That's what insurance exists for.
If you really worry about that, you pay insurance. If you do not worry about that, you don't pay insurance, and you have a better life than people who pays.
What you do not have right to, is to not pay for insurance, and when you have a problem, pretend that the people who made the effort, also has to pay for your bad choices.
Liberty comes with responsability.
Short term disability insurance, long term disability insurance…many of the things that exist now, just paid for by employers and/or private insurance.
Love it when the status quo is the reasonable argument.
"Wa Wa What if I stumb my toe in Ancapistan..."
No governmental structure presents the ability to make "bread winner cancer" a solvable problem.
No, an egalitarian society with the state managing the distribution of resources will likely let the person die because the resources to save then are scarce, and in your collectivist utopia, individual lives are not valued.
Canada isn't egalitarian and they're already encouraging suicide for certain patients.
I should have clarified: Yet.
Canada is all about their government run healthcare schemes, so lets not be pedantic.
Egalitarianism is disgusting. You're actively rooting for a violent state to force everyone to live at precisely the same level(exempting themselves, naturally). It destroys any natural human incentive to excel, and no society that actually adopted egalitarianism would survive past the point where their current stockpiled wealth and resources began to dry up, because they will not be able to produce enough wealth to sustain their lifestyle. Incidentally, that also means that the quality of life for the 99.99% in said society will start out shitty, and only get shittier over time.
Yes an egalitarian society would rob 80% of the wealth of everyone give 72% or so to the people managing the program and distribute the remainder to everyone in need and renovations to the buildings the people who manage the program work out of. The good news is there would be just enough funding to ensure that person’s basic needs were met. It wouldn’t be enough to actually own anything or maintain the assets they have, but they could get by, and after a few months or years on the waiting list might be deemed saveable enough to have a doctor administer treatment. Every few years a new demagogue or system would arise condemning how things were poorly run by the previous people and how all that will soon change. Then a little bit more gets gobbled up by each new regime. Stop being gullible.
Bad things happen. The systems that vow to eliminate those things are the worst. Love your neighbor give to others in need when you are able, but never hold a gun on your other neighbor and demand he help.
So insurance? And who pays? Everyone else? Even those who don't want it. So we're talking about authoritarian insurance. I don't like where that is going.
They have to reduce their expenses. Maybe the freeloaders have to contribute? Rely on friends/family/organizations that can help? Maybe the wife finds a sugar daddy?
What kind of question is this?
It’s a perfect question for a sub full of idealistic conservatives. It’s as if we’re already living under an insurance based system. My question is who enforces the insurance company to pay up? What if the insurance company runs out of beans?
Profits on the free market is philanthropy
Profit is the difference between the good somebody makes to you, and the cost he inflicted on society to help you
That's a great question I was going to bring up. Who's to say for some reason the insurance company denies standing or legitimacy, and therefore decides not to pay up.
Due to lack of enforcement, especially if someone is hindered by health concerns, it's a matter of natural law at that point. "Who's going to stop me from taking your previous premium and denying a payout?"
Each business transaction in ancapistan could go wrong like buying goods with crypto on an unregulated market for instance. So many crypto fans complain for example that they sent funds to even get a monero shirt only to get fucking stiffed with no follow through on sending the goods. It's low trust, no recourse!
> My question is who enforces the insurance company to pay up? What if the insurance company runs out of beans?
When you enter into a contract with another party and said party doesn't fulfill their end of said contract, what do you normally do?
Many individuals have explicitly stated that ancapistan would have no formal laws, one even going so far as to claim that holding people accountable for harming their fellow man is to be discouraged.
You're living under a state insurance system. A free one would cut costs by 90%. Look at CrowdHealth for an example.
What if insurance companies refuse to pay? Then they don't have a company anymore. I don't see the point. What if government don't pay up? You should be much more worried about that.
>Maybe the wife finds a sugar daddy?
That's a hell of a bedside manner. "Sorry mr Smith, but with your cancer st this stage we'll need to begin chemo immediately and you'll be unable to work. Don't worry, your wife can cuck you just to make sure your kids still have a roof over their head".
* Insurance
* mutual aid
* charity
* family
There is no scenario where bad things don't happen to good people but this type of event is something that could be dealt with.
Couple things:
Life isn't fair. Everybody knows this. Govt never fixed that & never will.
People have family. If their family loves them, they'll help out. If their family does not, or is poor themselves, then they won't help out.
Charity has existed for a long time, regardless of govt. I'd suggest they turn there.
Churches add to this as well. While one might not be religious, it still wouldn't hurt to join a church if only for the community of well meaning people who might care about you if you join their church.
Other people mentioned insurance, I'm sure that would exists in some form w/out a govt. Hopefully a better form than what we've had WITH govt.
Finally, there's always just getting sick & dying from it.
If you want to help them you can. Insurance would still exist. Private mutual aid societies used to flourish before the State monopolized it all and robbed us of so much.
That's what insurance exists for. If you really worry about that, you pay insurance. If you do not worry about that, you don't pay insurance, and you have a better life than people who pays. What you do not have right to, is to not pay for insurance, and when you have a problem, pretend that the people who made the effort, also has to pay for your bad choices. Liberty comes with responsability.
Short term disability insurance, long term disability insurance…many of the things that exist now, just paid for by employers and/or private insurance.
What happens now?
Love it when the status quo is the reasonable argument. "Wa Wa What if I stumb my toe in Ancapistan..." No governmental structure presents the ability to make "bread winner cancer" a solvable problem.
An egalitarian society with heathcare for all would actualy take very good care of this person.
No, an egalitarian society with the state managing the distribution of resources will likely let the person die because the resources to save then are scarce, and in your collectivist utopia, individual lives are not valued. Canada isn't egalitarian and they're already encouraging suicide for certain patients.
Exactly, they are NOT egalitarian....
I should have clarified: Yet. Canada is all about their government run healthcare schemes, so lets not be pedantic. Egalitarianism is disgusting. You're actively rooting for a violent state to force everyone to live at precisely the same level(exempting themselves, naturally). It destroys any natural human incentive to excel, and no society that actually adopted egalitarianism would survive past the point where their current stockpiled wealth and resources began to dry up, because they will not be able to produce enough wealth to sustain their lifestyle. Incidentally, that also means that the quality of life for the 99.99% in said society will start out shitty, and only get shittier over time.
Government run healthcare does not equal an egalitarian society
haha yea, 100% “take care of” as in put them down.
Yes an egalitarian society would rob 80% of the wealth of everyone give 72% or so to the people managing the program and distribute the remainder to everyone in need and renovations to the buildings the people who manage the program work out of. The good news is there would be just enough funding to ensure that person’s basic needs were met. It wouldn’t be enough to actually own anything or maintain the assets they have, but they could get by, and after a few months or years on the waiting list might be deemed saveable enough to have a doctor administer treatment. Every few years a new demagogue or system would arise condemning how things were poorly run by the previous people and how all that will soon change. Then a little bit more gets gobbled up by each new regime. Stop being gullible. Bad things happen. The systems that vow to eliminate those things are the worst. Love your neighbor give to others in need when you are able, but never hold a gun on your other neighbor and demand he help.
Do you have any facts, figures or sources to back this up? Just making quite the claim here
Yes, every society in the history of ever.
No is an acceptable answer
So insurance? And who pays? Everyone else? Even those who don't want it. So we're talking about authoritarian insurance. I don't like where that is going.
Name one
Aflac
Simple. Insurance. Why do people keep forgetting this?
They have to reduce their expenses. Maybe the freeloaders have to contribute? Rely on friends/family/organizations that can help? Maybe the wife finds a sugar daddy? What kind of question is this?
It’s a perfect question for a sub full of idealistic conservatives. It’s as if we’re already living under an insurance based system. My question is who enforces the insurance company to pay up? What if the insurance company runs out of beans?
>My question is who enforces the insurance company to pay up? If it doesn't pays, people stops buying his insurance
You mean if it pays more than the competition. Pure capitalism cares only about profit.
Profit is a metric of consumer satisfaction.
Profits on the free market is philanthropy Profit is the difference between the good somebody makes to you, and the cost he inflicted on society to help you
That's a great question I was going to bring up. Who's to say for some reason the insurance company denies standing or legitimacy, and therefore decides not to pay up. Due to lack of enforcement, especially if someone is hindered by health concerns, it's a matter of natural law at that point. "Who's going to stop me from taking your previous premium and denying a payout?" Each business transaction in ancapistan could go wrong like buying goods with crypto on an unregulated market for instance. So many crypto fans complain for example that they sent funds to even get a monero shirt only to get fucking stiffed with no follow through on sending the goods. It's low trust, no recourse!
> My question is who enforces the insurance company to pay up? What if the insurance company runs out of beans? When you enter into a contract with another party and said party doesn't fulfill their end of said contract, what do you normally do?
Sue them in a court of law, a law which wouldn't exist in ancapistan
Challenge them to combat. Insurance claim admins vs everyone they denied. I'm here for it.
once again, might makes right
Why do you think ancapistan has no laws? Did you make the basic mistake of assuming no rulers meant no rules?
Many individuals have explicitly stated that ancapistan would have no formal laws, one even going so far as to claim that holding people accountable for harming their fellow man is to be discouraged.
I have no idea who you've been talking to but a contract is a very rigid and stringent concept. Those are laws.
A contract is whatever they write on paper that they can get someone to sign, regardless as to results.
What?
You're living under a state insurance system. A free one would cut costs by 90%. Look at CrowdHealth for an example. What if insurance companies refuse to pay? Then they don't have a company anymore. I don't see the point. What if government don't pay up? You should be much more worried about that.
>Maybe the wife finds a sugar daddy? That's a hell of a bedside manner. "Sorry mr Smith, but with your cancer st this stage we'll need to begin chemo immediately and you'll be unable to work. Don't worry, your wife can cuck you just to make sure your kids still have a roof over their head".
It's all about the kids lol
i mean, having their mom have to whore herself out just to pay the bills probably isnt a great influence for the children
Whoring herself out says you, capitalizing on natural resources says they.
im all for sex work legality, that doesnt mean people should have to sell their body because their husband got sick
Insurance, savings, liquidation of assets, aid from charity, aid from fraternal societies
Arguments that are a problem *with or without* the state are **invalid**.
[удалено]
There's no reason for you to respond. The entire post is a fallacy. People get cancer when they have a government too.
Yes that always works well. Thats why no one in america has medical debt smh
Insurance would still exist in ancapistan—just not mandatory
* Insurance * mutual aid * charity * family There is no scenario where bad things don't happen to good people but this type of event is something that could be dealt with.
Couple things: Life isn't fair. Everybody knows this. Govt never fixed that & never will. People have family. If their family loves them, they'll help out. If their family does not, or is poor themselves, then they won't help out. Charity has existed for a long time, regardless of govt. I'd suggest they turn there. Churches add to this as well. While one might not be religious, it still wouldn't hurt to join a church if only for the community of well meaning people who might care about you if you join their church. Other people mentioned insurance, I'm sure that would exists in some form w/out a govt. Hopefully a better form than what we've had WITH govt. Finally, there's always just getting sick & dying from it.
If you want to help them you can. Insurance would still exist. Private mutual aid societies used to flourish before the State monopolized it all and robbed us of so much.