/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>20787609
i'm clearly using "free health care" as a catch-all term for government-subsidized healthcare
referencing some statistics (that could be compiled by a group that has a vested interest in there being a minimum of competition in the health care space, which is inarguably what the effect of selectively subsidizing institutions in any field is) does not prove your point whatsoever, no matter how incredibly arrogantly you present it
you don't NEED sources to engage in deductive reasoning—the laws by which you can engage in logic are limited only by your ability to comprehend the natural world in which we exist.

the concept that you most seem to struggle with is the fact that whether government-provided healthcare is or isn't more expensive (how it *couldn't* be more expensive when it creates a virtual monopoly on healthcare—a monopoly *quite literally run by people who ***do not, as a matter of fact, have to earn a single cent of the money that they acquire*** because they collect all that they have to run the system via taxation rather than the voluntary exchange of goods and services*—absolutely falters to rationality), neither you nor the state has any more legitimate claim to my financial autonomy than myself, yet if i were to not pay the taxes that are forced on me for services that i did not commission i will have my natural rights restrained in a prison that my tax money helped to build and maintain. you seem to think—given your advocacy for the expansion of state power—that this is perfectly fair.

>>20787846
you're going to cite the doctors who champion universal healthcare as a means of legitimizing your point? you do understand that they have A LOT to gain from there being a system in place that guarantees them an income no matter how bad they actually are at providing health care, right? if you wanted to incentivize laziness, all you need to do is guarantee someone a monopoly on service (no matter how bad it is)