If you are a Libertarian and hold liberty as your core value, why do you not believe in universal healthcare? Nothing impacts liberty more than sickness and death.
If you are a Libertarian and hold liberty as your core value, why do you not believe in universal healthcare? Nothing impacts liberty more than sickness and death.
You're viewing a single thread.
As an American man I only have a 40% chance of developing cancer in my lifetime, but with universal healthcare there’s 100% chance I will have to pay for it.
Do you have health insurance? Well guess what, then you are paying for it already, only more than with universal health care.
No, I don’t believe in gambling.
Strange, as you’ve clearly laid out the odds, risks, etc. and you’re betting your life on your supposed “beliefs”.
Sure sounds like gambling to me…
No that’s just risk assessment.
Gambling is things like blackjack, slots, poker or any kind of insurance.
A risk assessment is a normal part of gambling. You’re just describing games, like the one you’re playing now to rationalize your gambling with your own life by avoiding getting any sort of health insurance.
A deck of cards or a die are normal parts of gambling too but they aren’t intrinsically gambling either.
They are when you bet something on the outcome— ya know, gambling… like how you risk both your financial future and your life when you choose to not have health insurance.
So would you consider walking on the side of a road gambling?
Hope this helps:
Insurance is by definition not gambling. It is only indemnity. The reality is that without insurance you are gambling that you'll get to keep the money you didn't spend on insurance and not be financially ruined.
Insurance is gambling because I’m betting that if I get cancer I get a payout larger than the amount I wagered by buying insurance.
That’s not how health insurance works. You would never get more than your medical costs and would almost always get less.
Insurance companies to turn a profit will be charging more then they pay out, but as a single policy-holder there is a good chance they will pay me more then I pay out making it gambling.
but as a single policy-holder there is a good chance they will pay me more then I pay out making it gambling.
But the risk isn’t health insurance vs gambling. That’s a straw man, as not having health insurance is already gambling, and you’re trying to change the argument because your previous reasoning was shown to be faulty.
Nice try.
The entirety of our economic structure is gambling.
All of it.
No, I set a value on my labor and I take that value, no more or less.
You’re gambling that there’s someone willing to pay that amount for your labor. The stakes? Your financial security.
That’s not gambling.
That is working.
Then you need to define gambling and working in no uncertain or ambiguous terms.
When describing that which you do not wish to partake in, you gotta be REAL clear.
Then we can understand what you mean by gambling vs working.
That is working.
Not if you lose your bet that anyone is willing to pay you your desired wage. Then it’s unemployment because you gambled and lost. And even if they do agree, it’s just luck that you won— but it’s still a gamble.
Unemployment insurance is insurance too so I wouldn’t apply for that as a matter of principle.
Good thing it’s typically mandated by state law. You don’t have a choice when it’s deducted from your paycheck in most cases, and you’re automatically enrolled. (In some states and situations, it’s paid for by the employers). Whether you ever take advantage of that is another matter.
However, that’s irrelevant. All you’ve done here is demonstrate poor decision-making skills, and a profound misunderstanding of the concepts of both insurance and gambling.