Health Care Not A Right?

[In My Memory]

This is probably an American phenomena more than anything, but heres an interesting essay thats been circulating through conservative magazines for quite some time, its called Heath Care is Not a Right by Leonard Peikoff (my comments in green):

 

we are seeing the rise of principled immorality in this country. We are seeing a total abandonment by the intellectuals and the politicians of the moral principles on which the U.S. was founded. We are seeing the complete destruction of the concept of rights. The original American idea has been virtually wiped out, ignored as if it had never existed. The rule now is for politicians to ignore and violate men's actual rights, while arguing about a whole list of rights never dreamed of in this country's founding documents -- rights which require no earning, no effort, no action at all on the part of the recipient.

 

IMM: This is too funny This guy thinks calling health care a right is heading us down the road of "principled immorality", a total intellectual abandonment of the whole concept of rights, and practically leading to the destruction of all other American values as a whole! If you just saw the paragraph above and didnt know he was talking about about health care, you'd think he'd have to be talking about something like harvesting the organs of orphan children for sell on the black market.

 

... Some of you may ask here: But can people afford health care on their own? Even leaving aside the present government-inflated medical prices, the answer is: Certainly people can afford it. Where do you think the money is coming from right now to pay for it all -- where does the government get its fabled unlimited money? Government is not a productive organization; it has no source of wealth other than confiscation of the citizens' wealth, through taxation, deficit financing or the like.

 

IMM: Broop broop! This is the fallacy police! Come out with your hands up, Mr Peikoff!

 

I've never seen anyone miss the the mark quite like this, nothing could be further from the truth -- otherwise, the 43 million Americans living without health insurance wouldnt be a big deal at all. Everyone who goes to college and lives on their own knows there is a certain window of time between living with your parents and signing up with your own HMO when you are uninsured... if in that little window of time, you break a bone or need surgery, then you are going to go really bankrupt really fast.

 

The author doesnt understand that the whole point of social or moderately social heathcare: its because it is much harder for one person to pay US$1000 for surgery than it is for one hundred people to pay US$10 each. When more people participate in the system, the costs are diluted even further, so that each person who needs healthcare pays substantially less than they would otherwise. The individual cost for everyone is decreased for everyone for the same individual gain, what makes this a less sound example of efficiency than the alternative?

 

With our system right now, if this guy ever had a heart attack or got into a car wreck, he would so thankful that he wouldnt have to foot the US$80,000 bill on his own.

I'm pretty fiscally conservative for an insanely liberal feminist environmentalist, but saying people dont have a right to healthcare is just mindboggling. Why do some people think others arent entitled to good health when they need it

[YT2095]

LOL, there was at least SOME truth in his article though, and I quote: "Government is not a productive organization".

 

*sigh*

[Pangloss]

I had to stop and ponder for a moment before I remembered where I'd heard that name before. Peikoff is more or less the current leader of the Objectivist movement. As a teenager he hung out with Ayn Rand and that crowd, and he proof-read Atlas Shrugged. So you're not exactly talking to someone who is predisposed to favor any kind of system that involves taking money from taxpayers and redistributing it to people for any purpose whatsoever.

 

I've heard some of his lectures before, and I think he's an excellent speaker. He is, of course, an ideologue, but he's also very intelligent and interesting. So I can see why you picked out his book to read, and I can understand your disappointment in finding obvious flaws in his reasoning. The same thing happens to me a lot. Kudos for considering differing points of view. I wish more people did that.

 

Anyway, I think there is a point to be made about giving the government too much control over our lives, and I also think it's pretty dangerous (and flawed) to justify socialized medicine on the grounds that it's too expensive for people to afford (we should be addressing why it's so expensive).

 

But I think that this is an area where we may ultimately have to make an exception to our concern about government involvement, and the high cost of medical care certainly makes an excellent motivation for change. So I agree with you there.

[Pangloss]

Here's a question: If a new technique became available tomorrow in which a patient crawled into a machine, got zapped with zebra-rays (or whatever), and their cancer was instantly cured, but that treatment cost one billion US dollars per person, not because of the high cost of medical care, but because it simply required a billion dollars worth of resources, even priced at the cost it takes to acquire those resources.... would everyone have a right to that treatment?

 

This is a question that we keep ignoring, but it's often at the heart of the problem. New medical technology comes out at high cost and everybody wants it cheap. That's not why healthcare is expensive in general, and I'm not trying to suggest that this is the central problem of modern healthcare, but it is an important problem that we ought to be able to answer.

 

In a sense this is what Peikoff is asking, and one has to admit that he has a point. It is, in itself, a logical fallacy to say that this doesn't matter because people's lives are at stake. Of course it matters. We have a tendency in society to use phrases like "it's only money", forgetting that money is the financial foundation of society.

 

If we bankrupt society to pay for medical care, how will we invent newer, better medical care? Say we found a way to spend $100 trillion to treat 100k cancer patients with the above new treatment. Well those 100,000 people are cured, but we're all living in trees and caves because civilization has ceased to exist. And it's a shame, because another scientist was right on the verge of constructing a machine that gave everyone immortality for only TWO hundred thousand dollars. And that technology also made the first kind of technology work for only $20,000 instead of $100k, and showed us a way that it would get even cheaper over time.

 

I know that's a silly and extreme example, but in a less-extreme way this is exactly what happens all the time. But there are many who deny that this happens at all. Whatever it costs, whatever it takes, that's their motto, because people are suffering.

 

People have always suffered. They suffer less now than ever before. Why can't we simply continue in that vein, instead of throwing all of our accomplishments away and actually creating more suffering because of a misplaced guilt-trip that drives us to end ALL suffering NOW?

 

It's easy to be critical. It's easy to point out suffering and issue blame for that suffering. Finding solutions that work -- that's harder.

[Pangloss]

Just to post-script the above, I'm paraphrasing Peikoff's argument and adding my own comments, but I fully understand the logical flaw in that reasoning (I'm not an objectivist). He is basically suggesting that we can't improve the way things work, and of course that's silly -- we absolutely can improve people's lot. And more government intervention may be part of the solution.

[YT2095]

Here's a question: If a new technique became available tomorrow in which a patient crawled into a machine' date=' got zapped with zebra-rays (or whatever), and their cancer was instantly cured, but that treatment cost one billion US dollars per person, not because of the high cost of medical care, but because it simply required a billion dollars worth of resources, even priced at the cost it takes to acquire those resources.... [b']would everyone have a right to that treatment[/b]?

 

it would all depend upon what Measuring stick you used to guage this scenario with.

 

Humaitarian: then Yes, we`de ALL have the right to it.

Evolutionary: No, the ones with the resources and ability to pay (the strongest only) should survive.

[In My Memory]

Pangloss,

 

So you're not exactly talking to someone who is predisposed to favor any kind of system that involves taking money from taxpayers and redistributing it to people for any purpose whatsoever.

Unless it was in his own self-interest to do so, and I cant help but think that no rational egoist would like to go bankrupt everytime they have a major surgery when he has to foot the bill himself

 

Here's a question: If a new technique became available tomorrow in which a patient crawled into a machine, got zapped with zebra-rays (or whatever), and their cancer was instantly cured, but that treatment cost one billion US dollars per person, not because of the high cost of medical care, but because it simply required a billion dollars worth of resources, even priced at the cost it takes to acquire those resources.... would everyone have a right to that treatment[/b']?

I agree with this argument to an extent. It shows that, as much as we'd really love to believe that life is so sacred that it should be protected at all costs, and that there is no price we can put on a life, we almost inevitably find ourselves in a place where we have to put real limits on how much we can spend.

 

But I just dont think it persuasively shows that no one has a right to healthcare. The argument is sufficient to show that people dont have a right to healthcare when there are no rational limits, but without a sweeping generalization that particular principle has nothing to do with the normal circumstances that people need healthcare. Analogously, I can say no one has a right to infinitely many votes in the next presidential election, but by no means am I saying that no one has the right to vote at all.

[john5746]

But I just dont think it persuasively shows that no one has a right to healthcare. The argument is sufficient to show that people dont have a right to healthcare when there are no rational limits[/i'], but without a sweeping generalization that particular principle has nothing to do with the normal circumstances that people need healthcare. Analogously, I can say no one has a right to infinitely many votes in the next presidential election, but by no means am I saying that no one has the right to vote at all.

 

I agree, especially in light of the tax cuts that benefit the wealthy that the repubs keep pushing. One issue I have is that taking responsibility away from people tends to drive up costs. If maintenance for your car was provided by the government, you can imagine that shops would be overrun with cars and people would do less on their own to keep their cars in shape. They wouldn't shop around to get the best price, so who cares if an oil change costs $200?

 

It would be nice if only catastrophic insurance were provided, but then people probably wouldn't do the preventative visits, etc. Also, if someone doesn't quit smoking, drinking etc. why do I have to bail them out? Can they at least share more of the burden for such bad habits?

[Jim]

This is probably an American phenomena more than anything' date=' but heres an interesting essay thats been circulating through conservative magazines for quite some time, its called Heath Care is Not a Right by Leonard Peikoff (my comments in green):

 

 

I'm pretty fiscally conservative for an insanely liberal feminist environmentalist, but saying people dont have a right to healthcare is just mindboggling. Why do some people think others arent entitled to good health when they need it

 

I"m pretty liberal for a fiscal conservative but I don't agree that health care is a Constitutional or, currently, any kind of statutory right. However, I think this is an issue that conservatives are going to have to address.

 

The high cost of health insurance currently is hurting this country. The hidden cost is the number of small businesses that are never started because people simply can not risk their family's health while they hang out a shingle.

 

I wanted to go on my own five years ago but I waited until last year because I would have had to pay around $10k a year for coverage for a family of six. I probably wouldn't have ever taken this leap except my wife wanted to go back to teaching and we got "cheap" (i.e. about $8k/year) insurance from the local schools.

 

I'd like to see an estimate of the number of small businesses that are never begun because of the high cost of insurance. There are many others, such as my own, that are deferred for several years until a spouse can start a job that provides coverage.

 

Small businesses are what drive this economy and a guy wanting to start a carpet cleaning company, for example, has no way of affording insurance. In addition to all of the human costs, the high cost of insurance ties entreprenuers to large corporate jobs.

 

I don't have the energy to figure out what has to be done. I do know that when my son blew out his knee last year insurance probably paid over $70k for the two surgeries, yet not once did I make ANY decision on the basis of cost. Some measure of tort reform is probably required and, maybe, we are going to have to have increased regulation in this area primarily to bring competition into this sphere.

 

None of this is a question of "rights." It's a question of what makes sense.

[Jim]

Pangloss' date='

 

 

Unless it was in his own self-interest to do so, and I cant help but think that no rational egoist would like to go bankrupt everytime they have a major surgery when he has to foot the bill himself

[/quote']

 

I started doing bankruptcies when I went on my own last year and I have to say that the Bankruptcy Reform Act is a blight on Republicans. I hate how democrats continually play the class card and have made some issues like social security damn difficult to even address.

 

OTOH, this bill is clearly a credit card company bonanzas. Of the 15 people I helped file bankruptcy in the last year, all of them were unusual cases - health problems, bills, lost jobs, etc. Only one person coming to me was an abuse and I turned him away.

 

EVERY person who came to me about a banruptcy was still getting a solicitation or two a week from credit card companies. THese companies hook college kids and make out like a bandit. They knew the small risk that they had of bankruptcies but changed the rules just to make the game more profitable.

 

It really is a travesty.

[Pangloss]

Interesting points on the political angle, Jim. I do wonder, however, if we've past the point where Republicans in congress can fix both whatever damage that they've done and the issues they aren't responsible for, and do so in time for the 2006 congressional election. There's only half a session remaining between now and then.

 

 

But I just dont think it persuasively shows that no one has a right to healthcare. The argument is sufficient to show that people dont have a right to healthcare when there are no rational limits, but without a sweeping generalization that particular principle has nothing to do with the normal circumstances that people need healthcare. Analogously, I can say no one has a right to infinitely many votes in the next presidential election, but by no means am I saying that no one has the right to vote at all.

 

I think that's really well put.

 

At risk of digressing, getting back to Peikoff for a moment, I think that one way that libertarians and objectivists might be persuaded on the subject would be to point out that we make certain sacrifices for the common good, not necessarily (or just) because of the Golden Rule, but because generally taking care of people is an investment in society's future.

 

(Unfortunately I seem to vaguely recall that objectivists have (or at least Ayn Rand had) an answer to this. I seem to remember her framing the question, in some obscure essay I read ages ago, as something along the lines of "Surely we need safety nets [my phrase] because you never know what suffering person might produce the next Einstein or Mahler." She had an answer, and I just don't recall what it was. Probably something disappointingly ideological -- I seem to remember losing the objectivists over points like this. But now I'm hopelessly digressing, so I'll stop!)

[PhDP]

I strongly disagree with you on that one mister Pangloss, if that's your real name

 

In fact, I think your exemple of the zeta-ray cure is a good start for an argument against the private healthcare system.

 

Let's take it from a purely strategic point of view. There's a limited amount of money we can put into health care, it's sad, we can't save everybody, but it's a fact, and I agree with you on that part. And I agree with Rand's ideological son that the type of system (privatized or socialized) doesn't change the amount of money in the system. The distinction is that with a socialized system, the cost is shared by all, and can be shared progressively. Secondo, in a socialized system, you can choose where to put the money so it would be the most beneficial, but in a privatized system, as in your example, some people would necessarily put lots of money to be cured, money that could be better used. If what you want from an health care system is that it doesn't "confiscate the citizens' wealth", well, privatisation is great, if you want to save the most lives with a limited amount or ressources, socialisation is a good idea.

 

In Quebec we have what you call "socialized healthcare". We pay less, far less. Because our doctors are not paid as well, because there's no cost in advertising, no profits and nearly no frivolous lawsuits. I could also find you some references proving private health care, for the same service, cost more (is that surprising?). Sure, the system is not perfect, and we are probably not putting enough money in it since the "zero deficit" policy of our governement[1], but still, it's really far from being a failure. You can probably scare off some people with the word socialized, but you have to look at the facts. Also, one of the problem with "inventing" better and new medical technologies is often the private, it's incredible the amout on money wasted on marketing that could be used to do research.

 

I try to be a realist, pragmatic social democrat, but honestly I haven't much data against socialized health care except ideological rethoric.

 

Also, I'll say that money IS important, but still it's not an end in itself, it's a tool we have to achieve something.

 

[1] I could have inserted a nationalist message just there...

[padren]

That "healthcare is not a right" has very little to do with the topic of healthcare and has a lot more to do with peppering a statement with as many emotional hooks to resonate with a select group of people as much as possible.

 

[1] we are seeing the rise of principled immorality in this country.[2] We are seeing a total abandonment by the intellectuals and the politicians of the moral principles on which the U.S. was founded.[3] We are seeing the complete destruction of the concept of rights.[4] The original American idea has been virtually wiped out, ignored as if it had never existed.[5] The rule now is for politicians to ignore and violate men's actual rights, while arguing about a whole list of rights never dreamed of in this country's founding documents -- rights which require no earning, no effort, no action at all on the part of the recipient.

 

1) We are endangered.

2) What was ours first is endangered

3) We are endangered!

4) What was ours first is endangered!!

5) We are endangered, and what was ours first is endangered!!!

 

 

If those ideas resonate with your views, you should be worked up enough to buy the BS about healthcare in the second paragraph...

 

And let me say I am not contending this is a specifically conservative instrument when it is definately used by various people on all sides

 

 

 

I think most people who are against universal healthcare are afraid the abuses would cost society so much that people are better off with free market solutions. That, and the conservative view point seems to hold that those without healthcare now need hardline welfare to work programs to make them productive enough to afford private healthcare.

 

Though I think the precepts that lead to that conclusion are flawed, I suspect in most cases people believe in them and are not trying to be heartless.

 

On the bankruptcy note, I recall reading in the paper somewhere, where people do declare bankruptcy due to medical costs, 25% of those had insurance at the time they became ill. I think private healthcare is currently as abhorent as private utilities, where private corporations gain local monopolies on essential services people need to survive.

[Pangloss]

I see an awful lot of guilt-by-association and dissection going on in the above post, and not a whole lot of answering the questions raised. I don't think suggesting hidden motives and ignoring valid arguments is the best way to address the healthcare crisis in this country.

[Pangloss]

I strongly disagree with you on that one mister Pangloss[/b'], if that's your real name

 

(grin)

 

We probably don't disagree as much as you might think, Phil. I'm not opposed to socialized medicine, I'm only concerned about the pitfalls. It's a compromise that I would be willing to make, were it to come down to a personal vote. But I'd want to see it administrated smartly, as it is in Canada, Finland (iirc), and a few others countries (active participation, good people working hard to improve the system and steer it away from the obvious pitfalls, etc).

 

But my reasons for supporting it would probably be very different from yours. For example, I would point out that, in a sense, we already have socialized medicine, in that the cost is already being shared, it's already viewed as a necessary and required expense, and people already see it as a right rather than a purchased privilege. So we might as well reap the advantages of the real thing.

 

I am, however, not convinced that there is no other alternative. I think that's a lazy argument. We (human beings) have the most powerful, inventive and imaginative civilization in world history, and the best we can come up with is to copy each others' "reasonably good" ideas? Hmm.

[Soonerborn]

One problem with socialized healthcare is that it will be run by the government.

 

Another problem is why should I be forced to pay for someone elses cancer treatments because they smoke 2 packs a day or some idiot tries to see how fast his bike can go.

 

Another one is that it doesnt address the real problem. There isnt a lack of healthcare in this country but there is a lack of affordable healthcare.

 

Another problem is that I do not want to be penalized for being more productive.

 

Another problem is that socialism removes personal responsibility. I dont have to save because I have social security. I dont have to work because I have welfare.

 

Another problem is that I dont want someone else choosing what treatment I get.

 

Call me heartless if you wish but healthcare is not a right, its a privilage that I earn. Having a good retirement is not a right, its a privilage that I earn. Doing as I see fit with the money I earn is a right.

 

I would not object to a well ran healthcare program for the people who truly need it. If however it resembled something like the current welfare system or social security system, no thanks, I want no part of that.

[padren]

I see an awful lot of guilt-by-association and dissection going on in the above post, and not a whole lot of answering the questions raised. I don't think suggesting hidden motives and ignoring valid arguments is the best way to address the healthcare crisis in this country.

 

The question raised was not about the healthcare crisis or how to address it it was:

 

Why do some people think others arent entitled to good health when they need it

 

That is what I wanted to address - there's isn't any guilt by association just an examination of some points of view.

 

As for the writing by Leonard Peikoff, its a complete diatribe. It lists lots of scarey problems threatening America, without providing any basis for any of their validity or cause, then once it pumps up the emotion it moves on to blame government for inflated health-care costs again without giving basis, and then makes room to demonize the government's means of aquisition.

 

 

As for the actual question raised in the OP, the reasons I mentioned are the ones I've heard, and so far I've only heard conservative/libertarian reasons given for why healthcare should not be universal.

[Pangloss]

Padren, asking "why healthcare should not be universal" places a false premise of the position which you oppose. They're not saying healthcare should not be universally available. On the contrary, they believe that it absolutely should be available to absolutely everyone.

 

You just want to use a different yardstick for determining that availability than they do. They want it based on ability to pay. You want it based on need, and you really don't want to have to think about payment. The coffers are big, and people are suffering, and people who think about things like money are just being heartless and cruel.

 

Funny, that's almost exactly what they say about you.

 

After all, who wants to live in a society where some dictatorial government decides whether you live or die? You want the latest medical treatment? Better meet society's dictated norms. Better be politically correct. Better be in an industry the government approves of. Better not question the wrong people. Better not inquire about the wrong things. Better toe the line. Or else.

 

What a horrible thought, this idea that people would actually determine whether they get the latest medical care through their OWN actions and efforts. Gosh, what a horrible thing that is! Such people must be "conservatives" and "libertarians", issuing mere "diatribes"! They can't possibly be saying anything useful or intelligent.

 

 

Now here's an alternative thought: Is it really so hard to see the "good" in both positions? To find some common ground, instead of demonizing one's enemy, and look for a place where you can build on your common desires and construct a better future?

 

 

Anyway, I happen to share your view, but as I've pointed out here, your position is not the sweetness and light you'd like for it to be. There is a cost to YOUR generosity -- the bill that arrives in MY mailbox that I'm not allowed to refuse. I happen to think that that price is worth it. But I'm not going to pretend that there isn't a price.

[PhDP]

I'm only concerned about the pitfalls.

 

Which ones ? Seriously I am very interested in any good argument against it, but really often I've only heard purely ideological attack against socialized healthcare, "it makes people lazy", "the governement is strealing our money", "it cannot run anything efficiently", et cetera et cetera... I'm not saying socialized healthcare is perfect, it isn't, especially in Canada, but it hasn't made Canadians "lazy red Stalinists" either.

 

I am, however, not convinced that there is no other alternative. I think that's a lazy argument. We (human beings) have the most powerful, inventive and imaginative civilization in world history, and the best we can come up with is to copy each others' "reasonably good" ideas? Hmm.

 

There's probably a lots of alternatives, but if it's fair (everybody is equal in a socialized system) AND efficient, I think it's more than a "reasonably good" idea.

[Pangloss]

So... you don't think the various implementations of socialized medicine have run into any snags along the way? You think it's been a complete success since Day One in every country in which it has been implemented?

 

The subject of extended waiting periods has come up a number of times. Several countries seem to have come up with acceptable approaches here, including Canada, Great Britain and (off the top of my head here, so don't quote me on this) Finland. Other countries are said to still be dealing with the problem to some degree. But the good news here is that we can learn from their mistakes.

 

Another subject that we're going to need to address is drug costs. The industry keeps putting up the argument that Canada (for example) has lower drug costs because they're not paying for the billions the companies have spent on research and development. I'm unconvinced -- I think their margins are inflated in some cases to the levels of insurance companies and monopolistic software giants (ar ar), and I'm curious to see what might happen if these companies were forced to deal with larger-scale bargaining power. I think this is one of those areas where free market capitalism breaks down into a Tragedy of the Commons-style scenario, and they (the drug companies) simply haven't made their case for maintaining the status quo.

 

I can come up with more examples if you like, but these hardly fall into the category of "it makes people lazy". They're legitimate concerns. In my view they have legitimate answers from "my" side of the issue. But pawning these people off as mere ideologues says more about the pawner's own ideology than it does about the object of their scorn.

[padren]

Padren' date=' asking "why healthcare should not be universal" places a false premise of the position which you oppose. They're not saying healthcare should not be universally available. On the contrary, they believe that it absolutely should be [i']available[/i] to absolutely everyone.

I do think we are limiting it to everyone in this country, not that visitors can wander in from anywhere and get state of the art cancer treatment for free.

 

Personally I wouldn't use the term "right" myself, but its a matter of symantics, because I do believe healthcare merit should not be tied to personal savings or ability to get into debt, and we should as a nation do our reasonable best to ensure everyone gets medical attention they need regardless of financial position.

You just want to use a different yardstick for determining that availability than they do. They want it based on ability to pay. You want it based on need' date=' and you really don't want to have to think about payment. The coffers are big, and people are suffering, and people who think about things like money are just being heartless and cruel.

 

Funny, that's almost exactly what they say about you.

[/quote']

 

 

I am very aware that many on the right think many on the left are heartless, cruel, elitist vampires. Honestly I don't care much for what they say about me.

 

 

I would like to point out, I don't for one second think it would be more expensive to run a healthcare system that provides healthcare to everyone, than the system we have now. Sick people cost this country even when they are denied service, often they cost more. People go to jail to get their cancer treated, people loose productivity, and people avoid getting checkups until problems become much more expensive, due to the problems with the current system. We can argue which is more expensive, but that is a secondary debate. I am just clarifying I would be surprised if the cost was higher in a universal system, especially with societal costs factored.

 

Nor are we talking about spending a billion dollars per patient just because a billion dollars could so something benefitial for their health.

 

Is national defense a right?

If you have the right to expect a national military to defend your country, does that mean you have the right to have 15 aircraft carriers defend your beachfront home 24/7?

 

Of course not, we are only talking about the right to access of reasonable services as opposed to being denied any service out of convienence to the provider.

 

 

After all' date=' who wants to live in a society where some dictatorial government decides whether you live or die?

[/quote']

Do we get to vote on if the President uses the football?

You want the latest medical treatment? Better meet society's dictated norms. Better be politically correct. Better be in an industry the government approves of. Better not question the wrong people. Better not inquire about the wrong things. Better toe the line. Or else.

My word this sort of thing makes me rather sick. I'd love to debate the whiney spongey easily offended politically correcties and their narrow view of approved industries and social order' date=' but the thin skins of conservatives is not what this thread is about.

 

Do you really think for a second that any healthcare provider will descriminate against you and not provide healthcare?

The point of a federal system would be to streamline the process, not [i']increase[/i] the costs by poking through a patient's work history and voting records.

Could you imagine the lawsuit that would result? Imagine a student being kept out of a University because they are contraversial - there would be a total fiasco, and thats only a government funded institution.

What a horrible thought' date=' this idea that people would actually determine whether they get the latest medical care through their OWN actions and efforts. Gosh, what a horrible thing that is! Such people must be "conservatives" and "libertarians", issuing mere "diatribes"! They can't possibly be saying anything useful or intelligent.

[/quote']

 

Who ever said they can't say anything intelligent?

Seriously, where did you get that idea?

I only stated the quoted OP referenced was a diatribe and did not talk about anything to do with real healthcare costs - and frankly when something has no intellectual value, I can call it as such.

 

Should I do the politically correct thing, and say "oh, its an opposing view, so everything that is must have merit" for fear of offending someone? Am I being too politically incorrect for your taste?

 

If you feel that I dismissed the opening text out of hand without observing the merits it had, please, point out what I missed.

 

Name one thing it says that is intelligent, for bonus points, list more than one thing that lifts it above a meritless diatribe.

 

Secondary thought:

I am all for market driven solutions. I think market pressure to do better, to get a bigger house, live in a better area, see more of the world, are all important things. Market pressures to be able to get regular medical care is not something I feel should fall into that category.

Is a person who works 60 hrs a week, less deserving than a trust fund baby living in an ivory tower when it comes to medical attention? Cleaning motel rooms for instance, is no less vital to the total success of the economy than pressing sheet metal or running global corporations, so why should someone working 60 hrs a week have no health care benefits simply because market pressures allow them to be passed up for such?

Now here's an alternative thought: Is it really so hard to see the "good" in both positions? To find some common ground' date=' instead of demonizing one's enemy, and look for a place where you can build on your common desires and construct a better future?

[/quote']

Thats my general MO, and as I said I respect the opposing positions on the topic, and even mentioned I don't feel they are out of heartlessness. I do think they are flawed arguments - which is a fact I have no control over, and can't appologize for.

Anyway' date=' I happen to share your view, but as I've pointed out here, your position is not the sweetness and light you'd like for it to be. There is a cost to YOUR generosity -- the bill that arrives in MY mailbox that I'm not allowed to refuse. I happen to think that that price is worth it. But I'm not going to pretend that there isn't a price.[/quote']

 

It arrives in my mailbox too, perhaps even more than in your own. I would never contend there is no price, most people do not use the argument "free healthcare" when arguing for such a system. Those that do frankly make me want to smack them. I am not interested in getting anything for "free" I just want to get what I pay for. If you pay your heath insurance provider for ten long years, never using a dime, then you get diabetes, if you happen to be using blue cross, you can never move out of state without loosing your diabetes coverage. Thats because even though they will transfer your policy to a different Blue Cross provider, anything you have is a pre-existing condition according to Blue Cross provider by the state you move to. They will not disclose that fact unless asked, but you'll have to pay for all your diabetes out of pocket when you get settled. Whether diabetes or any condition, you become a serf of the state effectively if you want to get anything out of what you paid in for ten long years.

Do you really think the government would be less fair than that?

[Pangloss]

I do think we are limiting it to everyone in this country, not that visitors can wander in from anywhere and get state of the art cancer treatment for free.

 

Well they can, and often do, for more or less the same reason that residents of the Ninth Ward of New Orleans do. But that's a subject for another discussion, perhaps.

 

 

Personally I wouldn't use the term "right" myself, but its a matter of symantics, because I do believe healthcare merit should not be tied to personal savings or ability to get into debt, and we should as a nation do our reasonable best to ensure everyone gets medical attention they need regardless of financial position.

 

More power to you. I have a different view. But hey, that's what makes it interesting.

 

As I've often said here, I think there are far worse things in the world than people who honestly wish good will on their fellow man. Ayn Rand's rolling in her grave, but that's her problem, not mine.

 

I guess my point to you is/was that pehaps you should consider the possibility that people who don't agree with you on welfare aren't the worst thing in the world either. I don't mean to put words in your mouth, I'm just following up on my suggestion that perhaps you could find that they do have some valid points/concerns rather than dismissing them all as ideological and without merit.

 

 

I think this is an excellent argument that you make here:

 

Sick people cost this country even when they are denied service, often they cost more. People go to jail to get their cancer treated, people loose productivity, and people avoid getting checkups until problems become much more expensive, due to the problems with the current system. We can argue which is more expensive, but that is a secondary debate. I am just clarifying I would be surprised if the cost was higher in a universal system, especially with societal costs factored.

 

All valid points.

 

Nor are we talking about spending a billion dollars per patient just because a billion dollars could so something benefitial for their health.

...

Of course not, we are only talking about the right to access of reasonable services as opposed to being denied any service out of convienence to the provider.

 

Well that's just it, I don't think that's what happens at all. Whenever new treatments come out, we instantly assume them to be necessary and required for all citizens, immediately upon being deemed safe. Regardless of the cost.

 

It's almost as if "cost" is, in itself, a dirty word. As if people who consider "cost" are dangerous, contrary people who should be ignored, or denigrated as ideologues who don't have any valid arguments worth considering.

 

Isn't it more likely that those people who consider "cost" are in fact some of the very same people who made that procedure or treatment available in the first place?

 

So... shouldn't we listen to what they have to say?

 

 

After all' date=' who wants to live in a society where some dictatorial government decides whether you live or die?[/quote']

Do we get to vote on if the President uses the football?

 

Oh! I understand -- you don't think we get any say over our health now, and should not have any say over our health in the future. I gotcha.

 

Well okay, if that's your opinion, like I said, more power to you. I don't share it, though, and I doubt many Americans do either.

 

 

I'm going to boil the rest of your post down to this essential line:

 

Do you really think the government would be less fair than that?

 

It's not a question of whether I think the government would be less fair than that. It's a question of whether I think it's a good idea to give the government that power.

 

I happen to think that it is, but I also happen to think that it's something that needs to be carefully measured and weighed, in light of the wisdom of the founding fathers (who would keel over to the man if presented with this idea, if they hadn't already keeled over at the idea of how we're going to pay for it). We don't live in the same world they did, but we'd be pretty foolish to ignore the kinds of concerns they had. Don't you think?

[PhDP]

So... you don't think the various implementations of socialized medicine have run into any snags along the way? You think it's been a complete success since Day One in every country in which it has been implemented?

 

No, absolutely not. While I can see the problems of our "socialized" system, I think that in essence it's in the good direction. However, implementing it can be extremely hard, it might even be unrealistic for the United-States in the short run. Out of greed, in 1962, doctors in Saskatchewan, because they refused the new healthcare system (less $$ for them), closed their doors. I will always recall the testimony of parents who lost their son because of the strike, it's really disgusting.

 

I can come up with more examples if you like, but these hardly fall into the category of "it makes people lazy".

 

There's many legitimate concerns over socialized healthcare. My concern is that socialized healthcare is at the mercy of populists, who promise they can cut an X amount of taxes without reducing services, and in the end, when they don't know where to cut they finally cut into healthcare and education. But still, empty rhetoric is often used against socialized healthcare, even if it seems to be working quite well.

 

But pawning these people off as mere ideologues says more about the pawner's own ideology than it does about the object of their scorn.

 

In the specific case of socialized healthcare, my opinion is that the option presented by the left is quite efficient, and it angers me when people are attacking it because it's "leftish" without even considering the practical aspect, on the ground that's the government is bad or that it will encouraged people to get sick.

[entwined]

Another problem is why should I be forced to pay for someone elses cancer treatments because they smoke 2 packs a day or some idiot tries to see how fast his bike can go.

 

 

This is the problem that I have also. In any health care system you are going to have to confront the cost issue sooner or later.

 

In a private system, one confronts the costs either out of pocket, or through insurance (which is also out of pocket) but in either case it is in his personal financial self interest to do what he can to reduce health costs. In the socialized medicine system, one's personal life style choices do not affect his financial well being, at least in terms of health care costs. It seems to me that people will be less concerned about things like smoking and drinking and diet/exercise if they are able to rest assured that their health care costs are going to be paid by someone else.

 

Therefore, there is the question of government control of our private lives. If the government is paying all of our medical costs, is not the government then entitled to make decisions about our life style habits that might reduce the cost to society as a whole? Would anyone argue that we could not cut the cost of health care in half simply by disallowing people from smoking, drinking, eating too much high fat foods (think McDonalds) and even coffee, and additionally require all people in the system to get some measure of aerobic exercise each day?

 

Personally I do not want the government to make those decisions for me, but others might be willing to give up personal control of their lives for the security of socialized medicine.

 

As an old man in a whore house once said, "you pays your money, and you takes your choice"...........

[Pangloss]

In the socialized medicine system' date=' one's personal life style choices do not affect his financial well being, at least in terms of health care costs. It seems to me that people will be less concerned about things like smoking and drinking and diet/exercise if they are able to rest assured that their health care costs are going to be paid by someone else.

[/quote']

 

This would be one of the arguments that Phil and Padren are complaining about, and I agree with them that it's not a valid argument. (Not that I'm complaining about you sharing your opinion with us -- it's your opinion and I'm not criticizing you personally.)

 

I don't think people see cost of healthcare as a motivating factor for being healthier. Not even poor people. I think the one and only motivating factor for staying healthy is to avoid an early trip to the grave.

 

A possible exception, perhaps, being parents, but only with regards to their children. Because, as convoluted as it may seem, it's only there that one has to confront the basic dilemma of trading off cost versus care. Whereas on a personal level there's really no tradeoff at all -- your consumption of saturated fat and refusal to visit the doctor only affects yourself.

 

But ultimately even parents are going to force their children to eat healthy and take them to the doctor because it keeps them healthy, not because it's free (or not free).

 

Just my two bits, of course.

 

 

But I do agree with this reasoning/concern:

 

Therefore, there is the question of government control of our private lives. If the government is paying all of our medical costs, is not the government then entitled to make decisions about our life style habits that might reduce the cost to society as a whole? Would anyone argue that we could not cut the cost of health care in half simply by disallowing people from smoking, drinking, eating too much high fat foods (think McDonalds) and even coffee, and additionally require all people in the system to get some measure of aerobic exercise each day?

 

Personally I do not want the government to make those decisions for me, but others might be willing to give up personal control of their lives for the security of socialized medicine.

 

As an old man in a whore house once said, "you pays your money, and you takes your choice"...........

 

Yup.