Unfair Practices in Health Care

Goobieman said:

This places the 'right' to health care at a higher level of order than the right to retain the fruits borne of their own labor -- thus 'trumping' it.

Click to expand...

What gives anyone the right to retain all the fruits of their labor?

Singularity said:

Read my answer. Denying someone the right to live simply because they cannot afford it is classified as detrimental, is it not?...I say treat them, and to hell with the cost. You say let them die - a position that I find morally suspect.

Click to expand...

Ok, so your version of mroality says that your right to health care trumps the my right to keep the fruits of my labor. 10-4.

Let me clear up your confusion. First off, you don't 'force' morality onto others - one either acts morally or they do not.

Click to expand...

On the contrary -- by forcing me to provide you with health care, given your argument above, you are most certainly forcing your mirality on me.

If you are being forced to do something, the argument can successfully be made that you are not acting out of morality, but out of something else.

Click to expand...

In this case, it would be out of the imposition of your morality onto me.

Addressing the subjectiveness of morality, though, you believe denial of health care is not a moral issue. Folks like me think the opposite.

Click to expand...

However I morally regard the isue, the fact is that you have your version of morality and are more than happy to force others to confirm to same by forcing me to pay for the health care of others.

This is why I asked:
Since when is it OK to force a version of morality onto others?
And then, what's your argument against someone forcing their morality on you?

You may now answer those questions.

Cassandra said:

What gives anyone the right to retain all the fruits of their labor?

Click to expand...

You can't be serious.
I -earned- it.
Thus, no one else has rightful claim, except in cases where I have agreed to give them such (like a mortgage, et al).

Unless, of course, you -want- to argue that the fact that you earned something does not in any way entitle to retain that something.

Cassandra said:

What gives anyone the right to retain all the fruits of their labor?

Click to expand...

Wow....simply wow. If this is not the definition of Liberals and socialism, I don't know what is.

This is what I have always argued about Socialists; the think that what is earned through one’s labor is not really theirs, but actually should belong to the “State” which knows better how best to apply those earnings for the benefit of OTHERS rather than allowing those who earn it decide for themselves.

The simple version of the above statements for those who like things simple is this; what you earn is not yours and be thankful for that which the State decides you can keep.

If this is not proof that education systems are failing our citizens, I don’t know what else is.

:doh

Goobieman said:

Ok, so your version of mroality says that your right to health care trumps the my right to keep the fruits of my labor. 10-4.

Click to expand...

And your version of morality says the opposite. So unless you can somehow show that your view of morality is BETTER than everyone else's, why don't you just stop shrieking about it and instead discuss which system actually WORKS?

Goobieman said:

You can't be serious.
I -earned- it.
Thus, no one else has rightful claim, except in cases where I have agreed to give them such (like a mortgage, et al).

Click to expand...

The Gospel According to Goobieman. Once again, I'm not hearing any logical arguments from you...just more parroting of mindless dogma, with the expectation that everyone should automatically agree with you.

Goobieman said:

You can't be serious.
I -earned- it.
Thus, no one else has rightful claim, except in cases where I have agreed to give them such (like a mortgage, et al).

Unless, of course, you -want- to argue that the fact that you earned something does not in any way entitle to retain that something.

Click to expand...

You guys crack me up.

I just turned the question around and HORRORS: "You can't be serious"

You ask a question REPEATEDLY and w/o accepting the answer no matter how intuitively moral and right it may seem to most people.'
And you claim, "Logical fallacy: Argumentum ad populum"

I ask you a question which actually has no particular overriding rationale- it is just intuitive to you.
So you support your claim with:

Denial of goods and services due to inability to pay is the societal norm, one common across virtually all societies.

Logical fallacy: Argumentum ad populum.

As it happens, The "west" has largely wiped out societies who once had a completely different idea about property and the primacy of property rights. Tahitians, for example, prior to the European invasion, had no word for "stealing". In an environment of abundance there was no need to protect "possessions". In fact things were meant to circulate. Hoarding was condemned.
Our cultural attitude comes from an environment of scarcity. So we are hoarders...but it is not a god given moral code.

Truth Detector said:

Wow....simply wow. If this is not the definition of Liberals and socialism, I don't know what is.

Click to expand...

I asked a question

If this is not proof that education systems are failing our citizens, I don’t know what else is.

:doh

Click to expand...

I am questioning your ability to read since I did not state my opinion about property rights. I asked a question.

Frankly, all the choices suck.

For someone to suffer or die because they don't have enough money sucks. Maybe they're not poor because they're lazy; maybe they're poor because they're taking care of elderly parents and small children, even though they're working their butt off at a crappy job.

The doctor not getting paid sucks; he probably went way into debt to get educated and most doctors I know work their butts off. His liability insurance costs more than most of us make in a year. He deserves to get paid. Societally, doctors not getting paid means less people choosing to be doctors, in the long run. Who would want to go 200k in debt and spent 10 years becoming a doctor, and not get paid well? Very few...

Other patients and insurance co's taking up the slack, our current solution, sucks. When I had a coloscopy (11 grand!) I estimate that my insurance company paid for two Medicare (fixed price) patients and one illegal immigrant with a false ID as well as just me. Part of this is a result of gov't sticking its nose into the (not really very) free market for medical services, with it's you-have-no-choice-fixed-price Medicare and Medicaid.

Government... well, government has this tendency to screw things up even worse almost every time it sticks its nose into the private sector, so that option also sucks.

Fortunately there are alternatives. There are medical charities like St. Lukes, and many doctors who donate some of their time to free clinics and charity hospitals.

It is a complicated issue, and there is no perfect solution...however, we could do better. Letting healthcare be more of a free market would probably help; changing the orientation of insurance from covering every office visit for a sniffle, to covering hospitalization, expensive proceedures, and "catastrophic" care, would probably help; encouraging medical charity like St Lukes (with tax breaks for docs who participate) would help; tort reform would reduce medical costs I'm sure.

Goobieman answered the question -- "what gives anyone the right to retain all the fruits of their labor" -- quite directly. He said "they -earned- it."

Disagree with him if you like, but he gave a reason. Don't pretend he didn't. Instead, explain how that's not good enough of a reason.

To me, the question is as vapid, though, as asking "what gives anyone the right to retain all of the blood in their bodies"?

Harshaw said:

Goobieman answered the question -- "what gives anyone the right to retain all the fruits of their labor" -- quite directly. He said "they -earned- it."

Disagree with him if you like, but he gave a reason. Don't pretend he didn't. Instead, explain how that's not good enough of a reason.

Click to expand...

Umm no. Goobieman is the one shrieking about the immorality and unfairness of other views; the burden is on HIM to show why his moral view is superior.

Harshaw said:

To me, the question is as vapid, though, as asking "what gives anyone the right to retain all of the blood in their bodies"?

Click to expand...

I disagree. Have a trump card? Or shall we abandon this senseless argument about which is more "fair" and instead focus on which actually works?

Singularity said:

I voted for the first choice:



That seems the least fair to me. Folks go to the doctor generally because they are sick, or there is some sort of a health emergency. Telling an individual that he/she won't be treated simply because they're unable to pay seems unreasonable to me.

Click to expand...

Somehow I'll bet if it got down to the nitty gritty, a doctor would not turn you away, but maybe work out an arrangement.

Kandahar said:

Umm no. Goobieman is the one shrieking about the immorality and unfairness of other views; the burden is on HIM to show why his moral view is superior.

Click to expand...

And he reason he gave vis-a-vis the question asked was that he earned it.

(I believe I already said that.)

I disagree. Have a trump card? Or shall we abandon this senseless argument about which is more "fair" and instead focus on which actually works?

Click to expand...

This has what to do with my statement? Sounds to me like you're simply trying to dredge up an earlier exchange.

Harshaw said:

And he reason he gave vis-a-vis the question asked was that he earned it.

(I believe I already said that.)

Click to expand...

That's not a reason, that's a tautology. Why does earning something inherently give you a right to it? And why does that moral view supercede all other views? Forgive me if I don't merely accept your and Goobieman's position on the issue as gospel.

Kandahar said:

Why does earning something inherently give you a right to it?

Click to expand...

Uhhhhh . . . because you've earned it, and it's yours.

Are you seriously arguing otherwise? Is what's yours yours or not? Does private property exist or not?

If you say it does, then there's your answer. You inherently have a right to it because it's yours.

If you say it doesn't, then I don't want to hear much complaining about people saying you're a socialist or a communist.

And why does that moral view supercede all other views?

Click to expand...

There is not an answer you will find satisfactory here. Of course, it's a Pyrrhic victory for you at best, because it also means you can't credibly argue that any moral view is superior to any other moral view, so the only way anything can be decided is by who's stronger. Is that the road you want to go down?

Should a doctor work for free?

Harshaw said:

Uhhhhh . . . because you've earned it, and it's yours.

Click to expand...

Repeating the same thing over and over is not a logical argument, and this is exactly the problem I have with these moral arguments. This is why I suggest we dispense with these silly discussions that have nothing to do with logic or reason, and instead focus on things that do (like economics and sociology).

Harshaw said:

Are you seriously arguing otherwise? Is what's yours yours or not? Does private property exist or not?

Click to expand...

Nope, I am not arguing one way or the other. I am asking you (this applies to Goobieman as well) to logically demonstrate that your moral view of "fair" is superior to all other moral views, and if you cannot, then to stop asking questions that cannot be answered via logic, reason, or debate.

Harshaw said:

If you say it does, then there's your answer. You inherently have a right to it because it's yours.

If you say it doesn't, then I don't want to hear much complaining about people saying you're a socialist or a communist.

Click to expand...

Wow, another tautology coupled with another ad hominem attack! Two logical fallacies all in one paragraph. Are you ready to abandon this silly belief that your morals are inherently superior to everyone else's yet, or are you going to prove your case?

Harshaw said:

There is not an answer you will find satisfactory here. Of course, it's a Pyrrhic victory for you at best, because it also means you can't credibly argue that any moral view is superior to any other moral view, so the only way anything can be decided is by who's stronger. Is that the road you want to go down?

Click to expand...

Nope. I suggest that since you have no credible reason why your moral values are better than mine, and I have no credible reason why my moral values are better than yours, that neither of us brings up our personal morality as a justification for our political views, and we instead discuss which policy makes more economic/sociological/practical sense. You know...things that CAN be observed, empirically demonstrated, and debated.

this is a silly argument, to "have earned" something means you "deserve" it, you are more "worthy" of it than anyone else, you "merit" it. it is not a moral view, it is a fact.

Kandahar said:

Repeating the same thing over and over is not a logical argument, and this is exactly the problem I have with these moral arguments. This is why I suggest we dispense with these silly discussions that have nothing to do with logic or reason, and instead focus on things that do (like economics and sociology).

Click to expand...

If you don't agree that someone's entitled to something because they've earned it, then basic communication isn't even possible, because part of the definition of "earning" something is that you're entitled to it.

And I'll repeat that another thousand times; it won't make it any less true.

If you've earned something, you're entitled to it, because that's what "earned" means. That will not change simply to please you.

Nope, I am not arguing one way or the other. I am asking you (this applies to Goobieman as well) to logically demonstrate that your moral view of "fair" is superior to all other moral views, and if you cannot, then to stop asking questions that cannot be answered via logic, reason, or debate.

Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sorry if I'm not letting you lead me into an argument that I'm not making, to ground where you'd prefer to be, but you don't get to dictate that for me.

Wow, another tautology coupled with another ad hominem attack! Two logical fallacies all in one paragraph.

Click to expand...

There's no ad hominem. If you claim there's no private property, then you subscribe to socialistic or communistic views. That's simple fact. I gave you the choice to say for yourself what you're claiming.

Are you ready to abandon this silly belief that your morals are inherently superior to everyone else's yet

Click to expand...

I never once claimed they were. You go right ahead and show where I did.

or are you going to prove your case?

Click to expand...

And which "case" is that? Do you even know what I'm arguing? If so, state it.

Nope. I suggest that since you have no credible reason why your moral values are better than mine, and I have no credible reason why my moral values are better than yours, that neither of us brings up our personal morality as a justification for our political views, and we instead discuss which policy makes more economic/sociological/practical sense. You know...things that CAN be observed, empirically demonstrated, and debated.

Click to expand...

Yes. And as I said, if no morality is superior to any other, then deciding things by who's stronger is every bit as legit as any other method you can come up with. You don't think so? Why not? Why is your method better? Because it's more "practical"? Practical to do what? The things you want done, because of your own sense of morality?

Try again. You can't argue that someone else's morality is no better than yours and then claim your preferred state of being is the proper one, because that, too, is based in morality. There is no goal you could possibly state here which isn't morally based.

emdash said:

this is a silly argument, to "have earned" something means you "deserve" it, you are more "worthy" of it than anyone else, you "merit" it. it is not a moral view, it is a fact.

Click to expand...

Correct. I can't even imagine how someone expects to get anywhere with that.

Here's another point on keeping what you've earned.

I work my butt off and earn X dollars.

The gov't comes along and taxes half of what I made to pay for other's whatever.

This pisses me off, so I quit working and go on Welfare. Why bust my butt to make 1/2 X when GovCo will provide me with a place to live, food, medical care, and some cash, and I can sit around and chill?

Now, I am not earning anything. Not only am I deprived of earning my own living and the production of my labor, now the gov't is deprived of the revenue they used to get off me, AND they're now paying me to sit on the couch.

Does this sound like a desirable outcome? No? Then this is one good reason why taxes need to be light and spending needs to be reasonable, and why socialism isn't very effective.

emdash said:

this is a silly argument, to "have earned" something means you "deserve" it, you are more "worthy" of it than anyone else, you "merit" it. it is not a moral view, it is a fact.

Click to expand...

No, what is silly is for some to contend that one point of view is self evident

If you live in this country and make a good living because we have an excellent judicial system, roads, infrastructure, military might etc,: you pay your dues in taxes for the privilege. You earned something in partnership with the rest of us.

For some it is self evident that a person should NOTbe allowed to die even if they haven't the resources to pay for health care.

For some, a tax confiscated by government to pay for such care is morally more reprehensible than allowing someone to die.

You choose.

200 years ago, things were valued more than people and it was perfectly acceptable to hang someone for the crime of destroying property. The moral compass has shifted ...for some.

American said:

Somehow I'll bet if it got down to the nitty gritty, a doctor would not turn you away, but maybe work out an arrangement.

Click to expand...

Working out an arrangement is fine, as long as it's reasonable to both parties. For instance, if I have a disease which runs me $100,000 in medical bills, I don't think it's fair that my house is confiscated and i'm in the poorhouse for being unable to pay. The problem isn't that most Americans are unwilling to pay, it's that they are unable to. Furthermore, it isn't like Americans who come down with expensive illnesses made the voluntary choice to contract those diseases. Nor would they likely survive without medical assistance.

A friend of mine went hiking earlier this year, and was bitten by a copperhead. He was taken to the emergency room, and because the bite was above the knee, he was given a shot of antivenom. Since he's uninsured, he's expected to pay the bill in full. Now, I could see if the bill was something reasonable - say $1,000, $2,000, or $3,000 dollars. That'd be a difficult expense for him, but he could swing a monthly cost if he made a lot of cuts. Unfortunately, the cost of that shot was $11,000. That's just for the shot, not his entire medical bill. So working as a waiter struggling to pay for school and a small apartment, he now has the additional cost of forking over the cash for an antivenom shot and a hospital visit.

As harsh a payment as this may seem to someone making a waiter's salary, it could have been much worse. Suppose it had been something like cancer? What then? Should he be expected to voluntarily refuse treatment because he wouldn't be able to afford it? Or should they treat him, charge him anyway and bleed him dry for whatever he has - take his old car, any possessions he has, and leave him busted and in bankruptcy? Or even worse, should he just be flat-out refused treatment, and left to die because he wouldn't be able to afford it?

Sorry, I don't see any of those as fair, which is why I chose option 1 as the least fair of any of those choices.

Harshaw said:

If you don't agree that someone's entitled to something because they've earned it, then basic communication isn't even possible, because part of the definition of "earning" something is that you're entitled to it.

And I'll repeat that another thousand times; it won't make it any less true.

If you've earned something, you're entitled to it, because that's what "earned" means. That will not change simply to please you.

Click to expand...

Translation: "I'm going to shriek the same thing over and over again instead of putting forth a rational argument. And I expect you to agree with all of my premises without question or explanation, or I'll call you a communist."

Harshaw said:

There's no ad hominem. If you claim there's no private property, then you subscribe to socialistic or communistic views. That's simple fact. I gave you the choice to say for yourself what you're claiming.

Click to expand...

OK. Your personal view is that your property rights always trump every other possible concern regarding anything. My view is that sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't. Are we clear now? :roll:

Harshaw said:

I never once claimed they were. You go right ahead and show where I did.

Click to expand...

Then arguing over which is more "fair" is meaningless, as it isn't a logical debate and merely a debate over semantics and personal moral values that you cannot prove.

Harshaw said:

And which "case" is that? Do you even know what I'm arguing? If so, state it.

Click to expand...

You're arguing that you have a right to keep every dime you earn, which trumps all other concerns, because you say it does. And anyone who disagrees is a communist.

Harshaw said:

Yes. And as I said, if no morality is superior to any other, then deciding things by who's stronger is every bit as legit as any other method you can come up with. You don't think so? Why not? Why is your method better? Because it's more "practical"? Practical to do what? The things you want done, because of your own sense of morality?

Try again. You can't argue that someone else's morality is no better than yours and then claim your preferred state of being is the proper one, because that, too, is based in morality. There is no goal you could possibly state here which isn't morally based.

Click to expand...

That's fine. But I think most people of any political ideology would agree with the following statement (or a similar one): "It is in society's best interest to have a healthy population and a functioning economy." If you disagree, that is your prerogative. You advocate that view, I'll advocate my view that it *is* in society's best interest, and may the best man win at the voting booth. :2wave:

If, on the other hand, we can agree on that statement, then we can discuss things like economics and sociology and figure out if a given policy is actually practical. But focusing on values-related things like which is most "fair" is meaningless, since it is based on personal values that do NOT easily translate from one person to another. It inevitably results in you not actually making any logical arguments. You're just repeating the same things and expecting me to agree with them, or calling me names if I don't.

Cassandra said:

Oh puleeze. I.M.O. the first person that mentions Nazis in any debate has just lost the debate.

It is such a a cliched act of desperation.

Click to expand...

What if the debate is about Nazis?

Kandahar said:

Yo Godwin I know you makin your law, and I'ma let you finish, but Murphy had one of the best laws of all time.

Click to expand...

His analogy was logically sound. Just because a majority of people want to do something does not make it right. His reference to Nazism is a legitimate illustration of this fact.