Unfair Practices in Health Care

Ethereal said:

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.

Click to expand...

The analogy only holds if you seriously believe that taxes are the moral equivalent of putting Jews into ovens. :2wave:

Cassandra said:

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

Click to expand...

Do you deny the concept of natural rights? If so, please leave America and find a place more suited to your animalistic view of the world.

Kandahar said:

The analogy only holds if you seriously believe that taxes are the moral equivalent of putting Jews into ovens. :2wave:

Click to expand...

They don't have to be morally equivalent, only morally questionable.

Just because a majority of people want to do something does not make it right. Do you agree or disagree?

Ethereal said:

They don't have to be morally equivalent, only morally questionable.

Click to expand...

Then it's a ridiculous analogy, and is exactly why most people roll their eyes whenever someone brings up the Nazis in a serious political discussion.

Ethereal said:

Just because a majority of people want to do something does not make it right. Do you agree or disagree?

Click to expand...

Sure. But in a representative form of government, if the rest of society believes something is morally right, you need a better argument than "nuh-uh" if you want them to adopt your policy. So far I'm not hearing that...I'm just hearing a lot of people say "It's immoral because I say it is, and if you disagree then you're a communist."

Kandahar said:

Then it's a ridiculous analogy, and is exactly why most people roll their eyes whenever someone brings up the Nazis in a serious political discussion.

Click to expand...

The analogy perfectly illustrates why a majority opinion is not necessarily the right one, which is the only point he was trying to make. He wasn't trying to suggest a moral equivalence between the two scenarios, which is why your reference to Godwin's law doesn't make any sense.

Sure. But in a representative form of government, if the rest of society believes something is morally right, you need a better argument than "nuh-uh" if you want them to adopt your policy. So far I'm not hearing that...I'm just hearing a lot of people say "It's immoral because I say it is, and if you disagree then you're a communist."

Click to expand...

Well, I think Harshaw has posed some relevant questions to you, some of which you seem reticent to address directly.

Do you believe in the concept of private property? If so, then you must agree that your personal political view maintains that earning something necessarily entitles one to retain it. If not, then you could rightfully be referred to as a communist / socialist.

Not that I'm terribly interested in the answer to that question, but I believe Harshaw had a point.

Ethereal said:

The analogy perfectly illustrates why a majority opinion is not necessarily the right one, which is the only point he was trying to make. He wasn't trying to suggest a moral equivalence between the two scenarios, which is why your reference to Godwin's law doesn't make any sense.

Click to expand...

The analogy does not make sense unless you believe that the moral questions here are as clear-cut as they are for shoving people into ovens by the millions. If you don't believe there is any moral gray area between allowing people to die for an inefficient system with many problems that could be easily fixed, and taxing you a little more to pay for it, then that is YOUR problem. Most people are able to see a bit more nuance than that. Roughly 45-70% of Americans (depending on the poll and question) must be evil communists for supporting some sort of additional government intervention in health care. :2wave:

Ethereal said:

Well, I think Harshaw has posed some relevant questions to you, some of which you seem reticent to address directly.

Click to expand...

If I seem reticent to address them, it is only because these silly moral discussions typically lead nowhere. There is absolutely no logical argument you can make if you're starting from the premise that everyone already accepts your moral values (when they clearly do not), which is why I rarely if ever frame my arguments in moral terms.

Ethereal said:

Do you believe in the concept of private property? If so, then you must agree that your personal political view maintains that earning something necessarily entitles one to retain it. If not, then you could rightfully be referred to as a communist / socialist.

Click to expand...

Sure I believe in private property. I just don't believe it supercedes all other concerns. For that matter, neither do you, if you support the existence of a military or police force or any type of government at all.

Thing is Obama ran on government healthcare and he got elected by the people.

Everybody knew this was coming, and that it was only a matter of time.

If the Reps had put up a better candidate than McCain they may not have lost so big.

We live in a society with a government because we need the government, and apparently a lot of people still need HC, so it's only logical this is the next step. Like it or lump it this is what is going to happen. Obama doesn't seem to care if he gets reelected. Maybe next time the people will be more cautious whom they elect, but that's doubtful.

I'd say write to your Congressman if you don't want HC. That's the only option I see.

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...

Have you ever looked at your pay stub? You don't get all that you earn, and some of it is not debatable, you have to have it taken out. Now people who work under the table don't, and there are a lot of them, but those that work for wages do. I could see using this argument if we were living in the '30's, but this is the 21st century and a lot has changed. We are more likely to help others than back then. We've evolved.

Ethereal said:

Do you deny the concept of natural rights? If so, please leave America and find a place more suited to your animalistic view of the world.

Click to expand...

Among those intuitive rights is the right to life even if a society must pool some resources to make that possible. I dare say that you will have to leave if you don't like it. So far as I know, there is no popular ground swell to abolish medicare/medicaid.

The Nazi statement is dumb - not only is there no moral equivalency but there was no "majority opinion " about the treatment of Jews. When was there a vote in Germany on a policy of killing Jews??

Kandahar said:

Translation: "I'm going to shriek the same thing over and over again instead of putting forth a rational argument.

Click to expand...

Pretending again and again that I didn't make a rational argument doesn't mean I didn't make one. But, when you misrepresent what I write in such a way:

And I expect you to agree with all of my premises without question or explanation, or I'll call you a communist."

Click to expand...

I really expect no less from you. I asked if you if you believe private property exists -- and that if you don't, then you shouldn't complain if people say you're a socialist or a communist.

That's what I said. Deal with what I actually wrote, or don't bother with it.

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:

Click to expand...

No, we're not; I didn't say that, and you know that I didn't. If this is what you have to do -- to misrepresent what I say so blatantly -- then you might as well just concede the argument. Because there's no way you don't understand that this is what you're doing.

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.

Click to expand...

It is, isn't it? But I didn't make that argument.

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.

Click to expand...

Seeing as you must know this isn't what I said, and I already dealt with it above, there's not much point in repeating myself here.

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:

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Marilyn Monroe said:

Have you ever looked at your pay stub? You don't get all that you earn, and some of it is not debatable, you have to have it taken out. Now people who work under the table don't, and there are a lot of them, but those that work for wages do. I could see using this argument if we were living in the '30's, but this is the 21st century and a lot has changed. We are more likely to help others than back then. We've evolved.

Click to expand...

And if I had ever argued that there should be no taxes, you might have something.

Cassandra said:

Among those intuitive rights is the right to life even if a society must pool some resources to make that possible.

Click to expand...

There's no construct of natural rights where this is true.

Kandahar said:

And your version of morality says the opposite.

Click to expand...

When have I expounded on my version of morality?

The Gospel According to Goobieman. Once again, I'm not hearing any logical arguments from you....

Click to expand...

Thsi is, of course, a blatant lie.

But then, it appears that all you guys have, when the difficult questions are put to you. are red herrings, avoidances, and lies.

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...

Proof positive that YOU arent paying attention.

I have not expressed a moral view; I have asked you, repeatedly, how it is you think you can impose YOUR morailuty on others.

A question you have not addressed.

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...

Yes... lets disregard the inconvience of having to support the propriety of your position, all in the name of getting things done.
:roll:

Harshaw said:

And if I had ever argued that there should be no taxes, you might have something.

Click to expand...

You are instead arguing against this specific tax, not because you are against taxation, only because it does not fit your belief system.

And yet, "hidden taxes" in the form of health care cost inflation do not seem to bother you the least bit.

So i must ask. Why is it ok for instances of market failure to push up the cost of health care, but it is not ok to tax a particular income demographic to internalize this externality?

Why do fat people, smokers, and unhealthy people get to infringe on other peoples ability to aquire health care?

Cassandra said:

Among those intuitive rights is the right to life even if a society must pool some resources to make that possible.

Click to expand...

This is simply incorrect. Rights are not positive obligations on other people, rather, they are negative obligations, in that they require the inaction of others. I cannot infringe upon your life, but this does not mean I must provide you the means to retain it. Rights are not entitlements.

I dare say that you will have to leave if you don't like it.

Click to expand...

Yea, I should just leave because you don't know what rights are.

So far as I know, there is no popular ground swell to abolish medicare/medicaid.

Click to expand...

I'm not concerned with popular sentiment. People are mostly stupid, and the Founders understood this, which is why they despised direct democracy / majority rule and instituted a representative republic. The tyranny of the majority is no less immoral than the tyranny of a few.

The Nazi statement is dumb - not only is there no moral equivalency but there was no "majority opinion " about the treatment of Jews. When was there a vote in Germany on a policy of killing Jews??

Click to expand...

They voted for Hitler. His hatred of Jews was no secret. Either way, it doesn't really matter, since you could just take it as a hypothetical and the analogy would still hold. Simply because the majority wants to do something doesn't make it right; that's the only point he was trying to communicate, but I understand your insistence on ignoring that point, since it grossly undermines your argument.

Goldenboy219 said:

You are instead arguing against this specific tax, not because you are against taxation, only because it does not fit your belief system.

And yet, "hidden taxes" in the form of health care cost inflation do not seem to bother you the least bit.

So i must ask. Why is it ok for instances of market failure to push up the cost of health care, but it is not ok to tax a particular income demographic to internalize this externality?

Click to expand...

Except that health care cost inflation is not a tax; furthermore, you haven't demonstrated that said inflation is the cause of market failure.

Why do fat people, smokers, and unhealthy people get to infringe on other peoples ability to aquire health care?

Click to expand...

Because liberals allow them to by forcing others to subsidize their health care costs?

Goldenboy219 said:

You are instead arguing against this specific tax, not because you are against taxation, only because it does not fit your belief system.

Click to expand...

No, actually, what I'm arguing is that "I've earned it" is a sufficient answer to the question "why are you entitled to this"? Conversely, I'm also arguing that to say having earned something doesn't mean you're entitled to it is just plain nuttery.

Ethereal said:

This is simply incorrect. Rights are not positive obligations on other people, rather, they are negative obligations, in that they require the inaction of others. I cannot infringe upon your life, but this does not mean I must provide you the means to retain it. Rights are not entitlements.

Click to expand...

This is exactly correct.

Having a right does not in any way equate to also having the right to have others provide to you the means to exercise said right.

Ethereal said:

Except that health care cost inflation is not a tax; furthermore, you haven't demonstrated that said inflation is the cause of market failure.

Click to expand...

It is currently illegal for a business to offer its employees health insurance, and charge higher premiums for the obese or smokers. This in turn naturally pushes the entire premium pool higher, as the risk associated with insuring the aggregate increases every time an obese smoker is added to the policy. Which begs the question: why does a healthy worker have to pay extra for an unhealthy worker?

Now take for instance emergency room care being utilized by those who do not have health insurance, as primary physician care. Given the demand relationship in regards to health care (demand in this case has an undefined slope), even if there are serious injuries, sickness, etc..., the simple fact that the uninsured are guaranteed coverage (in ER) puts considerable cost pressures (both implicit and explicit) on the hospital. Implicit in the fact that time is a constraining factor, and sometimes mild conditions are neglected due to lack of coverage, and in turn become more serious/expensive (in regards to treatment).

But the greatest instance of market failure is exemplified in the elderly population. Most statistics show that over 2/3 of a person’s entire health care costs will be spent in their last year of life, and around 1/2 during their last month. Insurance actuaries are well aware of this. Just like pre existing conditions are too risky to insure (and rightly so), the majority of the elderly population would be required to purchase extremely expensive insurance in the absence of medicare. Again, given the relationship to demand, these high costs bare entirely on the consumer in the form of dead weight loss. How many senior citizens would be willing to pay $4,000/month on health care? Many seniors would instead go without (example of dead weight loss). Where would seniors without coverage go everytime they felt ill? My guess would be the ER.

It is only rational for a firm to deny insurance coverage to the most risky cases. Are we to expect the elderly to just deal with it? Of course not; this is why medicare was created, to internalize the externality.

This same argument can be applied to those with pre existing conditions, or for those who do not purchase health care. Yes, there are cases in which a person’s pre existing conditions would not surface, thereby increasing the liability of a potential insurer. Conversely, there are those who forego insurance who never get sick, or wind up in the ER. But when you take the aggregates, realtiy dictates that pre existing conditions destroy your ability to obtain private coverage, and the people without insurance end up costing hospitals (ER) quite a bit of money.

The solution is quite simple. Allow the market to operate where it does not fail, and that is in offering people insurance policies that are not in the highest risk category. Those who do not fit this mold, whether it is self inflicted (tobacco, McDoubles), pre existing, income based (when you lose your job you sometimes lose coverage as well) etc... to be offered a public option. Of course, insurance companies would need to obtain the right to deny anyone coverage on the basis of risk.

This in turn allows the market to function in an efficient manner. Otherwise, there will be far too much market failure to keep prices from increasing by double digits every year.

Because liberals allow them to by forcing others to subsidize their health care costs?

Click to expand...

Even the elderly?

Kandahar said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

:rofl

Cassandra said:

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

You choose.

Click to expand...

This is a farcical argument which contains an illogical fallacy that the ONLY choices here are to allow someone to die, or allow Government to create a vast ineffective national healthcare policy; which will actually lead to even more deaths waiting for critical operations due to shortages and ineffective cost containment policies.

There are far better choices than allowing the Government to make us all dependent wards of the state; the fact that you REFUSE to acknowledge this and REFUSE to attempt to comprehend arguments supporting other options doesn't make your case more credible.

Ethereal said:

This is simply incorrect. Rights are not positive obligations on other people, rather, they are negative obligations, in that they require the inaction of others. I cannot infringe upon your life, but this does not mean I must provide you the means to retain it. Rights are not entitlements.

Click to expand...

not everyone agrees with you

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]

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

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

Yea, I should just leave because you don't know what rights are.

Click to expand...

O.K. be that way!

I'm not concerned with popular sentiment. People are mostly stupid, and the Founders understood this, which is why they despised direct democracy / majority rule and instituted a representative republic. The tyranny of the majority is no less immoral than the tyranny of a few.

Click to expand...

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

Simply because the majority wants to do something doesn't make it right; that's the only point he was trying to communicate, but I understand your insistence on ignoring that point, since it grossly undermines your argument.

Click to expand...

We are not talking about mass murder!!

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?

Truth Detector said:

This is a farcical argument which contains an illogical fallacy that the ONLY choices here are to allow someone to die, or allow Government to create a vast ineffective national healthcare policy; which will actually lead to even more deaths waiting for critical operations due to shortages and ineffective cost containment policies.

There are far better choices than allowing the Government to make us all dependent wards of the state; the fact that you REFUSE to acknowledge this and REFUSE to attempt to comprehend arguments supporting other options doesn't make your case more credible.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.