panic is an emotion. panic in any left threatening situation gets you killed.

Since it also disincentivizes attacking the root problem

people die, people will die, the question is not how do we stop them dying, its how do we get less people to die.

IMO a good look needs to be taken as to why healthcare is like it is

Why does it have this unique insurance model that doesn't correspond to anything else?

And who chooses if they die. i'd rather let nature choose who dies, than the government

i'd rather let bad life choices like smoking, decide who dies than a health insurance company

I think there would still be room for health insurance

Like car insurance

pretty sure hospitals have to pay insurance too to stay in business.

But it wouldn't cover the equivalent of looking at some bad brakes

perhaps that is too expensive

It's always worth pointing out that the known alternatives don't really mean "substantially fewer people die due to refused treatment"

It's "some people now die instead due to waiting for treatment"

It's possible that there would be enough "slack" in a given healthcare system to accomodate.

But I'm pretty sure part of the contention about the US one is precisely that it's sort of strained already

why do skinny people get punished for the decision of overweight people not to exercise. I need to pay for their healthcare? fucking why? There are legit medical problems that lead to issues with weight, but i doubt the US has such a problem with genetics that we have our overweight problem

emotion says help them. If you want to, you can. but no one should be forced to.

because lets face it, if someone has to have several procedures done because they sit around all day and eat, and never change. At some point most people will stop offering help and let them succumb to their fate.

i do not feel bad for people who smoke then get lung cancer.

it is a sad day when they die but that was their choice

i should not be forced to pay for that

So, to play devil's advocate

That's certainly the best case for your position

But what about the people who are not at fault?

Like, someone set fire to their house and they got caught in it or something

i would offer to help them. but i would resent them if i was forced to help

that resentment grows the less i have, therefore the more precious my time and labor become

because at a certain point, helping them means i now am in trouble

What if forcing everyone to pitch in a tiny amount helped them?

Let's say your lone contribution wouldn't

what is tiny?

Well, to keep things in context

tiny to one person is massive to another

Let's say you could cap it at 10% of everyone's income

And if you're concerned about the ability of the poor to pay, let's say they get a reduced amount, compensated by the corresponding wealthiest

then suddenly everyone else would need to pay another percent to give some of those people that 10% back, because some people need that 10%.

so now really you are taking 11% from perhaps even most of everyone

I don't follow

Why would you need that extra 1%?

but now what happens when say a natural disaster happens? and its not 1 person, its half the population of an area?