Kinda like that. Except, while you can still refuse to wear seatbelt (pay fine or don't ride in cars or trucks at all) you won't be able to refuse mandatory health care. US already has a history of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#...
You won't be able to refuse receiving it. Did you read the link? People had been forcefully sterilized in the US all the way till 1970s, even without public healthcare.
The US government carrying out forcible sterilizations of course points to the well-understood fact that universal healthcare is neither necessary nor sufficient for forced medical procedures, and this objection to state-funding healthcare is an entirely bogus one.
> You won't be able to refuse receiving it. Did you read the link? People had been forcefully sterilized in the US all the way till 1970s, even without public healthcare
I saw the link but didn't see the connection between "public universal healthcare" and "forced healthcare practiced on people". Can you elaborate on that connection?
publicly funded universal healthcare is about how healthcare is funded. How it's performed is a separate matter.
Or, to give an example of this actually taking place, look at the education. It's funded by the government and also is mandatory and enforced by the government. It does not necessary have to follow, in other countries with free public education you won't get arrested for not sending your kids to school. But it could turn the way it's turned in the US just as well.
> in other countries with free public education you won't get arrested for not sending your kids to school.
These are two freedoms at play : the childs right to go to school vs. a parents right of refusing it. I'm of the opinion that the childs right is the stronger right here. Arresting parents might be a bit over the top (the childs right to have their parents at their side might be at risk instead which is worse) - but hefty fines or similar could be appropriate.
I am not going to argue if it's good or bad (in case of public schools), I am just pointing out a connection between a publically funded service and the ability of the government to make it compulsory.
If there had not been publically funded schools it would be much harder or impossible to make compulsory attendance laws. As there is no public healthcare now it's very hard or impossible to make compulsory medical procedures laws. If health care becomes public - the sky is the limit.
> If there had not been publically funded schools it would be much harder or impossible to make compulsory attendance laws.
Sorry I can't see that connection now. Publicly funded schools and publicly operated schools are two entirely different things.
> As there is no public healthcare now it's very hard or impossible to make compulsory medical procedures laws. If health care becomes public - the sky is the limit.
Again. a) The funds and the operation are two different thoigs and b) if you start doing medical procedures on people against their will, you are in some kind of dystopian society.
>Sorry I can't see that connection now. Publicly funded schools and publicly operated schools are two entirely different things.
The compulsory attendance laws do not depend on who operates the school. There are private schools enjoying the same laws.
>Again. a) The funds and the operation are two different thoigs and b) if you start doing medical procedures on people against their will, you are in some kind of dystopian society.
This is not an argument. You could just as well say "If you start sending children to school against their will and will of their parents you are in some kind of dystopian society". All the arguments I've seen here are of the nature "Free healthcare yay! Only idiots think it will come with strings attached from the government. Healthcare is good ergo it cannot turn bad, BTFO!"
It's running in circles and if you cannot even consider all the consequences of government policies - good luck in the future, I am out of this thread.
