Hacker News Reader

Comment by ctlby | Hacker News Reader

> A free, universal healthcare system should be a primary goal of any civilised society.

What premises lead you to conclude that our highest duty is to guarantee our fellow citizens the unlimited attentions of doctors, surgeons, nurses, chemists, biotechnologists, etc? Keeping in mind, of course, that fellow citizens = collection of complete strangers circumscribed by some invisible line in the dirt.

> The fact that we had one and it has been eroded by decades of corporate self-interest and Tory backhanding is abhorrent.

Surely that's not the only thing standing between society and your goals for it. I might start with the fact that voters have resisted paying for the things you'd like them to pay for.

View on HN

> What premises lead you to conclude that our highest duty is to guarantee our fellow citizens the unlimited attentions of doctors, surgeons, nurses, chemists, biotechnologists, etc?

Our status as a social species that works better when it works together and looks out for other members of the group.

Refusing to contribute to a country's social programs and welfare is basically giving the middle finger to everybody who is less fortunate than yourself. Fuck you, got mine.

How charitable and humanitarian.

We have a much healthier and more productive society when we aren't entirely focused on material self-interest and and irrational fear of strangers or 'welfare scroungers'.

15% of the US population is on Medicare. 27% of households in 2011 had someone receiving Medicaid. Nearly 50% of houses get some form of federal welfare, WIC, CHIP, etc. Our system might not be perfect, but let's not pretend like we live in a "Fuck you I got mine!" world even if someone doesn't think we should adopt something like single payer.

> Our status as a social species that works better when it works together and looks out for other members of the group.

Fair. But why define the relevant group as your countrymen? If you do not believe in positive obligations towards strangers, that definition is overly expansive. If you do believe in such obligations, it's overly restrictive-- third world residents are much poorer and are surely more deserving of your help than anyone inside the UK.

> We have a much healthier and more productive society when we aren't entirely focused on material self-interest and and irrational fear of strangers or 'welfare scroungers'.

There's a large space of actions between fearing strangers and showering them with handouts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com