Do people 'deserve' universal health care?

[gagged_Louise]

So why can't they include an optional questionnaire in the income tax statements we must file, and let the taxpayer distribute that discretionary portion of his tax dollars? So I can, for example, have more of my tax money go to parts of the budget which I deem more important, rather than to paying some so-called artist for pissing on a canvas. Or instead of paying some unwed junkie mother of four an allowance so she can buy another rock of crack. Or instead of giving money to a corporation which didn't have the brains to handle its own finances, and will likely not be able to handle its finances after getting the money.

Perhaps then we'll see more money going to what's really important. And if you think universal health care is important, then you could allocate more of your tax dollars to that.

Imagine the torrent of lawsuits from citizens vs the state that kind of model would produce! I don't want to think about it. On every level - county, city, state, federal - the state would fall prey to a million lawsuits from people who showed their "this is what I want my taxes to go to" cards from an election - not necessarily the last one - and claiming "my money hasn't been spent on this though you claim it was, you diverted it or you shirked the instructions - I refuse to pay for such and such,and I won't pay any more taxes for now until it's straightened out". And class actions and campaigns by churches and trade unions too, or even the mayorate of a city suing the state it's located in (if we suppose it's the USA). It would cripple any kind of political leadership or political negotiations.

In a general way, it would also reduce the citizen to a customer, choosing tasty alternative titbits for their own wallet - and a customer can be bought or bribed by the kind of deals that a politician - or somebody who isn't a politician, but clearly affiliated with the political world, like a general, a bishop or an influential businessman - would promise. If everyone decides their own peronal tax targets, the people become quite corruptible, because the election becomes stuff to buy and choose.

I'm not saying people don't vote from their long-term economic interests, but at least they mostly don't vote their leading men from the point of view that "he'll be very good as a personal business partner to me and other people I know".

I remember someone said in August that the looming bailout of Fannie and Freddie could not likely take place before the elections, because once it had happened, it would put the entire people - most of them, everyone who had a housing loan or who directly or indirectly owned bank or industry shares - in a sort of client position to the person - not chosen yet - who would be the next president: the guy they'd vote on. Now as both Obama and McCain supported the bailouts it didn't come to that - people did not feel their wallets were directly on the voting table, in the sense of who would promise the best conditions for this issue - but I still think it was a valid point.