Oil production also increased exponentially during Standard Oil's reign. Petroleum use also increased its profit potential, since the development of technology based on petroleum would drive up the demand for petroleum. There were still many rival goods for petroleum then, such as spermaceti. It wasn't until petroleum became indispensable for the US economy that anti-trust procedures began, because SO could charge what it wanted to at that point. If it screwed itself over and collapsed, the US is screwed over and collapses. Health care is indispensable for this country.
You don't have a right to use the public roads, that's a privilege. Didn't you take drivers' ed? National defense isn't a right, either - it's certainly a public good, but you have no right to protection from foreign aggression. We give the government the power to manage national defense through the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation didn't allow a standing army or navy; everything was to be settled through state militias. Even if you want to argue that national defense is a right, federal control of national defense isn't necessarily one, is it?National defense and property defense ARE rights. Those are the most basic things that a government must do. Roads technically are not rights, but the right to freedom of movement (except across private property) is. All of these are clearly enumerated or based upon common law. Health care is not.
The development of public fire departments is a fairly recent one, dating only to the early 20th Century. Private fire departments were the norm before that, and they'd sabotage competing departments in order to receive most of the insurance money. If a property owner didn't have insurance, the department would just let the property burn - of course, setting neighboring properties ablaze in the process. That's called a market failure.
No they aren't. They're things that we as a society agreed upon would be good ideas to have paid for by the collective whole. A healthy workforce benefits us all, increasing our economic performance as fewer hours are lost to injury or illness. That was the original logic behind employer-provided health care - that employers would want healthier workers because that would lead to more productivity and greater profits. They never figured that at some point, some actuary would point out that the productivity hit from a less-healthy workforce would be outweighed by the decrease in costs that would come from not paying for health insurance.These are all rights that would be required even if they were economically not sound. How is an individual's health care a collective good? Roads and national defense are collective inherently. Paying for my medical care is not.
Quit being selfish. Do you know how health insurance works? The system as a whole benefits by people who are healthy contributing to the pool, since it's their money that goes toward paying the sick's bills. Why do we do this? So that the same happens for us when we're in that position. Like it or not, we're all going to be sick and die. Won't you wish then that some healthy 26-year-old contributed to the pool so you had some inheritance to give to your kids, rather than it being consumed through medical bills? You're already paying two times as much per capita via taxes for covering emergency-room bankruptcies than you would through a national single payer system, and you're not receiving better care than any country in the world by every major indicator. Why?I would absolutely benefit more from no government health care (and coordinately lower taxes) than I would from everyone being covered. I am 26 years old and in good health. I have a job at another hospital pretty much in the bag, and I will have excellent health insurance as part of my health benefits for the next year or so. After that, I will be in grad school and I will have good health insurance there. And after that, I should be making somewhere in the range of $100K per year in my early-30s, and more as I continue my career. I will have health insurance from those jobs, and I would be able to afford excellent private health insurance even if I didn't have a plan through work. How would I benefit from a single-payer system?
You benefit from single payer because it has the power to suppress costs. Insurance can't suppress costs - there are too many actors compared to the tighter oligopoly of health care providers, and subsequently, they cannot individually negotiate prices downward. A single payer can - it says "we'll pay this, or we won't pay at all". Given that refusing treatment on ability to pay is malpractice, they have no recourse but to negotiate the price further. That places further pressure down the supply stream to cut costs as well. Profits in health care are enormous - ranging from 10% in the hospitals to 17% for the pharmaceutical industry, the highest for any sector, period. There is plenty of room to pare down costs. You directly benefit from that.
You also benefit from the ability of your co-workers to not have to miss work from chronic health concerns, as primary care, the least expensive form of care, would be the norm for lower-income people, as opposed to ER care, the most expensive. Those screenings would likely stave off many expensive future conditions, and improve their ability to work. Just imagine the increased productivity of your employees if you start a business.
Unless you think lower-income people would just not go to the doctor because they're lazy. Which at that point, there's no point in continuing this conversation.
How is this a moral issue? It's a policy issue. Who appointed you the arbiter of the state's role in regulation? It may be your personal belief that the state shouldn't intervene, but that doesn't make it true. Is it so crazy for me to think that the state should heavily regulate tobacco, because when lower-income tobacco users get lung cancer and emphysema, it ends up costing me money?It's not the state's business to decide what adults do with their own bodies, nor it is the business of the state make sure all those bodies are healthy. Relying on the state for personal moral guidance is idiotic.
It's an interpretation issue on the part of individuals, not any specific policy. As idiotic as you may think that is, there are people who do rely on the law as to moral guidance. You have to account for those people; you can't just wish them away.
For a lot of people, they are the same. They're called SJs .Because there is a GIGANTIC difference between "I disagree with this" and "This should be illegal." As soon as those become the same thing, precious liberties are lost, sometimes forever.
Like it or not, there are people for whom security will ALWAYS outweigh personal freedom. In a democratic society, they have a voice. Not only that, but going back to your point of the most basic things a society does, the absolute most basic thing a society does is ensure the security of its members.