I would say so. It's very sad to think of someone dying from a treatable condition because their GoFundMe campaign wasn't popular enough.

The thing is that government doesn't reach everyone either. Often homeless vets don't seek VA help because why would you trust the government, which injured you and put you in the place you're in now (not to mention that the VA has a terrible track record of actually helping). The government also has a very terrifying incidents in it's history relative to providing healthcare, from the Tuskegee siphilis experiments, to offering healthcare in exchange for sterilization, and more recently, using a polio vaccination program as a cover to spy on bin laden.

> VA has a terrible track record of actually helping

Is this a fact? Would private industry do it better?

I ask because the VA is the closest thing we have to a single-payer experience in the US. Active or inactive, the VA is willing to treat you the only requirement being that you served.

Yet, when people bring up the failing VA they always pass along the Walter Reed VA hospital horror stories. I looked into it and you know what, Walter Reed is a huge military hospital base. It's so big there are multiple hospitals on site. And that site has government run VA hospitals and contractor run VA hospitals. And they are all called Walter Reed. But guess what? All the VA horror stories from Walter Reed come from the same contractor ran hospitals.

My dad was a hospital administrator at the VA. He complained about several issues and was rubber-roomed (dad was in the Navy, used to delivering products on time and in budget and was appalled at the treatment of his fellow vets). This was not at Walter Reed. The organization simply doesn't have a culture of taking care of veterans, or anything really, beyond CYA and job security for career bureaucrats.

> the VA is willing to treat you the only requirement being that you served.

They will make it very hard for you to qualify for VA disability by throwing bureaucracy at you.

I just can't see using violence against peaceful people, for whatever cause, as heartwarming.

Are you suggesting that taxation is equal to violence?

I'm confused.

If these are the opinions of Americans, then I think I have found out why the "US is a Rich Country with Symptoms of a Developing Nation". Viewing taxation as direct threat of violence 10000% will result in a crumbling society that is built on democracy and taxation.

> Are you suggesting that taxation is equal to violence?

It's a frequent comment on HN and it's fucking stupid everytime.

You are forced to pay taxes under the threat of violence.

I don’t understand this argument. We comply to every law “under the threat of violence”. Are you advocating for a lawless society ?

Wait, in what country? Not in the USA! You ain't forced to pay shit here if you don't want. Don't want to pay taxes? Go work minimum wage job then, don't pay taxes okay? Or be megarich and still don't pay taxes. Nobody's forcing you by threat of violence to make a ton of money in your salary and pay taxes on it.

The laws are clear, and you agree to them by living here. A taxation-related arrest will be done non-violently anyway, what on Earth are you talking about here?

Where is this threat of violence coming from?

What's being referred to here is the premise of the monopoly on violence[0]. Essentially that a state can be defined as an entity which claims for itself a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, often violent force, denying the same right to the public. That legitimacy, in free societies is granted by the people, while in nonfree societies, it's often simply taken though further violence. The enforcement of laws and collecting of taxes are backed up by the threat of the state executing on its monopoly on violence against its citizens.

The opposite of the monopoly on violence would be anarchy, which could be interpreted as a free market of violence.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

100 years ago, maybe, as cited in your wiki link, that could have some interesting discussion behind it. But that model of the world quite clearly does not fit today, and viewing modern society like that is exactly the kind of attitude that results in our infrastructure - and morals - crumbling.

I can't find anything in that article that has any relevance to today.

The monopoly on violence is the way all civil societies work, even in the present day. It's why the police are legally allowed to beat someone, kidnap them against their will and throw them in a cage, and you aren't. It's why the social contract isn't a literal contract you needed to sign first before being subject to your government's authority.

Tax liens and wage garnishments are violence, apparently.

What happens if you fail to pay your taxes?

Oh, you've committed violence against your peers by depriving them of the money that would have been used to save them in the healthcare system? By not paying taxes, you're being violent to your fellow Americans? Is that the take here? Confused still.

No, if you fail to pay taxes, you will be carted off to jail, violently, if necessary. The point is that whatever you feel government should or should not do, government is the entity that as a society we collectively decide should be allowed to violate your individual consent in favor of some sort of partial group consent (if you're in a democracy). Thus, if you think consent is important, a system where private charity provides adequate healthcare should be preferable to one where the government provides adequate healthcare.

Healthcare in the us is seriously fucked up. It's highly regulated and prices are set in an incredibly corrupt fashion. Insurance is misunderstood by politicians as a magic trove of money and then gets the blame when it falls short. We get quite honestly the worst of a privatized and the worst of a public system.

> No, if you fail to pay taxes, you will be carted off to jail, violently, if necessary.

That is simply false. You will not be "carted off to jail, violently, if necessary". If you refuse to obey the laws of the country of course you will be arrested. They will not be violent! If you choose to pull out a gun or something and fight them, then you have initiated the violence and they will defend themselves. This is all fucking insane anyway, why are we even talking about this? You don't have a clear understanding of how the laws or modern society works.

You're not living under a threat of violence with taxation, my god. I can't imagine what kind of misconceptions you have that result in you thinking that a result of you not paying taxes could end violently. We have looooong surpassed that, and in fact, our Constitution written hundreds of years ago, while flawed, absolutely prevents the scenario you are describing.

"If you refuse to obey the laws of the country of course you will be arrested. They will not be violent!"

Are we talking about the US? Perhaps you're not a person of color, so you don't understand what it's really like here.

Careful or you'll let a libertarian define a term very broadly then start making bad syllogisms at you with it.

[edit] actually may be an Objectivist, I guess. They argue the same.

I find it telling that this particular argument is only trotted out against the idea of universal health care. It’s not used in disagreement with military spending, subsidizing religious institutions, agricultural and land-use supports, etc.

I would rather we didn't have to have "heartwarming" stories like this at all.

People pay for other people’s roads, fire fighters, police force...

When you buy car insurance, you’re not buying it for yourself, you’re buying it for everyone who has car insurance