Health Care; Privlege, Right or Responsibility?

"It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it." --Thomas Sowell

I think this quote fits

Albert Di Salvo said:

Imo health care for all is part of Social Justice. The problem is that Social Justice isn't part of the Social Contract as far as I'm concerned. If the left wants to make Social Justice part of the Social Contract it is necessary to amend the Social Contract imo. Unless a new bargain is struck there really isn't any hope for social peace.....

Click to expand...

are you saying there will be violence?

X Factor said:

And I attribute all those good things more to notions of indvidualism, liberty from the government as much as possible, as well as a free market and benefits of capitalism.

Click to expand...

...Except for the fact that virtually everything about your lifestyle would be impossible if it were not for the government and collectivism.

I think individualism is great. Only in a society that values it can we function at our best, because people who are doing what they're good at and excelling through a meritocracy are extremely valuable.

However, that does not change the fact that all of us rely on each other to make our lives possible. No one is a pillar. That individualistic, gifted person would be completely powerless if they didn't have society in order to facilitate their gifts. What is Stephen Hawking without medical science? Dead.

But even on a less extreme scale, how many of us would have lived to adulthood without everything that living in a modern society provides? Very few. How many of us ever would have gotten old enough or become well-educated enough to even discover where our merit lies? Almost none.

Hikertrash said:

Is it the embodiment of conservatives and republicans to draw back a couple hundred years? It's the 21st century folks.

Click to expand...

When there are two sides in any situation they must either compromise or neither side will know peace. Based on the existing political culture I don't see compromise as being in the cards.

Thunder said:

if everyone who goes to the ER has health-insurance, the ER will always get their money...won't have to eat any more unpaid bills...and therefore lower EVERYBODIES ER bills.

got it?

Click to expand...

Burden is still placed on wealthiest Americans, is it not? If we insure them, it'll still cost us something.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

I guess that depends on whether you think a self-referential life is worth living. I don't, and neither do most other people. I don't see the point in living if I am not interacting with other people. I'm a human - a social creature - and my life loses all its meaning if it is not spent predominantly in interacting with others. What is the point of existing in a vacuum? I can sit in my apartment and potter about all day long until everything about my environment is perfect, and it will still be lacking.

Click to expand...

What's the point of interacting with people who don't refer back to you?

Public goods don't guarantee reference. You're mandated to associate with selfish jerks who take them for granted.

I am not strong enough to save both. If I tried, both would die, and probably, so would I. What is the point of that? That would be a waste of my energy, and result in a 3-fold larger loss of life. That's stupid.

Click to expand...

The point is you're not honoring society in itself. You're honoring parts of society. If you live as a society, you die as a society.

You always have the option of killing yourself. And I believe very fervently in assisted suicide for virtually any reason, because of exactly the point you've made: none of us get to choose to be here, or under what circumstances. And I think it is wrong to force people to kill themselves in messy or ineffective ways, subjecting their loved ones to more pain than necessary, or causing them to continue living with the damage. I think it should be quick and painless and relatively easy.

I do not believe in coercion in the least. If you want to check out, I'd love to help make that easier for you. If you want to stay and contribute, I will contribute back.

Click to expand...

You're adding insult to injury.

For example, a doctor could take that as an excuse to perform surgery on you, giving you some unwarranted capacity. If you don't like it, you could be given the option of suicide.

The point is to prevent moral hazard, not respond to it.

X Factor said:

And I attribute all those good things more to notions of indvidualism, liberty from the government as much as possible, as well as a free market and the benefits of capitalism.

Click to expand...

All the personal responsibility in the world wouldn't be worth a hill of beans if you were born as one of those babies in Africa that are shown here in commercials at 4 in the morning. The simple fact that no one can ignore is that all of our lives are generally good is because the lives of all the people around us are generally good.

zgoldsmith23 said:

Burden is still placed on wealthiest Americans, is it not? If we insure them, it'll still cost us something.

Click to expand...

no, anyone who goes to the ER.....shares the burden.

it costs the same to fix the leg of a rich man as it does for a poor man.

Daktoria said:

What's the point of interacting with people who don't refer back to you?

Public goods don't guarantee reference. You're mandated to associate with selfish jerks who take them for granted.

Click to expand...

I don't need a pat on the head. I don't do it for recognition. I am aware there are selfish jerks out there. I'm also aware that the decent people vastly outnumber them.

The point is you're not honoring society in itself. You're honoring parts of society. If you live as a society, you die as a society.

Click to expand...

Uh, no, that's stupid. Society tries to preserve itself. Causing more death than necessary as a token gesture is not a good way of doing that.

You're adding insult to injury.

For example, a doctor could take that as an excuse to perform surgery on you, giving you some unwarranted capacity. If you don't like it, you could be given the option of suicide.

The point is to prevent moral hazard, not respond to it.

Click to expand...

They can do things like that now, for other reasons. Everything has the risk of abuse. Everything. That tiny risk does not justify punishing the majority.

I see a trend in your inane arguments. You are routinely willing to make more people suffer in order to avoid some either totally imaginary or relatively insignificant problem. That is ridiculous.

Thunder said:

no, anyone who goes to the ER.....shares the burden.

it costs the same to fix the leg of a rich man as it does for a poor man.

Click to expand...

Jeez - it costs them something to fix the leg. If they can't pay for the treatment, they don't get the treatment. It will still cost taxpayers something. Basically, it covers more and costs more. I want it to cost less therefore it'll cover less.

LibertyBurns said:

Contribute, I agree, but who wants to help people when the governemnt is already taxing the crap out of you for these purposes, I dont have to mention that were in this situation because of government involvement.

Click to expand...

I still want to help people and contribute which is why I think the government should find a better, more efficient, way to do it than it is now. I have certain things that I consider essential for a government in a civilized society to provide. Healthcare is one of them. Consequently, if the problem that prevents us from providing healthcare has anything to do with the poor behavior of the government, then that behavior should be fixed, but the end goal of providing healthcare should not be eliminated.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

I don't need a pat on the head. I don't do it for recognition. I am aware there are selfish jerks out there. I'm also aware that the decent people vastly outnumber them.

Click to expand...

That's nice as long as you're elite.

As one of those weak people, however, you're not likely to come across nice people. You're likely to just stumble across one selfish jerk after the next.

Uh, no, that's stupid. Society tries to preserve itself. Causing more death than necessary as a token gesture is not a good way of doing that.

Click to expand...

Society is a qualitative, not a quantitative, identity. You don't count society as meaningful because of a particular number of people in it. You count society as meaningful because of the people in it.

They can do things like that now, for other reasons. Everything has the risk of abuse. Everything. That tiny risk does not justify punishing the majority.

I see a trend in your inane arguments. You are routinely willing to make more people suffer in order to avoid some either totally imaginary or relatively insignificant problem. That is ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Where have I mentioned making people suffer?

The goal is to prevent suffering by holding people responsible for their actions. That way, we mitigate risk by keeping things organized.

Without organization, justification can't exist.

ThePlayDrive said:

Good question. It gets to the theoretical foundations at the heart of a lot arguments happening now.

It depends on the standard you're judging it against. When I judge it against the state of the entire world currently and the state of humanity in history, I think of healthcare as a privilege. When I judge it against my standard for what should be made a "human right," then I think of healthcare as a right. When I judge it against what I think the duties of government are, then I think of it as a responsibility.

In short, it's all three things to me depending on where I'm looking at it. It's a right that governments have the responsibility to provide for their citizens and it's a privilege to be in a country where it's possible to live up that responsibility.

Click to expand...

TPD, you raise an interesting point. When I mentioned "responsibility", I was thinking of the responsibilities of the person, but I certainly left the interpretation wide open and you, very validly, spoke about what you believe to be the responsibilities of the government. Honestly, that was not a perspective I even considered.

Daktoria said:

That's nice as long as you're elite.

As one of those weak people, however, you're not likely to come across nice people. You're likely to just stumble across one selfish jerk after the next.

Click to expand...

No, it's a good way to live no matter what you are. I am certainly not anything close to being one of the elite. I've been very poor for most of my adult life, I'm certainly not rich even now, and at times I am also one of the weak people. I'm back in PT due to RSI. I've struggled with it on-and-off since I was 16.

I come across nice people all the time. You choose not to see them.

Society is a qualitative, not a quantitative, identity. You don't count society as meaningful because of a particular number of people in it. You count society as meaningful because of the people in it.

Click to expand...

And if there are none, then there's no point. Saving those you can is better than just killing them all for no reason. It's almost ridiculous that you need to be told this.

Where have I mentioned making people suffer?

The goal is to prevent suffering by holding people responsible for their actions. That way, we mitigate risk by keeping things organized.

Without organization, justification can't exist.

Click to expand...

You're willing to coerce other people on the assumption doctors can't be trusted even though you just said that it's wrong to coerce people. You're willing to cause more people to die, and your justification for it is that it's better for everyone to die in a futile effort to save them, than to make a more focused effort and ACTUALLY save some of them.

You are obviously coming at this from sort sort of pessimistic, contrarian mood you're in, and I'm pretty much done with it. Come back when you've got your head sorted out.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

No, it's a good way to live no matter what you are. I am certainly not anything close to being one of the elite. I've been very poor for most of my adult life, I'm certainly not rich even now, and at times I am also one of the weak people. I'm back in PT due to RSI. I've struggled with it on-and-off since I was 16.

I come across nice people all the time. You choose not to see them.

Click to expand...

By elite, I was referring to informed, not wealthy.

You're also assuming people aren't looking. Many people look, but just get unlucky. Heck, many people are selfish jerks just because they enjoy taking advantage of how others are looking. By constantly pressuring the unlucky, they prevent the unlucky from having attention to spare elsewhere because they have to defend themselves.

And if there are none, then there's no point. Saving those you can is better than just killing them all for no reason. It's almost ridiculous that you need to be told this.

Click to expand...

There is a point. It shows that you committed yourself to the bitter end and didn't give up just because things were difficult.

Camaraderie leaves nobody behind.

You're willing to coerce other people on the assumption doctors can't be trusted even though you just said that it's wrong to coerce people. You're willing to cause more people to die, and your justification for it is that it's better for everyone to die in a futile effort to save them, than to make a more focused effort and ACTUALLY save some of them.

You are obviously coming at this from sort sort of pessimistic, contrarian mood you're in, and I'm pretty much done with it. Come back when you've got your head sorted out.

Click to expand...

I haven't coerced anyone. Literally, I'm not supporting public goods. Black is not white.

I'm not pessimistic. I'm optimistic that people don't need to be organized like drones, but can organize ourselves.

Access is such a rediculous term. We all NOW have access to the grocery store, the problem occurs only at the checkout point, when that store expects payment for your cartload of groceries. Some pay with funds that they earned by working, others with their SNAP cards.

We all NOW have access to medical care providers, yet they too seem to expect payment, some pay with funds that they earned by working, or perhaps with help of insurance provided by their employer or purchased by them, others have Medicaid or Medicare benefits to use. All NOW have access to many goods and services, what all do not have, is enough EARNED money to buy all that they may want.

What ObamaCare seeks to do, is to use smoke and mirrors to change the rules to require "leveling" of private premiums (no more strictly risk based premiums), adding more medicaid "eligability" and creating "exchanges" (tax subsidized discount pools) of "leftover folks" that have neither bought insurance nor qualified for FULL gov't assistance.

We all need food, clothing and shelter yet they are NOT rights, we are all expected to work to provide them for ourselves and our dependents. The more goods and sevices that are turned into "rights" the less that work will be required. Soon work will be required only to buy the occasionally desired luxuries, as all else seems to gradually becoming a "right" provided by simply asking the gov't to give it to you. To "qualify" you must only show "need" (a sob story) or perhaps have a cute little dependent handy.

It's commodity that has to be paid for. It's not a right, and it's a responsibility for those who value their own health, if they wish to receive health care benefits.
You are not owed health care by birthright.

ThePlayDrive said:

When I judge it against my standard for what should be made a "human right," then I think of healthcare as a right. When I judge it against what I think the duties of government are, then I think of it as a responsibility.

In short, it's all three things to me depending on where I'm looking at it. It's a right that governments have the responsibility to provide for their citizens and it's a privilege to be in a country where it's possible to live up that responsibility.

Click to expand...

So you do not believe you have a right to private property and you do believe that plunder should be a way of life. You are just confused over whether you should have to do the plundering yourself or have the government to it on your behalf.

Got it.

Health care is a right of children and those adjudicated to be unable to make their own legal (hence economic) decisions.

Otherwise it is simply a service/commodity that costs money.

I am gobsmacked that this discussion is ongoing in a modern, developed society. Nowhere else in the developed world is there any question that health care is the right of the citizen, and that society must make arrangements to provide it universally, and at no cost at the point of delivery. Tall buildings and aircraft carriers do not a civilisation make.

Leo said:

I am gobsmacked that this discussion is ongoing in a modern, developed society. Nowhere else in the developed world is there any question that health care is the right of the citizen, and that society must make arrangements to provide it universally, and at no cost at the point of delivery. Tall buildings and aircraft carriers do not a civilisation make.

Click to expand...

Theft, in the guise of benevolence, does not a civilization make.

Leo said:

I am gobsmacked that this discussion is ongoing in a modern, developed society. Nowhere else in the developed world is there any question that health care is the right of the citizen, and that society must make arrangements to provide it universally, and at no cost at the point of delivery. Tall buildings and aircraft carriers do not a civilisation make.

Click to expand...

From each according to their ability (to pay taxes), to each according to their need (for free stuff).
Yee Ha! Yes they can!

It's neither a right, a privilege, or a responsibility.

It's a mandate.




it's way too late to have this discussion... it has been decided.

Leo said:

I am gobsmacked that this discussion is ongoing in a modern, developed society. Nowhere else in the developed world is there any question that health care is the right of the citizen, and that society must make arrangements to provide it universally, and at no cost at the point of delivery. Tall buildings and aircraft carriers do not a civilisation make.

Click to expand...

Does this mean we can go ahead and do away with the false assertions that people don't expect health care to be free?

X Factor said:

Does this mean we can go ahead and do away with the false assertions that people don't expect health care to be free?

Click to expand...

That is not what he said. He said, at no cost at the point of delivery. Because you're already paying for it every time you pay taxes.

In other words, whether or not you get to live should not depend on whether you just happen to have thousands of dollars laying around at a random point in time.