Unfair Practices in Health Care

Cassandra · Sep 22, 2009

Truth Detector said:
People die waiting for critical operations that are unavailable to them due to the Government policies used to contain healthcare costs in nations with Universal care too.

Again, why do you argue as if there are only TWO options; the status quo or Government interventionism? This is a fallacy and false argument and can only be interpreted as a hyper partisan effort to support Liberal Democrats who wish to create a dependent class of citizens.

Let me remind you that the thread began with this basic question:

"Denial of goods and services due to inability to pay is the societal norm, one common across virtually all societies.
Why should health care be an exception?

How does your right to life trump their right to keep the fruits of their labor?"

We have been discussing two options, fundamental philosophical underpinnings, you might say.

Kandahar · Sep 22, 2009

Harshaw said:
Even if I agree with it, it doesn't make your preferred outcome correct.

Quite right, but it at least gives us a premise on which to begin our discussion. Clearly I don't agree with the idea that it's inherently unfair to tax you to pay for public services. Clearly you don't agree with the idea that it's inherently unfair for people to die because they can't afford health care, possibly through no fault of their own. So since we don't have an agreement on THOSE premises, it makes no SENSE to start the debate from either of those premises.

On the other hand, if we have an agreement on the statement "It's in society's best interest to have a healthy population and functioning economy," we have a premise on which to debate health care, and how to achieve those goals. And I'd be happy to discuss the economics and practicality of various health care systems, but every time someone shrieks "ZOMG THAT'S NOT FAIR!!!11" they are not making a logical argument.

Harshaw said:
But by appealing to the majority to show yourself to be correct or "more" correct, you're simply appealing to the stronger faction, and as I said, that's just "might makes right." But I appreciate your illustrating my point for me.

Nope, I'm merely trying to find a premise which we both share. Have I found one? Or do you disagree with the premise that it's in society's best interest to have a healthy population and functioning economy?

Harshaw said:
Hardly. What I'm expecting you to do is read what I write and deal with it as written. I know you're capable of it. You're just choosing not to do it.

When you decide to make LOGICAL arguments instead of arguments based on your own personal morality (which you automatically expect me to adopt), then we can debate the issue more intelligently. :2wave:

Kandahar · Sep 22, 2009

Truth Detector said:
I am fascinated by the argument that claiming what you earn should belong to you as being mindless dogma.

:rofl

Do you support any form of government whatsoever? Any form of taxes whatsoever?

Truth Detector · Sep 22, 2009

Kandahar said:
Clearly you don't agree with the idea that it's inherently unfair for people to die because they can't afford health care, possibly through no fault of their own.

How about those who die waiting for a critical operation that wasn't available because the Government limits specialists and the number of doctors who are able to perform such operations to control costs?

I am constantly fascinated with the argument that people are dying BECAUSE they don’t have Government provided healthcare while ignoring ACTUAL cases of people dying because the care they needed was not available to them because of Government provided healthcare.

But I am not surprised when people who promote the absurd notion that we only have TWO choices in the world and attempt to suggest that ONLY the Government can provide for its citizens and the citizens are incapable of providing for themselves.

It is almost as asinine as President Obama and his staffers trying to claim that it is REPUBLICANS who are preventing them from getting their way in this debate or that REPUBLICANS don't have a plan or are the party of NO.

Truth Detector · Sep 22, 2009

Kandahar said:
Do you support any form of government whatsoever? Any form of taxes whatsoever?

Yes I do as a matter of fact; is there a point here? :doh

Interesting, my e-mail had this part of your comment which you apparently edited: "If the answer is yes, kindly STFU. "

Truth Detector · Sep 22, 2009

Cassandra said:
As far as I know this is not a thread about the specifics of health care policy but people do die prematurely for lack of access to health care and w/o medicare /medicaid the numbers would be a great deal higher.

Do you have anything that would support such an assertion?

On the other hand, I find that is requires incredible denial to ignore the fact that many also die while waiting for critical operations in countries with universal healthcare because of a lack of doctors and equipment to perform such operations because of Government efforts to manage costs.

Tell me something, why do people like you believe that the ONLY solution to healthcare has to involve a major intervention by Government and how you can even think that a Government which has never historically managed anything well, let alone their own budgets, can be trusted to manage 1/4 of the American economy better than private businesses can?

Ethereal · Sep 22, 2009

Cassandra said:
not everyone agrees with you

Obviously, but they would be wrong.

The idea of human rights is also closely related to that of natural rights; some recognize no difference between the two and regard both as labels for the same thing, while others choose to keep the terms separate to eliminate association with some features traditionally associated with natural rights.[4]

I'm not interested in debating a Wikipedia article. Please formulate your own opinions.

What makes your "natural rights" trump social or human rights (AKA the right to health care)?

You're asking me nonsensical questions. What does this have to do with positive and negative rights? That's what we're talking about. I have no intrinsic moral obligation to provide YOU with anything, any insistence to the contrary is immoral.

Rights are not positive obligations, repeat, they are not positive obligations. If they were I could make the argument that everything you own is really mine, and everything I own is really your's. Unless you do not believe in the concept of private property you really can't claim that rights constitute a positive obligation.

Blurring the lines between natural and legal rights, U.S. statesman James Madison believed that some rights, such as trial by jury, are social rights, arising neither from natural law nor from positive law but from the social contract from which a government derives its authority.[1] ..Wikepedia

Okay? And this has what to do with negative individual liberty?

O.K. be that way!

But if all the "wealthy" people left America you'd run out of other people's money. So, really, you need me to stay.

And yet the supreme court has never found medicare/medicaid to be unconstitutional.

And the Supreme Court has never been mistaken. Not even once...:roll:

We are not talking about mass murder!!

But we ARE talking about majority opinions not necessarily being right or moral; Nazism aptly illustrates this logical concept.

No one is saying that HC reform = Nazism. We're just saying the majority does not a moral make.

I assume that everyone engaged in this debate would rather A) Never pay any taxes for any purpose other than defense and B) never die of a curable illness for lack of money.
The most difficult dilemmas in the world (and in relationships, I might add) arise from the friction between rights- positives if you will. Two positive outcomes which cannot be simultaneously achieved and are therefore in conflict. Generally, they are never definitely resolved. The only alternative to peaceful choice made via the will of the majority is combat. How else do you resolve such conflicts?

I would resolve this conflict by educating people on the nature of our Constitution as well as the nature of rights.

I would also tell them that simply because you want or need something does not mean other people are obligated to provide you with it.

Kandahar · Sep 22, 2009

Ethereal said:
Obviously, but they would be wrong.

Why?

Ethereal said:
You're asking me nonsensical questions. What does this have to do with positive and negative rights? That's what we're talking about. I have no intrinsic moral obligation to provide YOU with anything, any insistence to the contrary is immoral.

Why?

Ethereal said:
Rights are not positive obligations, repeat, they are not positive obligations.

Why?

Ethereal said:
If they were I could make the argument that everything you own is really mine, and everything I own is really your's. Unless you do not believe in the concept of private property you really can't claim that rights constitute a positive obligation.

Do you expect others to provide you with military protection, police protection, a system of courts and prisons to deal with those who would harm you, and a transportation/electric/water infrastructure? How do you morally justify these things if you believe you have an absolute right to your property that trumps all other societal concerns?

Ethereal said:
I would resolve this conflict by educating people on the nature of our Constitution as well as the nature of rights.

Whoa, you're making a completely separate argument now when you talk about the Constitution. Legality and morality are two completely separate issues. So please, educate me on the "nature of rights," and why I should accept YOUR view of morality over any other.

Ethereal · Sep 22, 2009

Kandahar said:
Why?

Because we live in America and our system of governance was created with certain things in mind; one of them being the nature of individual rights and how they are negative obligations on others.

Why?

Because if I own something and you take it without my permission it's stealing, and stealing is wrong.

Why?

Because rights are negative obligations. If rights were positive obligations to the possessions of others then they would be entitlements, not rights.

Do you expect others to provide you with military protection, police protection, a system of courts and prisons to deal with those who would harm you, and a transportation/electric/water infrastructure? How do you morally justify these things if you believe you have an absolute right to your property that trumps all other societal concerns?

These are necessary and permitted adjuncts to our Constitution. Since I'm not advocating the complete abolition of government, it should be safe to assume that lawfully permissible agencies thereof must be funded by the citizenry via taxation.

P.S. - You didn’t mention education…is that because you know it’s unconstitutional?

Whoa, you're making a completely separate argument now when you talk about the Constitution. Legality and morality are two completely separate issues. So please, educate me on the "nature of rights," and why I should accept YOUR view of morality over any other.

Not necessarily. If I have a moral belief in the law then adhering to or supporting the law is a morally righteous act. I would further argue that the Constitution itself is the most morally just form of legality existent.

It establishes government and law.

It subordinates the government to the people.

It provides equality under the law.

It has a Democratic mechanism for change (Re: Amendment process).

It secures liberty.

Not sure what else you'd need in a Constitution...:2razz:

Coolguy · Sep 22, 2009

What is the least fair outcome of this, and why?
I do not receive those goods/services because I cannot pay
The doctor does not receive compensation for the goods/services he provided
The doctor’s other patients foot the bill for the goods/services I received
The taxpayers foot the bill for the goods/services I received

I would have to say that the least fair is: "The doctor does not receive compensation for the goods/services he provided".

Saying; "I do not receive those goods/services because I cannot pay" as being the least fair is ridiculous.
It has absolutely nothing to do with fairness but with the selfishness of others who want what they can not afford.

Next we will be hearing how the government must provide for everybody the products that Farmers, Butchers and Grocers provide, because as we all know, food is needed by the people.

Kandahar · Sep 22, 2009

Ethereal said:
Because we live in America and our system of governance was created with certain things in mind; one of them being the nature of individual rights and how they are negative obligations on others.

Really. What America are you living in? Because I live in our nation's capital, and I see all sorts of government agencies devoted to "stealing" your money.

Ethereal said:
Because if I own something and you take it without my permission it's stealing, and stealing is wrong.

Unless, of course, YOU approve of the stealing...as is the case with taxes for military/police/courts.

Ethereal said:
Because rights are negative obligations. If rights were positive obligations to the possessions of others then they would be entitlements, not rights.

You can use whatever word you want to describe them. But you're just arguing semantics, not why your view is better than any other.

Ethereal said:
These are necessary and permitted adjuncts to our Constitution. Since I'm not advocating the complete abolition of government, it should be safe to assume that lawfully permissible agencies thereof must be funded by the citizenry via taxation.

I'm not talking about whether you think it's LEGAL under our system of government. I'm talking about why you think those things are MORAL. Why is it morally acceptable for you to "steal" my money to pay for your military protection, but it isn't morally acceptable for me to "steal" your money to pay for universal health care?

Ethereal said:
P.S. - You didn’t mention education…is that because you know it’s unconstitutional?

Nope, I just picked examples of government programs I knew you'd support.

Ethereal said:
Not necessarily. If I have a moral belief in the law then adhering to or supporting the law is a morally righteous act. I would further argue that the Constitution itself is the most morally just form of legality existent.

This is a circular argument. You are claiming that the Constitution is the most moral form of government because it limits the role of government...and you're claiming that limiting the role of government is moral because it's in the Constitution.

Ethereal said:
It establishes government and law.

It subordinates the government to the people.

It provides equality under the law.

It has a Democratic mechanism for change (Re: Amendment process).

It secures liberty.

Not sure what else you'd need in a Constitution...:2razz:

Meh. I could write a better one. I'm sure many people could, if we were starting from scratch. That's not to say that it hasn't done well, but it's far from perfect and certainly should not be the basis of one's morality.

I'm not sure why you think the moral principles (as opposed to legal principles) from a 200-year-old document are inherently superior to, say, a 2,000-year-old document. Religious fundamentalism is religious fundamentalism, regardless of what text you prefer. Personally I get my morals from my observations and experiences...not what some other fallible human wrote down centuries ago.

Cassandra · Sep 23, 2009

Ethereal said:
Rights are not positive obligations, repeat, they are not positive obligations

So you say, repeatedly. I. M.O. there is virtually no such thing as wealth creation that is not dependent on the nation, infrastructure, social structure and resources found in that country.. You owe a tax, toll or membership fee for the privilege of belonging to this club and the majority decides how to allocate that fund.

But if all the "wealthy" people left America you'd run out of other people's money. So, really, you need me to stay.

No, the country does not need wealthy people. It needs productive people.

We're just saying the majority does not a moral make.

Again- then how do you decide an issue that is not self evident because it involves conflicting RIGHTS. Flip a coin?

I would resolve this conflict by educating people on the nature of our Constitution as well as the nature of rights.

I see- you and some other dead white guys have the final word on the subject?
Here is the U.S. written Japanese constitution on health care:
"All people shall have the right to maintain the minimum standards of wholesome and cultural living. In all spheres of life, the state shall use its endeavours for the promotion and extension of social welfare and security of public health."

Who knew? The U.S. imposed socialism on Japan and now they are among the healthiest population in the world!

I would also tell them that simply because you want or need something does not mean other people are obligated to provide you with it.

I love the way you slide effortlessly from "need' to "want". I have spent some time trying to teach my kid the difference.

BWG · Sep 23, 2009

Cassandra said:
Here is the U.S. written Japanese constitution on health care:

If I'm not mistaken the U.S. influenced Iraq constitution also includes universal health care.

Harshaw · Sep 23, 2009

Kandahar said:
Quite right, but it at least gives us a premise on which to begin our discussion. Clearly I don't agree with the idea that it's inherently unfair to tax you to pay for public services.

Never said anything about it.

Clearly you don't agree with the idea that it's inherently unfair for people to die because they can't afford health care, possibly through no fault of their own.

This is why it's impossible to have a discussion with you lately. You make cheap insults and assertions of fact which have nothing to do with the actual words I typed to the screen. Grow up. You weren't always like this.

On the other hand, if we have an agreement on the statement "It's in society's best interest to have a healthy population and functioning economy," we have a premise on which to debate health care, and how to achieve those goals. And I'd be happy to discuss the economics and practicality of various health care systems, but every time someone shrieks "ZOMG THAT'S NOT FAIR!!!11" they are not making a logical argument.

:roll: And I said "ZOMG THAT'S NOT FAIR!!!11" where?

Nope, I'm merely trying to find a premise which we both share. Have I found one? Or do you disagree with the premise that it's in society's best interest to have a healthy population and functioning economy?

I'm saying it had nothing to do with anything I said. I'll further say that whether or not I agree with it, it's still a morally-founded premise.

When you decide to make LOGICAL arguments

I have, all the way through. That you keep insisting they're not doesn't make it any less so.

instead of arguments based on your own personal morality (which you automatically expect me to adopt),

Point to the statement I made which is an argument based on my personal morality, or to the statement I made wherein I expected you to adopt it.

G'head. Do it.

then we can debate the issue more intelligently. :2wave:

Not when you keep saying I posted things I didn't, or when you keep trying to change the premise.

Marilyn Monroe · Sep 24, 2009

Goobieman said:
Been saying this for years...

I think it will just switch to a different pocket.

The insurance companies negotiate what they pay for our services. People who have no insurance just don't have a negotiator. So, either people figure out and take the extra time as Rivrrat did, or they pay the super inflated price that nobody but dumb bunnies pays.

The reason Medicare is so bankrupt is because they do pay a lot of the inflated prices. The government just needs to wise up, but they just can't say no. The guys with the big houses want to keep those houses, so it wouldn't be that hard to negotiate for their services.

I would bet a lot of doctor's have two sets of books. One for the patients with insurance, one without. They still make money and they come out looking like great humanitarians.

I think Obama knows this and this is why he'll be able to save us money, and some of his negotiators will actually get quite rich from all of it. Just gotta be a good mathematician, and know the true costs.

MRI=$1200
MRI negotiated rate=$380

Why have so many insurance companies gone under? Didn't have good negotiators, maybe?

I'm just going on how my insurance does it, and they are the largest insurer that hasn't gone under.

Unfair Practices in Health Care

What is the least fair outcome of this, and why?

I do not receive those goods/services because I cannot pay

The doctor does not receive compensation for the goods/services he provided

The doctor’s other patients foot the bill for the goods/services I received

The taxpayers foot the bill for the goods/services I received

More options

Cassandra

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Truth Detector

Truth Detector

Truth Detector

Ethereal

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Ethereal

Coolguy

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Cassandra

BWG

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Marilyn Monroe