would you have? What would you spend it on? Is there any better stimulus package than cutting taxes ? Of course some people would have less money than they do now but that's because they rely on your money. Who do you value more, yourself or the woman on welfare with six kids (because she gets more of your money with each kid)? The relevance of my argument is that I am strongly opinionated that needles for illegal drugs should not be supplied and paid for by any level of government and I am slightly distraught that the idea is supported by so many.
8. No, only if military etc. is included in social responsibility. I say that it is not because social responsibility usually refers to evening out economic standing and that implies that each person is responsible for taking care of someone else. That is BS. I am responsible for me so that nobody else has to be.
“1.”
“At this point, without a military , we'd have many more terrorist attacks than we'd care for.”
But it was due to military exploration in defense of specific interests that led to our current plight. If the only purpose of government is to protect the rights of every American equally then we have no business maintaining a globe spanning military… as it protects American interests abroad, which does not benefit everyone.
“2.”
“You get what you pay for.”
Actually the people who ‘get it’ are not those who pay for it (the parents) it is the children who are being educated, or not if their parents cannot afford the education . The rich parents who were already sending their children to private school will receive some additional cash, people in the middle class will receive an additional financial burden ( their reduction in taxes would not cover the resultant cost of the high end education, so at BEST they would come out neutral ), and the poor parents would be stuck with low quality or no education.
So directly the Rich come out ahead, the Middle Class about breaks even, and the Poor are worse off. Since we are talking about children we are talking about the ones who are going to be paying for the next generation’s education… so someone born into a poor household is more likely to remain in that bracket their entire life ( while it may have once been possible to reach the middle class without an education this is becoming increasingly unlikely ).
Does the “well it’s your fault you are poor” argument still hold at that point?
And why should it be the responsibility of the wealthy to ‘share the burden’ in educating the middle class and the lower class?
Well it is because the wealthy benefit from that education. They benefit by having a pool of educated individuals to draw workers from and they benefit from everyone being educated (and thus having more money ) in that there are more buyers for their products. Further the wealthy benefit from the reduced crime rate that comes from an educated and economically stable population.
“4.”
If the government should never get involved in economic processes then what protection would the population have against things like monopolies or corporate misconduct?
“5.”
You may never have, and may never plan to, but that does not mean that it is not possible that you can… and that is a chance that increases as the number of blood born pathogens in the population expands. This also decreases the productivity of the population, impacting the overall economy.
As to charities covering emergency care… can you reasonably say that relying on charities alone would be enough to cover emergency care across the nation?
“6.”
Your whole statement is pretty much “LOL don’t be poor”… which ignores the fact that doctors are required to aid people in need. It also ignores the fact that you benefit when those at the lower economic rungs are healthy (and educated). This is the same benefit that you gain from public roads, environmental protections, and food safety.
“7.”
I know that little would get done because I can look back to before these plans were put in place and see that charity was not up to the task (otherwise the demand that they be implemented as a government program would not have been there). If the only money I spent was directly on things I was using / wanted then the spare money would be saved for an earlier retirement .
Cutting taxes can be an effective way to stimulate the economy, but not in a situation where people are out of work due to a massive economic downturn.
While people would have less money they would also have the cost of their services increased (or even have some needed services removed, such as emergency health care ).
As to the needle program… they are paid for because it is in the interest of the government and the population to do so. Needle programs do not increase the incidence of drug use , rather they server to prevent the spread of disease within the drug user population. Further they serve as a way to reach out to those users and form a bond that can be used to get them into rehab.
“8.”
It also includes things like public health and safety… in that since we all benefit from clean air / water , safe food, safe products we all share the burden of paying for them. We also benefit from public funded research (it is often conducted on subjects that benefit people, but that has no profit attached).
True, not every American believes in enforcing freedom internationally. And yet they fund it. To those people I would say, okay, go live there and then tell me you don't care about freedom.
My whole statement is based off the fact that parents work hard in life to supply the best they can for their kids . Then the kids grow up and do the same thing. Families are small dependent groups where the success of the parent transfers to the kid. Sure, you can complain that the kids don't deserve to be poor but guess what, the parents still decided to have kids even though they couldn't afford the best things for them. The parents chose to give life despite the financial burden. That kid (with the genes and values and motives of the parents, passed down through generations) gets what their parents gave them. Emotionally disturbing or not, it is fair.
Another side point, if you tax the rich to pay for the poor, you have less rich "rich" people. Then they can't give the poor jobs . The more money the rich people have, the more they can spend and take risks and hire people. How does it make sense to take money from the rich to give to the poor when the rich would end up passing it down anyway? Example: if I could afford it, I would get my nails done every week.
Yes it benefits me if the poor are healthy and educated. They won't get that way by the government stuffing it in their faces no matter how much they can spend to try. Nobody is healthy or educated until they decide they want to be. It's a self improvement thing. Therefore, I would benefit more if the poor didn't rely on government for food housing and education because without them, they will seek it for themselves.
Charity would not cover all of the emergency medical care. But charities also don't take money without permission. Besides, if all health care was paid for collectively, wouldn't you take advantage of it and go to the doctor for everything? What would that do to costs? Didn't you hear that Germany's "fantastic" universal (collective) health care is failing? It costs too much and still doctors and nurses have substantially lower salaries than here. Collective funding for health care (and needles) will fail.
For public health and safety, why do you need government to do it? A private organization could easily fill that spot. Imagine, a privately run FDA with no affiliations to the corruption and lobbying and bribing of government. An FDA that makes money simply on the fact that consumers wouldn't purchase anything that's not FDA approved. I imagine that it could not only completely fill the place of the current FDA but that it would be better.
As for research, I am aware that research is conducted with no profit attached (as I am doing my dissertation on such a subject). I would agree to fund research through taxes but I would prefer to have it as an optional tax.
“Charity would not cover all of the emergency medical care. But charities also don't take money without permission.”
More taxation = theft? The government ’s permission comes from the elections where representatives are chosen to… well represent… people.
“Besides, if all health care was paid for collectively, wouldn't you take advantage of it and go to the doctor for everything?”
No… why would I waste my time there for the sniffles?
“What would that do to costs? Didn't you hear that Germany's "fantastic" universal (collective) health care is failing? It costs too much and still doctors and nurses have substantially lower salaries than here. Collective funding for health care (and needles) will fail.”
Methods of cost control in a public health care system is definitely an interesting discussion, though I would be remiss if I did not point out that it is often the Canadian system that supports of universal health care look to (and not the German system).
“For public health and safety, why do you need government to do it? A private organization could easily fill that spot. Imagine, a privately run FDA with no affiliations to the corruption and lobbying and bribing of government. An FDA that makes money simply on the fact that consumers wouldn't purchase anything that's not FDA approved. I imagine that it could not only completely fill the place of the current FDA but that it would be better.”
Why would a company be automatically free of lobbyists or bribing? And how exactly would the privately run FDA corporation make its money? What about the EPA or OSHA?
“As for research, I am aware that research is conducted with no profit attached (as I am doing my dissertation on such a subject). I would agree to fund research through taxes but I would prefer to have it as an optional tax.”
How would we then prevent those who did not fund the research from benefiting from it?
You keep pointing to various charities and optional taxes… which sounds exceptionally inefficient and prone to abuse. What is to keep an individual or company from not contributing and just soaking up the benefits ?
Further I wonder as to what your foundation for this Libertarian Utopia is… History has shown that those who attempt to create a utopia are doomed to failure (as no system ever works as well in the real world as it does on paper).
It seems to be a different world than the one I live in. I believe that people work hard to earn the commodities that they wish to have. Nobody has a right to anything except the freedom to pursue happiness and the freedom from harm by others. (and speech and guns , exactly what the articles lay out)
I despise arguing with you because you refute my arguments with trite comments that say nothing at all. You don't consider my arguments on your own, instead you ask that I explain everything in immeasurable detail which I neither care to do or have the time for. I refuse to answer all of your questions because you ask stupid questions.
I do not attempt to create a utopia. There is no such thing. I merely argue for what I believe is right and wrong and I try to explain why. Explaining myself to someone who does not want to understand it however, is a waste of my time. If you want some more of your stupid questions answered, please refer to "Arguing with Idiots" by Glenn Beck .
“It seems to be a different world than the one I live in. I believe that people work hard to earn the commodities that they wish to have. Nobody has a right to anything except the freedom to pursue happiness and the freedom from harm by others. (and speech and guns , exactly what the articles lay out)”
And that is where we differ… There are other costs and other benefits beyond those enumerated in the Constitution that we are responsible for. We, as participants in this society , are responsible for a host of economic externalities like clean air / water , health , and education .
“I despise arguing with you because you refute my arguments with trite comments that say nothing at all. You don't consider my arguments on your own, instead you ask that I explain everything in immeasurable detail which I neither care to do or have the time for. I refuse to answer all of your questions because you ask stupid questions.”
Your statements are unfoundedly axiomatic, based on a curious that the free market is always the best solution. As I have said elsewhere this polar extreme is just as flawed on implementation as a Communist system. A sustainable system requires a balance of both free market capitalism and government control socialism.
“I merely argue for what I believe is right and wrong and I try to explain why. Explaining myself to someone who does not want to understand it however, is a waste of my time.”
Yet I do understand your position, and there was a time when I subscribed to something very similar (though I never did embrace the ‘ taxes = theft’ mantra).
I am curious as to why you believe that government intervention in the economy is necessary? I have only ever seen examples of how government intervention has hurt the economy far more than just letting free market be.
I do agree that some "economic externalities" should be regulated by the government but I only include air from that list. Water is taken care of at the town level as it should be and police and fire by town and state. Air is shared by the whole world equally because it moves so easily so that should be kept clean federally. Health and education however, are not entitlements. They are valuable services to be bought and sold like iPods. They are trades. People take years and years to master the trade and then they sell it. That's how they survive in the world. Somewhat like massage therapists. If you are the best massage therapist out there, you will get higher paying customers because they can afford the best. If you're not very good, you still get customers who can't afford the other ones. It's a win win for everyone.
“I am curious as to why you believe that government intervention in the economy is necessary? I have only ever seen examples of how government intervention has hurt the economy far more than just letting free market be.”
With the exception of various infrastructure projects like the highway network, investment in education / research, anti-trust regulations , etc?
“It's a win win for everyone.”
And those who do not have the economic resources to get an education?
“True, not every American believes in enforcing freedom internationally. And yet they fund it. To those people I would say, okay, go live there and then tell me you don't care about freedom.”
But that does runs counter to your argument against other government programs. I completely agree that the US is better off with a more stable world, but that does not change the fact that supporting democracy abroad does not explicitly benefit each US Citizen (which seems to be your criteria for which programs the government can / cannot support).
“That kid (with the genes and values and motives of the parents, passed down through generations) gets what their parents gave them. Emotionally disturbing or not, it is fair.”
It is hardly fair, anymore then it is ‘fair’ that some people get run over by cars . It is a function of physical reality that those born into a wealthy family will have advantages over those who are not born into a wealthy family. It is also a fact that it is in everyone’s best interest to ensure that who are not wealthy have at least some level of protection and support fro, the larger society of which they are a part.
“Another side point, if you tax the rich to pay for the poor, you have less rich "rich" people. Then they can't give the poor jobs . The more money the rich people have, the more they can spend and take risks and hire people. How does it make sense to take money from the rich to give to the poor when the rich would end up passing it down anyway? Example: if I could afford it, I would get my nails done every week.”
There is a level where taxation becomes punitive, but we are far from that point at this time.
“Yes it benefits me if the poor are healthy and educated. They won't get that way by the government stuffing it in their faces no matter how much they can spend to try. Nobody is healthy or educated until they decide they want to be. It's a self improvement thing. Therefore, I would benefit more if the poor didn't rely on government for food housing and education because without them, they will seek it for themselves.”
Yet they cannot seek health and education if they do not have the money to do so, which they do not because they are poor, that is to say that without the opportunity provided by public education and heath the poor would have no way to reach for those things.
This is to the detriment of businesses… because it reduces the education level of the worker pool. It is also to the detriment to the general population due to increased crime and the other social problems that come from the lower economic rungs.
(I accidentally hit enter)
It is a stupid system because the people who mooch are rewarded for mooching because they do not have to pay for health care at all and the ones who follow the rules end up paying extra. That discourages following the rules and encourages people to not keep a budget and follow it.
7. I do have health insurance . I was using as an example the person who does not want it. If I break an arm (very possible), I will go to a hospital and pay higher for it because I have no choice in the matter. If we do adopt a universal system, I will be very upset because in that case I would not want health care at all because of how much I would be subsidizing as opposed to how much I would use. I am in an unfortunate situation where most of this country disagrees with my POV and thinks it's okay to steal from the rich and give to the poor. (Except we're not just stealing from the rich anymore, we're stealing from the people barely getting by, like me).
8. Yes, we're talking about a "drop in the bucket". Every drop counts. It has already gone wayyyy too far. I am advocating for moving toward liberty instead of social responsibility (that leads toward socialism: an idea I despise). This was America. What the hell happened?
“6.”
Are you suggesting that an individual not receive emergency care until after that individual has been verified to be able to pay for it?
“7.”
By having health insurance you are already subsidizing far more then you are using (unless you are very sick). I am also unsure as the foundations of the taxation = theft idea. Very little would get done if the only people who paid for things were those that directly used them (think roads and such). And without a deeper description of what the tax burden would be there really is no way to say that you would be getting out… further since the debate is on cities funding their own needle programs (and not the fed funding a national program) I am not sure of the relevance of your argument to the point at hand.
“8.”
But you already accept that there is a needed level of social responsibility.
Sunshine, you have set up a condition that is impossible to achieve. Those who can afford the services of tax lawyers can get the benefit of government services with a minimum of taxes . The wealthy and well-connected usually get better treatment from the police than those who are poor. Even so, the whole community is better off with some Government services even though some will benefit from them more than others.
M. Glass