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?

I'm not sure that's a good counterpoint

That's an issue in any scheme

There are rules doctors follow about how to handle this that _do_ involve choosing who gets help and who doesn't

I'm not sure that it either strengthens or weakens the case for federal intervention

1 person has 10 resources, 1 has 100, 1 has 1000, the last has 0 now. You need 10 resources to live. You take 10% from everyone and give it to the last person, great.
now you have 9, 90, 900, and 111. But you need 10 to live. So either you have 10, 89.5, 899.5, and 111. or that first person doesn't give 10% so you have 10, 90, 900, 110.

it makes no sense to take 10%

from everyone else

Sure--so anyone who has 10 pays nothing, and their 1 is covered by the guy with 1000

but now say something happens, and the economy is bad. So you have 8, 10, 100 and 0.

can't take from 8 or 10. now only 100 can lose 10%. which they still are okay. so now its 8, 10, 90, 10.
but wait, 8 has less than it needs to live, lets take more... can't take from 8, can;t take from 10, can take from 90, can't take from 10. So now its 10, 10, 85, and 10

now lets say, through no fault of their own, that last guy is back to 0 again because of something chronic.

to we just keep taking by force from the guy who had 100?