Health Care; Privlege, Right or Responsibility?

megaprogman said:

I see moral and societal obligation as the same thing in this case.

Click to expand...

Would you be upset if the Federal Government mandated you (and everyone else) took out an Adjustable Rate Mortgage on a home?

We have just been chained by federal mandate to this cost-expansive industry, and this deceptively named "affordable care act" will directly make health CARE more costly, and all you have is... :shrug:... and chalk it up to "such is modern society?"

Neomalthusian said:

Would you be upset if the Federal Government mandated you (and everyone else) took out an Adjustable Rate Mortgage on a home?

We have just been chained by federal mandate to this cost-expansive industry, and this deceptively named "affordable care act" will directly make health CARE more costly, and all you have is... :shrug:... and chalk it up to "such is modern society?"

Click to expand...

Of course, but such regulation would make little sense. Now if the government mandated I do something that actually served a purpose, probably not even if doing so was uncomfortable. In the end its all about balance, if its a small thing for a big gain sure, if its a big thing with little or no gain than no, if its balanced, maybe, it depends on the situation.

Now in terms of the specific issue, I am against the ACA due to reasons already stated, small gain here.

megaprogman said:

I see moral and societal obligation as the same thing in this case.

Click to expand...

I don't see how. If someone is independent their life has no bearing on anyone else's, yes, if a young child would be left without a parent it could plausibly effect them in a way that could negatively effect society, but even with care children lose parents. Society has a right not to be victimized, but those who go without care don't do that.

All I can say is your "right to self defense is the key to all other rights" think about that for a minute. Its the ability to inflict violence that creates space for everything else. Now this doesn't mean that someone should because they can, but that is how it works and no rights do not exist in a vacuum, they are dependent on natural things like everything else in life.

Click to expand...

It wasn't a key, simply an example of that which exists regardless of governance. The only thing society can do is judge whether an action was done within the scope of that right, defense was the strongest example of that due to the fact that an action could be judged as either legal or illegal by a jury, however the truth and the verdict could potentially diverge. Now, let's take things to it's simplist and create a hypothetical anarchy, someone tries to coerce another to give up a right, such as property with the threat of force, however the person upholding their right gets the upper hand, at that point the right is upheld, if he fails it's infringed but the right was always there. To bring this to it's basics, society can only infringe upon rights, never grant them.

You are right. Then we would lose a whole host of rights and it would totally suck.

Click to expand...

Ah, but wait, no rights would be lost however the mechanisms to exercise some of them would dissappear. It would most definitely suck but in that chaos the best and brightest would eventually figure out the techniques and start the rebuilding process provided people would still know how to survive. The entire point was that rights are always there, even under the most dire circumstances.

Misterveritis said:

You are trying to pretty up the theft. Who is obligated to pay for your healthcare? Is it the person across the street? And why would anyone other than you be obligated to pay for something you want?

Is the level of plunder determined by how much you want something? Do you get a warm and fuzzy when you think about the people who are plundered so you can have something you want but are unwilling to pay for? Why shouldn't people like you be declared dangerous to the rest of us and locked up? Theft is theft.

Click to expand...

I have to defend the statement on morality! It should be a moral obligation but, when government forces people to be moral it actually strips the individuals of their responsibility to be moral. Why do I want to help when the government already legally plunders my assets to achieve this goal! We go further and further in spending by the government to help people. What are the results so far? Has poverty gone down?! Has medical care cost gone down?!

LaMidRighter said:

I don't see how. If someone is independent their life has no bearing on anyone else's, yes, if a young child would be left without a parent it could plausibly effect them in a way that could negatively effect society, but even with care children lose parents. Society has a right not to be victimized, but those who go without care don't do that.

Click to expand...

nobody is independent of one another except maybe that rare castaway on a desert island somewhere.

LaMidRighter said:

It wasn't a key, simply an example of that which exists regardless of governance. The only thing society can do is judge whether an action was done within the scope of that right, defense was the strongest example of that due to the fact that an action could be judged as either legal or illegal by a jury, however the truth and the verdict could potentially diverge. Now, let's take things to it's simplist and create a hypothetical anarchy, someone tries to coerce another to give up a right, such as property with the threat of force, however the person upholding their right gets the upper hand, at that point the right is upheld, if he fails it's infringed but the right was always there. To bring this to it's basics, society can only infringe upon rights, never grant them.

Click to expand...

I understood your point, but disagreed.

LaMidRighter said:

Ah, but wait, no rights would be lost however the mechanisms to exercise some of them would dissappear. It would most definitely suck but in that chaos the best and brightest would eventually figure out the techniques and start the rebuilding process provided people would still know how to survive. The entire point was that rights are always there, even under the most dire circumstances.

Click to expand...

again, i disagree. It is plausable someone may gain rights in such a situation though if they are the first one to raid the remnants of the old gun store in town. Terrible situation though.

megaprogman said:

Of course, but such regulation would make little sense. Now if the government mandated I do something that actually served a purpose, probably not even if doing so was uncomfortable. In the end its all about balance, if its a small thing for a big gain sure, if its a big thing with little or no gain than no, if its balanced, maybe, it depends on the situation.

Now in terms of the specific issue, I am against the ACA due to reasons already stated, small gain here.

Click to expand...

Forgive my frustration, but if you had to pick which one of the following was the root of our health care problem, which would it be?

A) People don't have health insurance (i.e. people cannot access pools of money for their health needs).

B) Medical care is too expensive.

LibertyBurns said:

I have to defend the statement on morality! It should be a moral obligation but, when government forces people to be moral it actually strips the individuals of their responsibility to be moral. Why do I want to help when the government already legally plunders my assets to achieve this goal! We go further and further in spending by the government to help people. What are the results so far? Has poverty gone down?! Has medical care cost gone down?!

Click to expand...

To the bolded, exactly right which is why I wanted to make clear that there is a difference between moral and societal obligations. Under a moral obligation one must answer to their own conscience, under a societal one the individual must realize that there are minimum requirements to be in polite society such as obeying just laws, maintaining a minimum of civilized behavior, etc.

I think it's dangerous to allow politicians and ideologies too much lattitude in declaring societal obligations however, it only takes a short period of overbearing lawmaking to shrink liberty.

LibertyBurns said:

I have to defend the statement on morality! It should be a moral obligation but, when government forces people to be moral it actually strips the individuals of their responsibility to be moral. Why do I want to help when the government already legally plunders my assets to achieve this goal! We go further and further in spending by the government to help people. What are the results so far? Has poverty gone down?! Has medical care cost gone down?!

Click to expand...

What is a moral obligation?
Should governments ever take from one citizen to give their property to another? If I used force as the government does would you see me as a moral agent working for good? or would you see me as I really am, a thief?

megaprogman said:

nobody is independent of one another except maybe that rare castaway on a desert island somewhere.

Click to expand...

Completely disagree. There are people who are overly dependent upon others, there are people who are independent but forced into dependency by others getting in their way, and there are people who truly don't need anyone(have seen them in the most rural of La.) etc. While it's true that everyone serves a purpose to others, it doesn't create an obligation, people perform to some kind of percieved value.

I understood your point, but disagreed.

Click to expand...

That's your right, we'll have to diverge on that I guess.

again, i disagree. It is plausable someone may gain rights in such a situation though if they are the first one to raid the remnants of the old gun store in town. Terrible situation though.

Click to expand...

Think about it this way. You won't gain rights by hording arms, you have two options though 1) use those arms to protect your own rights 2) use those arms to oppress others, subjugate their rights to your will.
In the first scenario you have no more rights than you started with.......but no less. In the second scenario you have no more rights than you started with, but others would not have the ability to exercise theirs.

Misterveritis said:

What is a moral obligation?
Should governments ever take from one citizen to give their property to another? If I used force as the government does would you see me as a moral agent working for good? or would you see me as I really am, a thief?

Click to expand...

Morals, my values of right and wrong. Obligation, my morals obligate me to help in any way possible only in a capacity that doesnt harm me. I am not a believer in altruism.

No, government should not participate in legal plunder.

If you use force then no.

Yes you are a thief.

My point was forcing the morals of others on others, has the effect of taking away the responsibility of the individual to actually have good morals. It leaves a bad taste in ones mouth being forced to do something against your will.

I think its all of the above.

Its a privilege because well all countries dont have what we have. technology facilitates etc.
I also think in certain cases it should be restricted.

its a right because we are a first world civil country. People should die in the streets because they are the wrong color or income or gender or sex etc. Now of course this has restrictions also

its a responsibility because a person should make decent choices and be willing to set aside money to help insure good care. You eat KFC 3 times a day every day, drink every day, smoke every day and do heroin, well dont be surprised if the best care isnt just thrown at you and you arent rushed to the front of the line for lipo-section, a new heart, lungs, liver and a face lift lol

and its other because its a mix of these things and others. It cant JUST be a right, just like your current rights are just rights, they are responsibilities and privileges.

Neomalthusian said:

Forgive my frustration, but if you had to pick which one of the following was the root of our health care problem, which would it be?

A) People don't have health insurance (i.e. people cannot access pools of money for their health needs).

B) Medical care is too expensive.

Click to expand...

How people use medical care.

Neomalthusian said:

That's precisely the mechanism that controls cost in every other industry.

Click to expand...

Elasticity. Economics 101. Since you want to keep it basic. Not much is less elastic than health care, buddy.

FYI, I'd think for all the pro-lifers this would be a given. If you are 8 months old, how can you earn your right to health care?

Know what I believe...that the majority of people against the health care bill...if they had no insurance or someone they loved..wife, son daughter and they were in jeopardy...they would love obamacare...its the haves that cant even fathom whats it really like to not have and its not just the bums..many middleclass workers cant afford it

lpast said:

Know what I believe...that the majority of people against the health care bill...if they had no insurance or someone they loved..wife, son daughter and they were in jeopardy...they would love obamacare...its the haves that cant even fathom whats it really like to not have and its not just the bums..many middleclass workers cant afford it

Click to expand...

I don't have health insurance and I am against this bill. It is a noble goal but, this is not the way to go about it.

Why do we need this bill? People cannot afford healthcare. What are the causes of this? Is it because everyone doesnt chip in for insurance? I dont have it, I probably should but, then again like I stated earlier, I would have used it unnecessarily. More people chipping in for insurance will not drive the cost down. Yes more people may be covered but, what will be the effect of more people being covered have on the medical sector? More unnecessary usage? Obviously this will be the case. Will we have enough doctors to take on this increased demand? This is basic economics right here, supply and demand. Truthfully what we really need are more doctors like Dr. Ron Paul and Dr. Russell Dohner. This bill is gonna line the pockets of those insurance companies participating... Probably kill others and give us less choices.

After reading through this entire thread, I am of the opinion that there are several, quite separate, issues which are being conflated.

One is The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), informally referred to as Obamacare, to which many Americans appear to object for differing reasons. I can understand a particular objection to this Act - that of it not providing universal health care, but merely acting as corporate welfare for the health insurers. I would not want it in my society.

Another issue is that of health care being a right in any given society, and of the government's responsibilities in that area. It is not a naturally occurring right, in exactly the same way that freedom of speech, the provision of education, or defence, are not naturally occurring rights, but are of benefit to society. So in the societal sense, and as a benefit to society as a whole, it should be as much a right as freedom of speech, education, or defence. A healthy society is more productive, thus generating more societal wealth and ability, which may be regarded as a clear benefit to that society. So, however it is funded, universal health care is a necessity for a successful and prosperous society.

Yet another issue appears to be the fear that any form of universal health care will increase the cost to the individual of his own health care. This has not been the case in the rest of the developed world, as the US has the highest health care costs in the world. It may not be argued that this has resulted in the best health care outcomes, as the US was ranked 37th in the only ranking done by the WHO.

So let us look at the financial principles involved. A taxation financed health care system has several fiscal advantages over one financed by premiums to many separate insurance companies.

One of the more obvious advantages is the removal of the profit margins and operating costs of hundreds, if not thousands, of insurance companies.

A greater advantage is the purchasing power of one powerful entity, as opposed to a myriad smaller ones. The pharmaceutical companies (a major cost in any health care environment) can be brought to heel on bulk buying - which is what happens in most UHC systems, resulting in much cheaper medications.

And because everyone capable is paying into the system - one section of the community is not subsidising another. In a properly regulated system of this kind, the individual costs would in fact be lower than in the system current in the USA.

This is not just theory - it is what is being practiced successfully in every other developed society. Which is why I was puzzled (in my earlier post) why this was even a matter for argument in the USA.

And lest anyone consider that I am lecturing Americans on how they should run their society - I am not. I am pointing these things out as a matter of information (and because this is the topic under discussion) but how you run your country is your concern. You might also note that I have made no mention of a moral element in this issue.

Leo said:

Yet another issue appears to be the fear that any form of universal health care will increase the cost to the individual of his own health care. This has not been the case in the rest of the developed world, as the US has the highest health care costs in the world. It may not be argued that this has resulted in the best health care outcomes, as the US was ranked 37th in the only ranking done by the WHO.

So let us look at the financial principles involved. A taxation financed health care system has several fiscal advantages over one financed by premiums to many separate insurance companies.

One of the more obvious advantages is the removal of the profit margins and operating costs of hundreds, if not thousands, of insurance companies.

A greater advantage is the purchasing power of one powerful entity, as opposed to a myriad smaller ones. The pharmaceutical companies (a major cost in any health care environment) can be brought to heel on bulk buying - which is what happens in most UHC systems, resulting in much cheaper medications.

And because everyone capable is paying into the system - one section of the community is not subsidising another. In a properly regulated system of this kind, the individual costs would in fact be lower than in the system current in the USA.

This is not just theory - it is what is being practiced successfully in every other developed society. Which is why I was puzzled (in my earlier post) why this was even a matter for argument in the USA.

Click to expand...

Any specific country you want to talk about?

I don't think badly of these systems in comparison to our current system, but there are more factors involved. Are the lines long? A few ranked higher than us are. Are they good economically? A few countries come to mind. Now also may I ask about regulations? Cash payments instead of insurance?

Edit:
The U.S. has a spending problem right now, medicaid and medicare are doing well for us already! I would state regulation and government intervention has caused this problem.

mpg said:

You don't need to explain that to me. I'm a health care provider, so I'm offended when people say that they have a right to my labor. My post went right over your head.

Click to expand...

I've been a provider, and I never thought of it that way. Yes, I took my check, but I have worked off the clock as well. I'm just saying I don't think of that service in terms of profit, not like I would selling widgets.

cpwill said:

It is a good or service.

Click to expand...

So is a firefighter and a polcie officer. All three are different than selling widgets on the market.

Boo Radley said:

I've been a provider, and I never thought of it that way. Yes, I took my check, but I have worked off the clock as well. I'm just saying I don't think of that service in terms of profit, not like I would selling widgets.

Click to expand...

I've worked off the clock too, voluntarily.

mpg said:

I've worked off the clock too, voluntarily.

Click to expand...

Accepted. But no one has asked anyone be mandated to work for free. I was merely speaking of a frame of mind, how we look at the service.

Complete free market healthcare is our best bet! Government protects the current monopolies of medications and equipment. Canada doesnt obey our intellectual property rights, look at the cost of medication. Why should the state license doctors? They can do it if they want, but why cant I choose to go to whom ever I want, as in getting stitches. Also why do I need to go to a doctor to get a prescription, especially when i know what I need. India doesn't have this problem. Eh well we can thank the war on drugs for that! Regulation,s regulations, regulations, France is supposedly number 1 right? Regulations are supposedly low, though I havent confirmed this. If we could just use the free market and incorporate all these aspects of other systems that provide benefits we could see real improvements to healthcare.

Well looking at some articles number 1 france has had some bumps, Haha soo I guess the WHO isnt a very good source to look at rankings