stormylane
Heck no... I don't want to pay for my neighbors health care.
My neighbor won't get off his drunken butt to work... why should I pay one red cent of his medical bills. He wants to destroy his liver let him.
Should my taxes go up because of it... no.
Quite a simplistic way of viewing things. Of course, if you're neighbour is an alcoholic, it's probably because he's a lazy a**, not because he has personal issues. And ah, yes, he probably does want to destroy his liver quite badly.
People like this need help to be able to adopt a healthier lifestyle. Medical aid can help in doing that. Should your personal taxes go up for it? No. Should the whole society's taxes go up for it? Yes. Why?
Because I bet you'd be real glad to have other people paying for you if you were in a defavorised position. Rawls, an ethics philosophers, says that when a society adopts a law, everyone involved should try to forget what is their social position in order to imagine what they would feel like if they woke up the next day, say, as a poor immigrant monoparental woman working in a factory. So ask yourself the following question: if you were part of the people that need healthcare and can't afford it, would you b***h about it or be happy?
The unability of picturing yourself in a defavorised situation is quite a classic of upper class members of liberalist societies. "I worked for what I got, they should do the same" is their best argument.
This doesn't take into account that some people suffer from inegalities that are just produced by the way society works, by the way rich people marry rich people, thus keeping the money in the same social circles.
stormylane
btw... does anyone know if the Canadian Prime Minister paid his hospital bill?
I don't see what the Canadian Prime Minister has to do with the matter at hand. If we can judge a whole country by it's political chief, then I'd have a few things to say about the Bush years.