The “right” to healthcare does not require....

[mocgator]

..a doctor to work for free...

As I've stated before after reading this abomination... it is all demand side based. AS IS THE LIBERAL MIND. There is no concept as to the immense problems this abomination will create on the supply side of healthcare. They don't have a clue. Universal Coverage doesn't mean Universal Treatment. The liberals and democrats know this.

Entitlement ALWAYS breed contempt for those that provide the entitlement. Simple human nature my liberal friends.

http://medcitynews.com/2012/11/one-persons-right-to-healthcare-does-not-require-a-doctor-to-work-for-free/

Whenever someone tells me about the “right” to healthcare, I ask, “From whom? From me?” This question exposes this “right” for the robbery and slavery that it is. Take it to the next step. Do you really want to exercise your “right” to healthcare on a physician who doesn’t want any part of this bargain? What kind of care do you think you’ll receive?

Years ago, I stopped doing cardiac anesthesia, because well over half of the patients were ’covered’ by Medicare and payment to me for my services was well below what I thought acceptable ($285 for my last 6-hour cardiac anesthetic). Soon thereafter I stopped my dealings with Medicare (and Medicaid) altogether as I increasingly saw myself as the recipient of money taken from my neighbors against their will. As an aside, the angriest patients I’ve ever encountered were the Medicare patients I subsequently treated with no charge whatsoever. My providing charitable care elicited patient rage like none I’ve encountered since. ( again...Entitlement ALWAYS breed contempt for those that provide the entitlement)

About two weeks after I quit, an angry cardiac surgeon, inconvenienced by my departure from the group of available cardiac anesthesiologists and with his finger in my face, told me that he was going to see to it that I was forced to do these anesthetics, so as not to disrupt his schedule. I guess he thought he had a “right” to my services. It didn’t help things that I laughed. I said, ’Dr. X, I’ll be happy to visit with the family before their loved one’s elective surgery and inform them that I want no part of this and that I don’t really want to be here, but someone is making me do this. Maybe you all would like to wait for an anesthesiologist who wants to be part of this, because I certainly don’t.’ This cardiac surgeon suddenly understood. Now imagine this on a large scale. Angry mobs of folks waving their ObamaCare ’insurance’ cards in the street demanding their free healthcare outside a closed and vacant doctor’s office.


That is what Obamacare is: an insurance card. Come 2014, you’ll have to certify to the IRS that you have such a card, one that is acceptable to the government. Or else you’ll have to pay the government for the ’choice’ to not have insurance: a minimum of $95 at first, climbing to $695 in a few years. It is likely that the provider will not be a physician. The physician you might eventually see will not be working for you. He’ll be working for an ObamaCare Accountable Care Organization, which is paid for not providing care.

[gatordowneast]

Excellent post Moc. You have nailed the liberal mindset between the proverbial cross eyed, glazed over look we encounter when trying to reason with the equivalent of a 3 year old. You don't add 30 M patients to the system with no additional physicians without a tremendous increase in cost and far less time spent with the doc. As a friend at Mayo says, it will be "fast food, drive through medicine", not the quality care we value.

Best to you and many of us hope somehow those with sense see this for what it is.

[northgagator]

Or the right to free medical treatment to resolve self inflicted medical issues.

[AzCatFan]

The thing is, we already provide medical care to those who cannot afford it. Get in an accident and need immediate care, do the paramedics check to see if you can pay before they transport you to the hospital? Do the ER doctors wait to hear from your insurance company before they start to work on you? No.

It's one thing about elective procedures, but there are plenty of people receiving care who can't pay today. Nearly 1/2 of all bankruptcies include significant medical bills. Those with insurance owe an average of $17,000, and those w/out owe about $29,000, and who do you think covers these costs? Those of us with insurance, who have been paying more and more in insurance costs for over the past 20+ years; long before Obamacare ever became part of our lexicon.

[wygator]

The thing is, we already provide medical care to those who cannot afford it. Get in an accident and need immediate care, do the paramedics check to see if you can pay before they transport you to the hospital? Do the ER doctors wait to hear from your insurance company before they start to work on you? No.

It's one thing about elective procedures, but there are plenty of people receiving care who can't pay today. Nearly 1/2 of all bankruptcies include significant medical bills. Those with insurance owe an average of $17,000, and those w/out owe about $29,000, and who do you think covers these costs? Those of us with insurance, who have been paying more and more in insurance costs for over the past 20+ years; long before Obamacare ever became part of our lexicon.

We also know that some of the bankruptcies occur because some who could afford health insurance CHOSE not to buy it, choosing instead to buy bigger homes and new cars instead.

[fredsanford]

More slippery slope conservative scare tactics.

Moc and his sources have been discredited and proven wrong on here so often, he's set a personal record.

Romney! Landslide! Book it!

[gatordowneast]

More slippery slope conservative scare tactics.

Moc and his sources have been discredited and proven wrong on here so often, he's set a personal record.

Romney! Landslide! Book it!

Yea, Yea, Yea. Of course Moc is like many of us, without any idea how many mooches, slackers and lazy bums who had been sent "how to manuals" by democrats for various government programs and were then indebted and scared $hitless not to vote for their sugar daddy and his stash.

[tegator80]

The thing is, we already provide medical care to those who cannot afford it. Get in an accident and need immediate care, do the paramedics check to see if you can pay before they transport you to the hospital? Do the ER doctors wait to hear from your insurance company before they start to work on you? No.

It's one thing about elective procedures, but there are plenty of people receiving care who can't pay today. Nearly 1/2 of all bankruptcies include significant medical bills. Those with insurance owe an average of $17,000, and those w/out owe about $29,000, and who do you think covers these costs? Those of us with insurance, who have been paying more and more in insurance costs for over the past 20+ years; long before Obamacare ever became part of our lexicon.

One step further, we did this because we have/had a sense of responsibility and to give back to the community. Now it is at the end of a gun. Try to get an emotionally attached doctor/medical professional when they are being forced by law. Those who are good will either work underground for real payers (read rich) or leave the profession altogether. What will be left over are the financially stuck or the mediocre/poor professionals who can't be hired to do anything else.

In other words, look to the public education system in the liberal big cities as a model for the future healthcare in the US.

[Minister_of_Information]

There is no right to healthcare. In a free society you cannot have the right to the labor of others. What there is, is a social obligation to do what is feasible given limited resources to help those that cannot help themselves. But no one is entitled to an outcome.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

I'm not convinced moc understands how health insurance works.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

There is no right to healthcare.

With this I agree. The possible - and frankly likely - outcome of this is people will die impoverished, homeless, on the street.

We may make a societal decision to prevent this, but it is not an inherent right.

[wgbgator]

If people democratically decide its a "right," then for all intents and purposes it is. The Constitution isnt a charter that denys rights people retain democratically for themselves.

[MichiGator2002]

If people democratically decide its a "right," then for all intents and purposes it is. The Constitution isnt a charter that denys rights people retain democratically for themselves.

It is, however a charter of what today are called "negative rights". The putative right to healthcare is a "positive right". The terms were basically a way to marry the term "right" to things which are actually nothing of the kind.

The closest thing we really have to a right to healthcare is the right to our property and the disposition of it, which is to say, you have the right to trade your time or treasure to someone in exchange for a service like healthcare. Anything beyond that starts to dip into he territory of calling "rights" things that are basically legally imposed burdens on others to provide X of their time, energy, and skill to providing service A to person B.

[ATLitigator]

If people democratically decide its a "right," then for all intents and purposes it is. The Constitution isnt a charter that denys rights people retain democratically for themselves.

so if the american people democratically decided that they had right to rob and rape every person making over a million dollars...then for all intents and purposes it is a right? .... yeah sounds pretty dumb when I say it too...

[Minister_of_Information]

If people democratically decide its a "right," then for all intents and purposes it is. The Constitution isnt a charter that denys rights people retain democratically for themselves.

Incorrect. You cannot have a "right" that depends upon the will of some unnamed provider. What if they are unwilling? Do you have the right to force them to provide care at gunpoint?

[wgbgator]

so if the american people democratically decided that they had right to rob and rape every person making over a million dollars...then for all intents and purposes it is a right? .... yeah sounds pretty dumb when I say it too...

Sure. They could legislate that wearing silly hats, free ice cream on Sunday or walking around naked is a right too, and it would be, for all intents and purposes. But the obvious quesiton is, why anyone would want to do those things.

[Minister_of_Information]

Sorry, but no those would not be rights either. Rights are not enacted, they either exist or they do not exist.

[wgbgator]

Sorry, but no those would not be rights either. Rights are not enacted, they either exist or they do not exist.

Well, legislating them would make them "exist" as legal rights. You dont want to draw a distinction between legal and natural rights?

[wgbgator]

Please note I have used "for all intents and purposes" as a qualifier. Even if it does not meet whatever rigid definition of rights you want to impose, it can and will be treated and refered to as such. See also: "right to vote."

[ATLitigator]

if you have to take something from someone else to exercise your right, then it is not a "right"

two wolves outvoting the lone sheep does not create a right to sheep for dinner!

[ATLitigator]

Please note I have used "for all intents and purposes" as a qualifier. Even if it does not meet whatever rigid definition of rights you want to impose, it can and will be treated and refered to as such.

it is theft...just call it legalized by obama theft

[wgbgator]

it is theft...just call it legalized by obama theft

Yeah, yeah. Taxation is theft and what not.

[ATLitigator]

Yeah, yeah. Taxation is theft and what not.

nice dodge, except we are talking about the "right" to healthcare and rights in general.....no one mentioned taxes

[wgbgator]

nice dodge, except we are talking about the "right" to healthcare and rights in general.....no one mentioned taxes

Well, you mentioned Obama ... it's probably important to point out that the SCOTUS and Obama don't think of the ACA or Healthcare as a "right" either. The court says it met the powers of the gov't to tax, while the administration held that it was empowered by the commerce clause. So, this discussion of healthcare as a "right" is academic in nature. The stakes couldnt be lower as it were.

[ATLitigator]

Well, you mentioned Obama ... it's probably important to point out that the SCOTUS and Obama don't think of the ACA or Healthcare as a "right" either. The court says it met the powers of the gov't to tax, while the administration held that it was empowered by the commerce clause. So, this discussion of healthcare as a "right" is academic in nature. The stakes couldnt be lower as it were.

the discussion of healthcare as a right is not academic in nature....the belief of obama and his followers that healthcare is a right is one of the major driving factors behind obamacare....

the govt has no obligation to provide healthcare for you, me or anyone else. you have no right to force a doctor to provide medical care for you or anyone else and you have no right to ask the govt to do it by force...

the supreme court..those same folks once said separate but equal was legal.....

[wgbgator]

Incorrect. You cannot have a "right" that depends upon the will of some unnamed provider. What if they are unwilling? Do you have the right to force them to provide care at gunpoint?

Like any right it, it doesn't guarantee an outcome - just the right to pursue it regardless of status or means. The "right to work" doesn't ensure that I get a job, the right ot privacy doesn't guarantee I can hide anything, nor does the right to pursue happiness guarantee happiness.

[ATLitigator]

Like any right it, it doesn't guarantee an outcome - just the right to pursue it regardless of status or means. The "right to work" doesn't ensure that I get a job, the right ot privacy doesn't guarantee I can hide anything, nor does the right to pursue happiness guarantee happiness.

you have no concept of what a right is...

right to work means that you can't be forced to join a union

right to privacy means you are free from govt intrusion into your private life

your rights are protection from the govt and others intruding into your life

[wgbgator]

the discussion of healthcare as a right is not academic in nature....the belief of obama and his followers that healthcare is a right is one of the major driving factors behind obamacare....

the govt has no obligation to provide healthcare for you, me or anyone else. you have no right to force a doctor to provide medical care for you or anyone else and you have no right to ask the govt to do it by force...

the supreme court..those same folks once said separate but equal was legal.....

This sounds like the only point of democracy to me. Securing basic, widely accepted rights, security, standards or whatever you want to call it through legal, democratic means for all citizens.

[wgbgator]

you have no concept of what a right is...

right to work means that you can't be forced to join a union

right to privacy means you are free from govt intrusion into your private life

your rights are protection from the govt and others intruding into your life

Sure I do. I'm sure we both agree that having a right to something doesn't mean that you are guaranteed to receive something. I'm sorry you think this supposed liberal "right to healthcare" means that you get healthcare on demand or people will be forced to give it to you. I don't think it means that, because then it wouldn't be a right.

[Minister_of_Information]

If the government declares that water is not wet, does that make it so?

[ATLitigator]

Sure I do. I'm sure we both agree that having a right to something doesn't mean that you are guaranteed to receive something. I'm sorry you think this supposed liberal "right to healthcare" means that you get healthcare on demand or people will be forced to give it to you. I don't think it means that, because then it wouldn't be a right.

the "right to healthcare" that you talk about is not about healthcare on demand....

it is about a free market system where you negotiate with a doctor to come to an agreement on the care you will receive and the price you will pay for it. The "right to healthcare" you speak of requires that someone else pay for that healthcare; meaning you are stealing from someelse to pay for your healthcare.

you cannot define healthcare as a right without the expectation and the deliverance of healthcare services by force, otherwise you are describing the free market agreement for services. and if this is the case there is no need for the govt to be involved!

[gator10010]

Yeah, yeah. Taxation is theft and what not.

The income tax is theft but I wouldn't consider sales tax theft.

[Spurffelbow833]

One way to secure this "right" is to force physicians into the same relationship to hospitals that the rest of their denizens enjoy, namely that of employees getting paychecks rather than free agents securing practice privileges, collecting deductibles and co-pays from patients and reimbursement from insurance companies.

It's already starting at the internal medicine/family medicine level. Eventually it will affect the specialties as well. As the ranks of physicians become filled more and more by women who want more flexibility in their lives than men do, they'll pay for that flexibility with their autonomy.

[egator1245]

so if the american people democratically decided that they had right to rob and rape every person making over a million dollars...then for all intents and purposes it is a right? .... yeah sounds pretty dumb when I say it too...

You're correct except the amount is $250,000/yr.

[gatorpa]

One way to secure this "right" is to force physicians into the same relationship to hospitals that the rest of their denizens enjoy, namely that of employees getting paychecks rather than free agents securing practice privileges, collecting deductibles and co-pays from patients and reimbursement from insurance companies.

It's already starting at the internal medicine/family medicine level. Eventually it will affect the specialties as well. As the ranks of physicians become filled more and more by women who want more flexibility in their lives than men do, they'll pay for that flexibility with their autonomy.

And a fair % will say screw that, I'll not take any Medicare, medicaid Gov ins. They will just take self pay, or commercial ins. Then it will be good luck finding a specialist if you are in the hospital for some specialties, it is already happening. Specialists are senting up their own Outpatient surgical suites and not taking call for the Hospital.
For example just try to find a hand surgeon at most ER's.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

The income tax is theft but I wouldn't consider sales tax theft.

They are fundamentally the same. If you believe one is theft, then they are all theft.

[gator10010]

They are fundamentally the same. If you believe one is theft, then they are all theft.

In theory I guess you might be right. The income tax is just taken from an individual, at least with a sales tax you do have an option of whether to pay that tax or not.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

In theory I guess you might be right. The income tax is just taken from an individual, at least with a sales tax you do have an option of whether to pay that tax or not.

Technically you have an option to not pay income tax, too.

[gator10010]

Technically you have an option to not pay income tax, too.

You can avoid paying sales tax without going to jail.

[wgbgator]

You can avoid paying sales tax without going to jail.

You can legally avoid paying income tax by choosing to have little to no taxable income too.

[QGator2414]

One step further, we did this because we have/had a sense of responsibility and to give back to the community. Now it is at the end of a gun. Try to get an emotionally attached doctor/medical professional when they are being forced by law. Those who are good will either work underground for real payers (read rich) or leave the profession altogether. What will be left over are the financially stuck or the mediocre/poor professionals who can't be hired to do anything else.

In other words, look to the public education system in the liberal big cities as a model for the future healthcare in the US.

"Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country"

JFK

[orangeblueorangeblue]

You can avoid paying sales tax without going to jail.

You can avoid paying income tax without going to jail.

[MichiGator2002]

You can legally avoid paying income tax by choosing to have little to no taxable income too.

Which, comically, has ever been the point people make, that we tax so many things to discourage them, such as cigarettes, but with income we are meant to believe that higher rates at higher income don't have any effect at all on people's interest in earning more, in doing the work.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Sin tax -> avoidance tax

Other taxes -> usage tax

It's pretty simple.

[MichiGator2002]

Sin tax -> avoidance tax

Other taxes -> usage tax

It's pretty simple.

I hope that dadaism was not meant for me. Taxes either affect behavior or they don't.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

I hope that dadaism was not meant for me. Taxes either affect behavior or they don't.

That's a rather superficial viewpoint.

Would a .00003% tax affect behavior? Do transparent taxes affect behavior? Generally not. This isn't a binary equation.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

But more importantly, I was drawing the distinction between the intentions of each. One is a blanket payment for services rendered, the other exists solely to discourage.

[Matthanuf06]

But more importantly, I was drawing the distinction between the intentions of each. One is a blanket payment for services rendered, the other exists solely to discourage.

Intentions have no impact on its elasticity of demand.

[egator1245]

You can legally avoid paying income tax by choosing to have little to no taxable income too.

And then have the government support you which also means someone else must pay more income tax. Are you really that selfish?

[Row6]

"In 1986, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act known as EMTALA (Section 1867 (a) of the Social Security Act) and sometimes referred to as the "Patient Anti-Dumping Act" was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Reagan. The purpose of the Act was to ensure that acutely ill patients who are uninsured or underinsured receive appropriate emergency care and to prevent hospitals from refusing to treat certain populations of patients who present to the emergency department. Although EMTALA was passed to protect those who lack financial resources or medical insurance, it applies to all seeking care from a hospital's emergency department in all states and territories of the United States. However, not all hospitals have obligations under EMTALA. Only hospitals that accept federal funds from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS), a branch of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), are subject to civil liability under the Act. The CMS and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) enforce EMTALA. The OIG can fine Hospitals $50,000 per violation ($25,000 for hospitals with less than 100 beds) and possibly terminate their Medicare provider agreement. Individual physicians also may receive a fine up to $50,000 and be excluded from future Medicare funding."

http://www.ascensionhealth.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=146&Itemid=172

[wgbgator]

And then have the government support you which also means someone else must pay more income tax. Are you really that selfish?

I don't know, was Mitt Romney that selfish? He hasnt been paying income tax lately.Or people who worked all their lives and have retired and thus have no income? Are they selfish too?

[busigator96]

We have no rights....only privileges.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Intentions have no impact on its elasticity of demand.

Nor did I say they did.

Scope, however, does.

[DaveFla]

so if the american people democratically decided that they had right to rob and rape every person making over a million dollars...then for all intents and purposes it is a right? .... yeah sounds pretty dumb when I say it too...

BOOM!

[austingtr]

. As an aside, the angriest patients I’ve ever encountered were the Medicare patients I subsequently treated with no charge whatsoever. My providing charitable care elicited patient rage like none I’ve encountered since. ( again...Entitlement ALWAYS breed contempt for those that provide the entitlement)



This sounds illogical but is so true. This has been our experience as well. If you want to stop a patient from calling you at all hours with all sorts of irrational and very intrusive requests, send their unpaid bills to a collection agency. Hubby started doing this a while ago, and it has saved him a lot of grief. He is the kind of doc who gives many of his sickest patients his cell phone, and never stops answering work calls, even on vacation- to my endless irritation this week is an example. He doesn't collect chit, because those people never pay, but at least they go away to someone else.

He has stopped doing some procedures because the pay is just absurd, for the responsibility and trouble you have to go through. I simply stopped working. The hoops that our licensing agencies expect us to go through to simply renew is stunning. They keep cutting pay, yet they add more responsibilities, paperwork, studies, and CME's. Little projects we are now forced to do take HOURS, and HOURS to complete. Most docs simply have their nurses or research assistants do them. It is a complete joke. All this is causing is more anger, and less desire to do the right thing. I shudder when I imagine the kind of medical care I will get, from the kind of people who will put up with this.

Reminds me of Atlas Shrugged: Let them discover, in their operating rooms and hospital wards, that it is not safe to place their lives in the hands of a man whose life they have throttled. It is not safe, if he is the sort of a man who resents it – and still less safe, if he is the sort who doesn’t.

[MichiGator2002]

That's a rather superficial viewpoint.

Would a .00003% tax affect behavior? Do transparent taxes affect behavior? Generally not. This isn't a binary equation.

Of course they do. Duh. Whey tax that figures into price and cost at really any point of commerce influences the party on which it is assessed.

EMTALA is a popular, if totally specious, argument vis a vis the existence of, let alone the government as administrator of, a positive (i.e. fictional) right to healthcare. First, since EMTALA in no way by operation of law relieves the patient from the legal or moral duty to pay for the service they recieve, it really doesn't function as enacting a "right" to treatment. It prohibited providers from confirming the ability to pay up front. Second, it requires only that providers stabilize patients. This isn't the forerunner of well-care compelled as a function of a putative "right" patients have to get uncompensated treatment.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

They *could* but they don't, necessarily. That's the point. Not all taxes affect behavior, and the type of tax dictates that far less than the scope of the tax.

[mocgator]

I'm not convinced moc understands how health insurance works.

I'm only a C Level exec of a healthcare company... Who has read all 2400 pages... I must not know what I'm talking about.
So when I stop taking Medicaid patients next year you still won't believe it?

[mocgator]

If people democratically decide its a "right," then for all intents and purposes it is. The Constitution isnt a charter that denys rights people retain democratically for themselves.

Could not be more completely and profoundly wrong on every level. What a strange world you live in. Rights are given to all of us by God. Government cannot give rights ... Only take them away. A right is an inherent thing. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. God grants these. Not some stinking politician.... Or mindless looter who wants a free cell phone.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

I'm only a C Level exec of a healthcare company... Who has read all 2400 pages... I must not know what I'm talking about.
So when I stop taking Medicaid patients next year you still won't believe it?

Based on this thread, though ... still not convinced.

[surfn1080]

Based on this thread, though ... still not convinced.

What has you convinced that he does not understand how health insurance works?

[orangeblueorangeblue]

First post, plus link.

I disagree vehemently with Obamacare, as it not only fixes nothing, it exacerbates the situation. BUT ... it's extended, socialized health insurance. As even the article explains, the doctors currently have choices as to who they treat, what they accept, etc. None of that changes.

Doctors should not be the recipient of our sympathy - they'll be fine. It's the rest of us who will be paying the doctors through Obamacare who deserve the sympathy.

[austingtr]

I was talking to a friend of mine last night who is a rehab doc (Physical medicine and Rehabilitation). One of the plans has decreased the rates to $60 for 10 therapies. That is $6 an hour. Plus you take on the risk of being sued for your trouble. Some of her friends are signing, but she refuses. It is absurd. She was also telling me about her Medicare renewal application. It was denied because her husband is in her bank account. Just the time and money we spend as doctors to just be able to practice is simply absurd. We are in agreement that we rather just not work. We are the lucky ones with husbands who can support our family. All that time studying and training down the drain. I don't expect anyone to feel sorry for me for sure, but I feel sorry for the American people- everyone will get chitty rationed care, and that is worse for the middle class.

[mocgator]

Based on this thread, though ... still not convinced.

Really? How so?

[DaveFla]

What has you convinced that he does not understand how health insurance works?

He doesn't mean it. That's just the current 'go-to' phrase when you are I'll-equipped to debate the topic on its merits alone...

You see it all the time in here.... It's the Internet equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I?"

[gatorpa]

"In 1986, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act known as EMTALA (Section 1867 (a) of the Social Security Act) and sometimes referred to as the "Patient Anti-Dumping Act" was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Reagan. The purpose of the Act was to ensure that acutely ill patients who are uninsured or underinsured receive appropriate emergency care and to prevent hospitals from refusing to treat certain populations of patients who present to the emergency department. Although EMTALA was passed to protect those who lack financial resources or medical insurance, it applies to all seeking care from a hospital's emergency department in all states and territories of the United States. However, not all hospitals have obligations under EMTALA. Only hospitals that accept federal funds from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS), a branch of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), are subject to civil liability under the Act. The CMS and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) enforce EMTALA. The OIG can fine Hospitals $50,000 per violation ($25,000 for hospitals with less than 100 beds) and possibly terminate their Medicare provider agreement. Individual physicians also may receive a fine up to $50,000 and be excluded from future Medicare funding."

http://www.ascensionhealth.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=146&Itemid=172

Nice def of EMTALA was there a point?

[orangeblueorangeblue]

He doesn't mean it. That's just the current 'go-to' phrase when you are I'll-equipped to debate the topic on its merits alone...

You see it all the time in here.... It's the Internet equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I?"

Actually, I expounded since then. What you'll see around here all the time are people who are too lazy (or excited) to read the thread before they reply. :whistle:

[Row6]

Nice def of EMTALA was there a point?

To clarify the discussion by pointing out what right to health care we have by law as opposed to opinion.

[MichiGator2002]

To clarify the discussion by pointing out what right to health care we have by law as opposed to opinion.

It is vaporous and ephemeral. Again, the patient is still legally and morally obligated to pay for the care they receive under that statute. If a law required that a store take checks for big ticket items, would that demonstrate a "right" to the item? Obviously not.

[gatorpa]

To clarify the discussion by pointing out what right to health care we have by law as opposed to opinion.

Actually the "right" is to a "medical screening exam" and to "treatment and stabilization of life threatening conditions".

Over the years hospitals have found it easier to just treat the non emergency, non insured for their BS complaints. That is and will change as more and more people are force to the ER for BS issues, and as Medicaid increasing refuses to pay for ER visits.

[Row6]

It is vaporous and ephemeral. Again, the patient is still legally and morally obligated to pay for the care they receive under that statute. If a law required that a store take checks for big ticket items, would that demonstrate a "right" to the item? Obviously not.

You're entitled to your opinion on what you think facts may mean but can you please provide metaphors that make sense to explain it.

[Row6]

Actually the "right" is to a "medical screening exam" and to "treatment and stabilization of life threatening conditions".

Over the years hospitals have found it easier to just treat the non emergency, non insured for their BS complaints. That is and will change as more and more people are force to the ER for BS issues, and as Medicaid increasing refuses to pay for ER visits.

Perhaps, but that will be up to the Inspector General to adjudicate. Of course with our new health care insurance system there will be fewer patients without regular doctors forced to seek treatment at the ER.

[ATLitigator]

To clarify the discussion by pointing out what right to health care we have by law as opposed to opinion.

the aw does not create a right to healthcare. it only applies tohospitals receiving federal money from medicaid/medicare

it establishes a condition of receiving federal money. if it is a right, itwould apply to all medical providers and would not provide a way to opt out.

[Row6]

the aw does not create a right to healthcare. it only applies tohospitals receiving federal money from medicaid/medicare

it establishes a condition of receiving federal money. if it is a right, itwould apply to all medical providers and would not provide a way to opt out.

Of course it does. A right is still a right even when not absolute. This particular one is far reaching since most hospitals fall under it.

[MichiGator2002]

If EMTALA created any rights, they were some amalgam of privacy or contract interests. All that has been protected is that the (very nominal) treatment doesn't come with proof of payment. The law does not create a right to healthcare. Your rights are not something you have to pay for just for the right to manifest. An actual right to healthcare would create in others a positive duty to give it to you. Give, not sell. Just because some deadbeats and losers will accept treatment and then steal it by not paying what they owe, that is not by the operation of the law.

[Row6]

If EMTALA created any rights, they were some amalgam of privacy or contract interests. All that has been protected is that the (very nominal) treatment doesn't come with proof of payment. The law does not create a right to healthcare. Your rights are not something you have to pay for just for the right to manifest. An actual right to healthcare would create in others a positive duty to give it to you. Give, not sell. Just because some deadbeats and losers will accept treatment and then steal it by not paying what they owe, that is not by the operation of the law.

It's a right with far reaching application. That is obvious from visiting our ERs. That unintended consequence should be ameliorated as more Americans have regular docs through the new health care insurance law.

[ATLitigator]

Of course it does. A right is still a right even when not absolute. This particular one is far reaching since most hospitals fall under it.

if every hospital and other medical provider refused medicare/medicaid funds, therefore making them exempt from this act, they would no longer have to treat you....therefore you will not get healthcare, therfore no right

If I get arrested, and I want a trial by jury, I'm going to have a trial....right

I can force the state to give me a jury trial, you cannot force a hospital to provide care( in my example)

[Row6]

if every hospital and other medical provider refused medicare/medicaid funds, therefore making them exempt from this act, they would no longer have to treat you....therefore you will not get healthcare, therfore no right

If I get arrested, and I want a trial by jury, I'm going to have a trial....right

I can force the state to give me a jury trial, you cannot force a hospital to provide care( in my example)

I think I posted a pretty complete description of the law, and it's not up to the hospitals discretion.

[ATLitigator]

I think I posted a pretty complete description of the law, and it's not up to the hospitals discretion.

However, not all hospitals have obligations under EMTALA. Only hospitals that accept federal funds from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS), a branch of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), are subject to civil liability under the Act.

Read more: http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas/showthread.php?p=6273169#post6273169#ixzz2GlYpmO70

yes, it is up to the hospitals. they can refuse to accept federal money (medicare & medicaid contracts) and then are not subject to the act and can therefore, deny care

[gatorpa]

Perhaps, but that will be up to the Inspector General to adjudicate. Of course with our new health care insurance system there will be fewer patients without regular doctors forced to seek treatment at the ER.

If doctors actually agree to sign up to accept the new ins. Soooo many take Fl Medicaid :sarcastically grins:

[Row6]

However, not all hospitals have obligations under EMTALA. Only hospitals that accept federal funds from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS), a branch of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), are subject to civil liability under the Act.

Read more: http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas/showthread.php?p=6273169#post6273169#ixzz2GlYpmO70

yes, it is up to the hospitals. they can refuse to accept federal money (medicare & medicaid contracts) and then are not subject to the act and can therefore, deny care

Indeed they can and I can grow and hunt all my food. Just don't hold your breath waiting for either.

[gatorpa]

I think I posted a pretty complete description of the law, and it's not up to the hospitals discretion.

But it is up to them how they treat patients who present without and "emergent medical condition". The large local community hospital in my area started this practice of screening out patients, they will see the non-emergent cases for the small fee of $250 however.

[Row6]

If doctors actually agree to sign up to accept the new ins. Soooo many take Fl Medicaid :sarcastically grins:

If not, there's still the good old ER.

[gatorpa]

If not, there's still the good old ER.

YUP :GRIN:

Just wait until Docs open their own truly private facilities and only treat private ins or cash only patients, then there will be an even larger strain on public hospitals.

[Row6]

YUP :GRIN:

Just wait until Docs open their own truly private facilities and only treat private ins or cash only patients, then there will be an even larger strain on public hospitals.

You sound like you can't wait.

[austingtr]

That is already happening. And those doc owned entities are waaaaay cheaper than the big institutions that "provide services" to indigent people. Those "services provided" come at a vet, very large price tag for the tax payers. It is a way for this big hospitals/corporations make millions. It is a big industry in which docs are employees, CEOs or the church rake in millions and millions of dollars. Those are the hospitals who charge $25 for a box is Kleenex.
There was a video on this a while back, very informative.

[mocgator]

YUP :GRIN:

Just wait until Docs open their own truly private facilities and only treat private ins or cash only patients, then there will be an even larger strain on public hospitals.

That's exactly what will happen... just like in the schools. You have lousy government schools and good private schools.

[ATLitigator]

Indeed they can and I can grow and hunt all my food. Just don't hold your breath waiting for either.

then you agree that you were wrong and the act does not create a right to healthcare....:laugh:

[wargunfan]

then you agree that you were wrong and the act does not create a right to healthcare....:laugh:

That's Row's way of surrendering without actually saying so.:laugh:

[Row6]

then you agree that you were wrong and the act does not create a right to healthcare....:laugh:

It certainly does create a right to healthcare when treated at hospitals receiving federal funds. That would be almost all of them. I think I posted complete and understandable information on this to begin with. If you don't understand the law I doubt I can help explain it any better than I already have.

[gatorpa]

You sound like you can't wait.

It would be nice to have all customers pay for services they recieve, don't you agree?

[wargunfan]

All American liberals should spend some time in a third world socialized medical facility. I lived in Colombia for a time and at one point my wife needed to see a doctor. With no PCP we went to the local hospital and were directed to a waiting room where over a hundred people were waiting to see a doctor. There were several bleeding wounds and at least one gunshot wound waiting their turn. Most had been waiting all day. When we explained to the receptionist that we were paying cash we were escorted to another wing of the hospital through a set of beautiful, hand carved mahogany doors into a plush waiting room in which we were the only patients. Five minutes later my wife was seen by an internal medicine doc who had done his residency at Johns Hopkins. We were served coffee and treated like family. The doctor examined my wife and wrote a prescription and scheduled a followup appointment. After a hardy handshake we bid him good day. Oh, by the way cost: $35.00. Followup appt. cost $35.00.
This dual system will be the result of Obamacare except the private care will cost much, much more.

[gatorpa]

All American liberals should spend some time in a third world socialized medical facility. I lived in Colombia for a time and at one point my wife needed to see a doctor. With no PCP we went to the local hospital and were directed to a waiting room where over a hundred people were waiting to see a doctor. There were several bleeding wounds and at least one gunshot wound waiting their turn. Most had been waiting all day. When we explained to the receptionist that we were paying cash we were escorted to another wing of the hospital through a set of beautiful, hand carved mahogany doors into a plush waiting room in which we were the only patients. Five minutes later my wife was seen by an internal medicine doc who had done his residency at Johns Hopkins. We were served coffee and treated like family. The doctor examined my wife and wrote a prescription and scheduled a followup appointment. After a hardy handshake we bid him good day. Oh, by the way cost: $35.00. Followup appt. cost $35.00.
This dual system will be the result of Obamacare except the private care will cost much, much more.

And then the Gov will outlaw receiving private payment for healthcare charges.

[QGator2414]

And then the Gov will outlaw receiving private payment for healthcare charges.

This is what scares me.

[wargunfan]

And then the Gov will outlaw receiving private payment for healthcare charges.

I would not put this government past anything. Doctors and folks with cash will find a way.

[T3goalie]

[QUOTE=mocgator;6263884]..a doctor to work for free...

Whenever someone tells me about the “right” to healthcare, I ask, “From whom? From me?” This question exposes this “right” for the robbery and slavery that it is. Take it to the next step. Do you really want to exercise your “right” to healthcare on a physician who doesn’t want any part of this bargain? What kind of care do you think you’ll receive? LOL! :whoa:

About two weeks after I quit, an angry cardiac surgeon, inconvenienced by my departure from the group of available cardiac anesthesiologists and with his finger in my face, told me that he was going to see to it that I was forced to do these anesthetics, so as not to disrupt his schedule. I guess he thought he had a “right” to my services. It didn’t help things that I laughed. I said, ’Dr. X, I’ll be happy to visit with the family before their loved one’s elective surgery and inform them that I want no part of this and that I don’t really want to be here, but someone is making me do this. Maybe you all would like to wait for an anesthesiologist who wants to be part of this, because I certainly don’t.’ I almost wet myself laughing...:yes:


This cardiac surgeon suddenly understood. Now imagine this on a large scale. Angry mobs of folks waving their ObamaCare ’insurance’ cards in the street demanding their free healthcare outside a closed and vacant doctor’s office.
:huh:

[Row6]

It would be nice to have all customers pay for services they recieve, don't you agree?

Yes it would, but then we'd have to be paying union like wages to workers for them to even begin to afford American health care, and you know how much you and most other TH posters would hate that.

[QGator2414]

Yes it would, but then we'd have to be paying union like wages to workers for them to even begin to afford American health care, and you know how much you and most other TH posters would hate that.

How much does a house cost you would typically build?

[Row6]

How much does a house cost you would typically build?

Sorry, you don't make enough.

[Minister_of_Information]

There is no right to health care. But there is a social obligation to do what is feasible. And there is a world of difference between the two.

[Row6]

There is no right to health care. But there is a social obligation to do what is feasible. And there is a world of difference between the two.

I appreciate your sentiment but there is also a right to health care noted up thread. It's not absolute but it is nonetheless federal law (signed by Reagan).

[ChartsandGrafs]

There is no right to health care. But there is a social obligation to do what is feasible. And there is a world of difference between the two.

A social obligation to do what is "feasible"? What does that even mean? Who gets to determine whether something is feasible or not?

[Minister_of_Information]

A social obligation to do what is "feasible"? What does that even mean? Who gets to determine whether something is feasible or not?

A political process.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I appreciate your sentiment but there is also a right to health care noted up thread. It's not absolute but it is nonetheless federal law (signed by Reagan).

The U.S. Supreme Court once ruled that the ownership of human slaves was lawful under the U.S. Constitution.

If you were around back at that time, would this have meant that you would argue that people had a right to own negro slaves, just because the government ruled it lawful?

[ChartsandGrafs]

A political process.

How vague. A political process can be used to determine all kinds of obligations, but that doesn't necessarily mean any of them are legitimate.

[Row6]

The U.S. Supreme Court once ruled that the ownership of human slaves was lawful under the U.S. Constitution.

If you were around back at that time, would this have meant that you would argue that people had a right to own negro slaves, just because the government ruled it lawful?

Of course, and it would similarly be an indisputable fact. A right isn't whatever we want one to be - or not - but what the law is.

[Row6]

How vague. A political process can be used to determine all kinds of obligations, but that doesn't necessarily mean any of them are legitimate.

That of course is what is determined by the "political process". You are not required to agree with all of these determinations but only to abide by the law.

[Minister_of_Information]

I appreciate your sentiment but there is also a right to health care noted up thread. It's not absolute but it is nonetheless federal law (signed by Reagan).

I'm speaking ethically, not legally. Meaning what is likely to inform social choices when health care is set in opposition to fiscal survival. A society must first survive; caring for the sick and the dying is ultimately elective, and will be rationed as necessary. The law will conform to this reality, not vice versa.

[Minister_of_Information]

How vague. A political process can be used to determine all kinds of obligations, but that doesn't necessarily mean any of them are legitimate.

It's how we in this country achieve consensus about what will be our social policies. Health care must be weighed against other pressing requirements.

[QGator2414]

Sorry, you don't make enough.

So you only build houses for people that make more than union like wages?

Did not realize you only service the "rich"...

[ChartsandGrafs]

Of course, and it would similarly be an indisputable fact. A right isn't whatever we want one to be - or not - but what the law is.

You just contradicted yourself. Can you see where? First you claim a right isn't whatever we want it to be, that it's whatever the law says it is. Well, don't you believe in democracy? Don't you believe that the people elect their leaders to create the laws and policies that reflect the society that they most desire?

If so, then rights are whatever we want them to be, since all we have do is elect politicians to office who will craft the laws (rights, as you claim) that we want. If we want a "right" to healthcare, all that is required is to get some politicians into office who will make it the law of the land.

Sorry, but you have absolutely no conceptual understanding of individual rights.

[Row6]

So you only build houses for people that make more than union like wages?

Actually I will build anything for anyone and have - even right wing political insiders who remain my friends, so I'd even work for you. Mostly my market has become higher end homes, remodels, and additions.

[Minister_of_Information]

Natural rights do not depend on law or Constitution.

[ChartsandGrafs]

It's how we in this country achieve consensus about what will be our social policies. Health care must be weighed against other pressing requirements.

I'm still not following. You claimed we have a "social obligation" to do whatever is "feasible".

What's the specific basis of this claim? According to whom? Is this your personal opinion, or is it based on something else? Do I have a social obligation because society says so, and if so, what makes this obligation legitimate?

I would just like to understand this "obligation" viewpoint.

[Row6]

You just contradicted yourself. Can you see where? First you claim a right isn't whatever we want it to be, that it's whatever the law says it is. Well, don't you believe in democracy? Don't you believe that the people elect their leaders to create the laws and policies that reflect the society that they most desire?

If so, then rights are whatever we want them to be, since all we have do is elect politicians to office who will craft the laws (rights, as you claim) that we want. If we want a "right" to healthcare, all that is required is to get some politicians into office who will make it the law of the land.

Sorry, but you have absolutely no conceptual understanding of individual rights.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your half baked argument. Polish it up a little - including a complete thought - and I'll take another look at it.

[QGator2414]

Actually I will build anything for anyone and have - even right wing political insiders who remain my friends, so I'd even work for you. Mostly my market has become higher end homes, remodels, and additions.

I thought I could not afford it?

Are you saying you build lower end homes that those who do not make much can afford?

You slam the cost of healthcare but have no issue it seems to only work for the "rich" who can afford your services...I am fine with this as I am all about negotiating a price for service.

But I still have trouble with your concept that healthcare is a "right" but shelter is not a "right"...

[Row6]

Natural rights do not depend on law or Constitution.

OK but they are a religious concept that have no practical application without the power of enforcement behind them.

[Minister_of_Information]

I'm still not following. You claimed we have a "social obligation" to do whatever is "feasible".

What's the specific basis of this claim? According to whom? Is this your personal opinion, or is it based on something else? Do I have a social obligation because society says so, and if so, what makes this obligation legitimate?

I would just like to understand this "obligation" viewpoint.

It's rationalized synthetic a priori knowledge from one's intuition, just like any other ethical instinct. Basically people have a felt obligation to help others within their society to the extent that those others cannot help themselves and to the extent free resources are available. This instinct can be confirmed via observation.

[Minister_of_Information]

OK but they are a religious concept that have no practical application without the power of enforcement behind them.

False.

Natural rights are inalienable because they are inalienable. They exist whether or not enforced or recognized. They are the latent potentials of the human race. A people that won't be enslaved, can't be enslaved.

[Row6]

I thought I could not afford it?

Are you saying you build lower end homes that those who do not make much can afford?

You slam the cost of healthcare but have no issue it seems to only work for the "rich" who can afford your services...I am fine with this as I am all about negotiating a price for service.

But I still have trouble with your concept that healthcare is a "right" but shelter is not a "right"...

It's a right by law, not because I have a concept, though I do approve of it. There are subsidized housing programs and I'm OK with them as well.

[QGator2414]

It's a right by law, not because I have a concept, though I do approve of it. There are subsidized housing programs and I'm OK with them as well.

I don't doubt it...:)

So are you cool with regulating how much you can charge to build or remodel a house?

I prefer to let us negotiate our price with each other. Which seems to be what you want except for healthcare.

We would happily provide you care but the idea that we should not be able to negotiate our fees (fortunately our sector of healthcare has remained under the radar but this "right" to services idea scares the mess out of me) with you but you should be allowed to negotiate yours with us just does not make much sense.

[ChartsandGrafs]

It's rationalized synthetic a priori knowledge from one's intuition, just like any other ethical instinct. Basically people have a felt obligation to help others within their society to the extent that those others cannot help themselves and to the extent free resources are available. This instinct can be confirmed via observation.

Do all people feel this alleged obligation, or just some? I sometimes help random strangers, but it's pretty much never due to any obligation I've ever felt. The only time I've ever felt obligated to help someone was when I was responsible for causing them harm.

Either way, I reject the notion that I or anyone else is obligated to help others. It's much more likely to be social conditioning that produces this "obligated to help" moral response, not natural human instinct.

[Minister_of_Information]

Do all people feel this alleged obligation, or just some? I sometimes help random strangers, but it's pretty much never due to any obligation I've ever felt. The only time I've ever felt obligated to help someone was when I was responsible for causing them harm.

Either way, I reject the notion that I or anyone else is obligated to help others. It's much more likely to be social conditioning that produces this "obligated to help" moral response, not natural human instinct.

If a person was knocked unconscious face down in a mud puddle and drowning, could you walk past them and not help with a clear conscience knowing that no one else is in the area to save them? Or would you feel a moral obligation to help?

People espouse any number of apparently opposed ideologies, but when confronted with particular situations (or, when subject to the same thought experiments) most people will make the same choice. Yes there are cultural variations but they are the small picture, not the big one.

BTW, I distinguish felt obligations to help from rights or entitlements to care for a simple reason: people also recognize ethical situations where extreme measures are necessary. It may not normally be ethical to leave someone to die, but it is if you are forced to choose between a single death and many deaths, particularly of people you feel a closer emotional attachment to -- perhaps even yourself, especially when others are depending on you.

[ChartsandGrafs]

If a person was knocked unconscious face down in a mud puddle and drowning, could you walk past them and not help with a clear conscience knowing that no one else is in the area to save them? Or would you feel a moral obligation to help?

People espouse any number of apparently opposed ideologies, but when confronted with particular situations (or, when subject to the same thought experiments) most people will make the same choice. Yes there are cultural variations but they are the small picture, not the big one.

BTW, I distinguish felt obligations to help from rights or entitlements to care for a simple reason: people also recognize ethical situations where extreme measures are necessary. It may not normally be ethical to leave someone to die, but it is if you are forced to choose between a single death and many deaths, particularly of people you feel a closer emotional attachment to -- perhaps even yourself, especially when others are depending on you.

Yes, I believe I could walk away with a clear conscience, but I certainly wouldn't. I'd help a person in such a state, but it has nothing to do with any perceived obligation or the fear that my conscience might torture me later. I simply don't feel obligated to help others in that regard, and don't want them feeling obligated to help me. I help because I want to, even if it's for purely selfish reasons, and want them to help me only under the same conditions. If I found out that someone helped me only because they felt obligated to, I'd honestly be offended.

Again, this all changes if I am the person responsible for bringing harm to another. Then the obligation you speak of weighs on me like an unbearable weight. Under the right circumstances (like being negligently responsible for a car accident that turns someone into a vegetable and not being able to help or atone for what I've done, etc...), I'd probably kill myself to escape that kind of burden.

[Row6]

False.

Natural rights are inalienable because they are inalienable. They exist whether or not enforced or recognized. They are the latent potentials of the human race. A people that won't be enslaved, can't be enslaved.

There is no proof in the real world for your assertion, and your last sentence implies that those throughout history who did not enjoy the same rights as we only lacked will power or a possessed a suicidal death wish.

[Row6]

I don't doubt it...:)

So are you cool with regulating how much you can charge to build or remodel a house?

I prefer to let us negotiate our price with each other. Which seems to be what you want except for healthcare.

We would happily provide you care but the idea that we should not be able to negotiate our fees (fortunately our sector of healthcare has remained under the radar but this "right" to services idea scares the mess out of me) with you but you should be allowed to negotiate yours with us just does not make much sense.

If I build projects funded through insurance I would fully expect the insurance provider to be at the table. The fact that medical procedure fees - a medical flat rate book - is the basis for payment is an area where alternatives like those used at the Mayo Clinic are being considered.

[Row6]

Do all people feel this alleged obligation, or just some? I sometimes help random strangers, but it's pretty much never due to any obligation I've ever felt. The only time I've ever felt obligated to help someone was when I was responsible for causing them harm.

Either way, I reject the notion that I or anyone else is obligated to help others. It's much more likely to be social conditioning that produces this "obligated to help" moral response, not natural human instinct.

Whatever. Then as part of the political process you can vote for candidates who agree with you but if your position does not prevail you'll have to follow the law anyway.

[QGator2414]

If I build projects funded through insurance I would fully expect the insurance provider to be at the table. The fact that medical procedure fees - a medical flat rate book - is the basis for payment is an area where alternatives like those used at the Mayo Clinic are being considered.

You want a single payer system for building projects?

Something tells me that is not the case...

[Row6]

You want a single payer system for building projects?

Something tells me that is not the case...

A different argument than health care rights which I haven't fully considered (the benefits of SP for health care insurance) and which doesn't have much similarity to building. Almost all medical care is insurance provided and it is bankrupting the country. As far as I know docs can now - and I assume would under SP - still work outside of insurance if anyone wants to hire them.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Whatever. Then as part of the political process you can vote for candidates who agree with you but if your position does not prevail you'll have to follow the law anyway.

LOL, right, because whatever our Government Gods in Washington say goes! If our Dear Leaders in Washington created a law that said you have to jump off a bridge, you'd be the first to strip down to your skivvies and throw yourself over the railing. You'd flap your arms the entire way down like a bird parroting the line, "it's the law!".

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but voting is for suckers, pal. You don't have a choice, you only think you do. You vote for whoever the corporations and media tell you to vote for. Besides that, these aren't real laws. The only laws that are legitimately lawful are those that adhere to and correspond with natural law. Everything else is just man-made tyranny.

[Row6]

LOL, right, because whatever our Government Gods in Washington say goes! If our Dear Leaders in Washington created a law that said you have to jump off a bridge, you'd be the first to strip down to your skivvies and throw yourself over the railing. You'd flap your arms the entire way down like a bird parroting the line, "it's the law!".

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but voting is for suckers, pal. You don't have a choice, you only think you do. You vote for whoever the corporations and media tell you to vote for. Besides that, these aren't real laws. The only laws that are legitimately lawful are those that adhere to and correspond with natural law. Everything else is just man-made tyranny.

What makes me feel more secure knowing we are governed by elected representatives chosen by the people rather than C&G's imagined natural laws - good luck in court with those by the way.

[ChartsandGrafs]

What makes me feel more secure knowing we are governed by elected representatives chosen by the people rather than C&G's imagined natural laws - good luck in court with those by the way.

LOL, "chosen by the people". You don't actually believe this, do you? This is a nice comforting myth, but it's still just a myth.

Your choices are provided for you, from a selection of pre-approved, controlled political candidates. If the powers that be decide that a certain candidate is viable, and can be adequately controlled, their campaigns will be financed and the media will present them in a positive light. On the other hand, if the powers that be decide that a candidate isn't viable, and can't be adequately controlled, their campaigns will not be financed and the media will present them in a negative light. Either way, the entire system is rigged and in the end you only vote for who you're told to vote for. That's not real democracy, it's a hoax. You're essentially the equivalent of a professional wrestling fan who believes the spectacle he sees is real.

Double LULZ if you think our courts aren't just as corrupt.

[QGator2414]

A different argument than health care rights which I haven't fully considered (the benefits of SP for health care insurance) and which doesn't have much similarity to building. Almost all medical care is insurance provided and it is bankrupting the country. As far as I know docs can now - and I assume would under SP - still work outside of insurance if anyone wants to hire them.

I think you are starting to get it but refuse to accept it.

Government is the problem. It would not be going bankrupt if it were not involved...

So you are for getting government out of healthcare and beginning to get our fiscal matters under control? Or should we get government more involved in your industry to help people afford (oops it already is with cheap money that lead to a crash in the market) homes.

Instead of just cheap money don't you think we should limit what you can charge as well?

[Row6]

LOL, "chosen by the people". You don't actually believe this, do you? This is a nice comforting myth, but it's still just a myth.

Your choices are provided for you, from a selection of pre-approved, controlled political candidates. If the powers that be decide that a certain candidate is viable, and can be adequately controlled, their campaigns will be financed and the media will present them in a positive light. On the other hand, if the powers that be decide that a candidate isn't viable, and can't be adequately controlled, their campaigns will not be financed and the media will present them in a negative light. Either way, the entire system is rigged and in the end you only vote for who you're told to vote for. That's not real democracy, it's a hoax. You're essentially the equivalent of a professional wrestling fan who believes the spectacle he sees is real.

Double LULZ if you think our courts aren't just as corrupt.

I see. Fortunately you're onto the scam and uniquely able to not be bamboozled by the media. Surely it's only a matter of time until THEY decide you're too dangerous, and try and take you out. I'd watch out for that Nana, she's a bad one.

[Minister_of_Information]

Yes, I believe I could walk away with a clear conscience, but I certainly wouldn't. I'd help a person in such a state, but it has nothing to do with any perceived obligation or the fear that my conscience might torture me later. I simply don't feel obligated to help others in that regard, and don't want them feeling obligated to help me. I help because I want to, even if it's for purely selfish reasons, and want them to help me only under the same conditions. If I found out that someone helped me only because they felt obligated to, I'd honestly be offended.

Again, this all changes if I am the person responsible for bringing harm to another. Then the obligation you speak of weighs on me like an unbearable weight. Under the right circumstances (like being negligently responsible for a car accident that turns someone into a vegetable and not being able to help or atone for what I've done, etc...), I'd probably kill myself to escape that kind of burden.

The key is that you would help. It is the impulse to help the helpless that is the quintessence of our ethical sense, the root of the felt obligation to act, and these impulses are usually influenced by cultural norms as well as rationalized in view of them. The stated reasons for acting are not necessarily relevant.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I see. Fortunately you're onto the scam and uniquely able to not be bamboozled by the media. Surely it's only a matter of time until THEY decide you're too dangerous, and try and take you out. I'd watch out for that Nana, she's a bad one.

Nah, they don't need to take people like me out. They've got so many publicly indoctrinated sheep corralled and bleating the same tune, lone dissenting voices are effectively drowned out.

Bah, bah, bah!

[ChartsandGrafs]

The key is that you would help. It is the impulse to help the helpless that is the quintessence of our ethical sense, the root of the felt obligation to act, and these impulses are usually influenced by cultural norms as well as rationalized in view of them. The stated reasons for acting are not necessarily relevant.

Of course they are relevant, since the stated reasons effectively constitute a rejection of any so-called "social obligation", which sounds more like a form of slave morality.

[Dreamliner]

Yeah, yeah. Taxation is theft and what not.

I'll stop calling it theft when they start asking if they can take it.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I'll stop calling it theft when they start asking if they can take it.

"But, but, but..."

http://img2.etsystatic.com/002/0/6804050/il_fullxfull.369551058_o95q.jpg

"Either allow us to rob you at the point of a gun, or just leave! It's your choice! If you don't leave, and don't pay us the money we demand, we'll kidnap you and put you in a rape cage! It's part of the mythical social contract you never signed or agreed to when you were born! Yes, didn't you know? You were born into contractual bondage! But, but, but, taxation isn't slavery, even though it is! Love it or leave it!"

This is the long and short of every response a person who questions the necessity of coercive taxation will receive. Organized government serves as the role model for every criminal Mafia on the planet.

[Minister_of_Information]

Of course they are relevant, since the stated reasons effectively constitute a rejection of any so-called "social obligation", which sounds more like a form of slave morality.

What defines you more: the actions you take or the reasons you give for them?

[ChartsandGrafs]

What defines you more: the actions you take or the reasons you give for them?

I'm not following this line of reasoning. If you take the action of eating a slice of pizza, and your stated reason for doing so is because you were hungry and had a craving for pizza, does that mean your stated reason is false and the real reason you ate the slice of pizza is because you felt some kind of "social obligation" to do so? In other words, should I necessarily construe your eating of pizza to have more meaning than why you said you did so?

[Minister_of_Information]

I'm saying that most people have precious little idea why they do the things they do, but they can all come up with any number of reasons for having done it once it is over. What we know is that most people seem to have similar social instincts, and helping helpless members of one's society where possible seems to be a fairly common feature, a meta-ethic if you like.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I'm saying that most people have precious little idea why they do the things they do, but they can all come up with any number of reasons for having done it once it is over. What we know is that most people seem to have similar social instincts, and helping helpless members of their society where possible seems to be a fairly common feature.

I agree with the first part of that, but still take issue with the idea that there is any social obligation involved. That particular word, 'obligation', is a big, potentially destructive word to throw around in a discussion like this, especially when something like that isn't at all quantifiable and is left to the whim of crooked politicians. 'Obligation' is the language of people who fancy themselves as social engineers, or the types of people who would endeavor to create fascist, communist, or other collectivist societies based on slave morality.

If you feel like you have an obligation to help others in dire straits, have at it. Just don't tell me I feel the same way.

[wgbgator]

Nearly all people and cultures subscribe to some sort of ethic of reciprocity, implying some kind of "obligation."

[ChartsandGrafs]

Nearly all people and cultures subscribe to some sort of ethic of reciprocity, implying some kind of "obligation."

Yeah, and a lot of the same people also subscribe to the belief in an omnipotent, magical sky wizard with a long, white flowing robe and beard who knows and sees all, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's true, man.

Again, if you guys feel or believe in some sort of obligation to assist others, that's great, but it's not universal, and certainly doesn't need to be made to be by fiat.

[Minister_of_Information]

I agree with the first part of that, but still take issue with the idea that there is any social obligation involved. That particular word, 'obligation', is a big, potentially destructive word to throw around in a discussion like this, especially when something like that isn't at all quantifiable and is left to the whim of crooked politicians. 'Obligation' is the language of people who fancy themselves as social engineers, or the types of people who would endeavor to create fascist, communist, or other collectivist societies based on slave morality.

If you feel like you have an obligation to help others in dire straits, have at it. Just don't tell me I feel the same way.

Again, I'm talking about the FELT obligations to help that drive action (emotional impulses), and I'm quite obviously speaking in the aggregate ("most people"). There are definitely some people who feel no social obligations whatsoever. Considering the problem politically, though, we should recognized that these felt obligations on the part of most people are going to shape policy, yet ultimately limit that policy to what is practical under the circumstances. Society is not going to commit suicide in the name of universal health care. We need to be aware of that ahead of time, instead of providing no notice to people who simply assume that somehow they will be cared for regardless of the scope of fiscal calamity.

[Minister_of_Information]

Yeah, and a lot of the same people also subscribe to the belief in an omnipotent, magical sky wizard with a long, white flowing robe and beard who knows and sees all. That doesn't necessarily mean it's true, man.

Again, if you guys feel or believe in some sort of obligation to assist others, that's great, but it's not universal, and certainly doesn't need to be made to be by fiat.

We are not talking about elective ideas, we are talking about instincts that get gussied up with culture and any number of fancy ideas as window dressing. Yet these instincts are measureable and (relatively) universal.

[wgbgator]

Yeah, and a lot of the same people also subscribe to the belief in an omnipotent, magical sky wizard with a long, white flowing robe and beard who knows and sees all, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's true, man.

Again, if you guys feel or believe in some sort of obligation to assist others, that's great, but it's not universal, and certainly doesn't need to be made to be by fiat.

It's as close to universal as something gets. I mean, it's hardwired into us. If we were incapable of cooperation (i.e. reciprocity) we wouldnt be having this conversation, because humanity would be extinct. Sorry if much of that cooperation boils down to subscribing to the same mythology or inhabiting the same geography, or sharing ancestors but that's kind of how it goes.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Again, I'm talking about FELT obligations to help (emotional impulses), and I'm quite obviously speaking in the aggregate ("most people"). There are definitely some people who feel no social obligations whatsoever.

Fair enough, I'll accept that as a clarification of what you claimed earlier:

There is no right to health care. But there is a social obligation to do what is feasible.

There is no obligation whatsoever to do anything, but there is a general feeling within society held by a large number of people - but not all - that something should be done.

[ChartsandGrafs]

It's as close to universal as something gets. I mean, it's hardwired into us.

I'm not convinced.

If we were incapable of cooperation (i.e. reciprocity) we wouldnt be having this conversation, because humanity would be extinct. Sorry if much of that cooperation boils down to subscribing to the same mythology or inhabiting the same geography, or sharing ancestors but that's kind of how it goes.

No. Voluntary cooperation with others and obligation to others are two different things.

[Minister_of_Information]

Fair enough, I'll accept that as a clarification of what you claimed earlier:



There is no obligation whatsoever to do anything, but there is a general feeling within society held by a large number of people - but not all - that something should be done.

I think we are saying the same thing, provided we agree that the measure of what are and are not social obligations is an existential question that is answered by political consensus.

[wgbgator]

I'm not convinced.



No. Voluntary cooperation with others and obligation to others are two different things.

Its still an obligation. I'm obliged to respect your right to act voluntarily, and vice versa. Its an ethic of reciprocity that binds us both. That's what most people would call an "obligation," not a choice.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I think we are saying the same thing, provided we agree that the measure of what are and are not social obligations is an existential question that is answered by political consensus.

Yikes, I'll pass, seeing as how political consensus can be manufactured through the controlled media about as easily as an egg is scrambled.

Let's not and say we did.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Its still an obligation. I'm obliged to respect your right to act voluntarily, and vice versa.

But you don't, right? I mean, you don't respect my right to act voluntarily, since you are a staunch advocate for coercive taxation. You believe people like me should be robbed at gunpoint to pay for the health care of others, don't you?

Or am I missing something?

[wgbgator]

The problem with voluntarism and your dismissal of "obligation" is that voluntarism demands an obligation, just like any other ethic that binds people. If you don't follow it, you would be shunned or punished. In a voluntary society, if I force a doctor to treat my wife at gunpoint, at the very least, people bound to the ethic of voluntarism will alter their behavior toward me, as I have violated the organizing principle of society. Society obligates me to act toward others a certain way, and I violated it.

[wgbgator]

But you don't, right? I mean, you don't respect my right to act voluntarily, since you are a staunch advocate for coercive taxation. You believe people like me should be robbed at gunpoint to pay for the health care of others, don't you?

Or am I missing something?

Surely you understand that was rhetorical, right? Does that not constitute an obligation?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Surely you understand that was rhetorical, right? Does that not constitute an obligation?

Sure, but you're talking about the respecting of actual individual rights, of which there is none to health care or the provision thereof.

It's two completely different things. There is a reciprocal obligation to respect rights, because your very life depends on it, but there is none so far as being enslaved to assist (health care, welfare, Obama phones, etc...) or be in service to others.

[Minister_of_Information]

The problem with voluntarism and your dismissal of "obligation" is that voluntarism demands an obligation, just like any other ethic that binds people. If you don't follow it, you would be shunned or punished. In a voluntary society, if I force a doctor to treat my wife at gunpoint, at the very least, people bound to the ethic of voluntarism will alter their behavior toward me, as I have violated the organizing principle of society. Society obligates me to act toward others a certain way, and I violated it.

That is very well said.

[wgbgator]

Sure, but you're talking about the respecting of actual individual rights, of which there is none to health care or the provision thereof.

It's two completely different things. There is a reciprocal obligation to respect rights, because your very life depends on it, but there is none so far as being enslaved to assist (health care, welfare, Obama phones, etc...) or be in service to others.

As long as you see that voluntarism is also an obligation, like any other principle that would bind & organize people.

[Minister_of_Information]

Yikes, I'll pass, seeing as how political consensus can be manufactured through the controlled media about as easily as an egg is scrambled.

Let's not and say we did.

There is something more that I feel needs to be said about social obligations. I said earlier that they are existential in nature, but this is only part of the picture. Our perception of their existence and nature is existential, but what is being perceived IMO is a Platonic reality: we are learning via experience just what "society" means. And that definition is can be seen within our individual ethical instincts as well as their collective sum.

What emerges is a picture of the necessary elements of human society and how they must be balanced in order for a society to exist. And it boils down to reciprocity: unless we are willing to act in ways that treat the interests of other members of society as at least worth considering if not quite on par with our own interests, society itself will break down. You might very well have a collection of individuals that are all individually willing to look on in disinterest as another member is destroyed, but that is not a society. And this is important because we are all dependent on society for survival. Society provides the secure dominion within which individual lives are lived in peace. If you start shrugging of the mutual support of society when it happens to be inconvenient for you, if you cultivate indifference to the fate of your fellow man, you destroy that which protects you from the state of nature. And the state of nature is the war of all upon all.

[ChartsandGrafs]

As long as you see that voluntarism is also an obligation, like any other principle that would bind & organize people.

Yes, but having a so-called "social obligation" to help others get health or medical care, which is what this discussion is about, is not voluntarism.

You can no more pass slavery off as voluntarism than you can polish a turd into a Godiva chocolate.

[Minister_of_Information]

The felt obligation is to care for the sick and helpless rather than simply to provide universal healthcare. That is what people feel. How it is done doesn't really matter, but it would be nice to do it as efficiently as possible, with the limitations openly discussed and agreed upon.

[ChartsandGrafs]

The felt obligation is to care for the sick and helpless rather than simply to provide universal healthcare.

A lot of these Leftists and liberals would disagree with you on that point. I've read and heard many arguments from them stating that governments should (social(ist) obligation) provide universal healthcare to their citizens for "free".

That is what people feel.

Sorry, I don't "feel" it.

How it is done doesn't really matter, but it would be nice to do it as efficiently as possible, with the limitations openly discussed and agreed upon.

This is a nice fantasy and all, but you should know that governments do absolutely NOTHING efficiently. And why should they? They have no competition. In fact, contrary to popular opinion, it's in every government's best interest to waste the people's money as inefficiently as possible, lest the people become independently wealthy, have time for leisure, read books, become educated, learn how to think critically, and then inevitably realize just how much their corrupt, unnecessary government is screwing them over. Of course, governments can't have that, right? So production must be arbitrarily restricted through onerous regulations. Excess wealth must be siphoned off in taxes. The majority of people's leisure time must either be limited via their need to work so that they can pay thousands of taxes and keep up with a government-manufactured high cost of living or occupied with mindless bread and circuses. For the majority of children, both parents will have to work, so the State will raise them and fill their heads with garbage in little concentration camps called "public schools". This will insure that the cycle of dependency continues, which only serves to empower the government further.

That brings me to my final point, which is to say that, while your intentions may be pure and your heart in the right place, the people who you are providing intellectual support to in this debate over health care have no interest in "social obligations" or "taking care of the sick and dying". What they are really interested in is power and control. That's what it is always about, whether it's gun control, wealth redistribution, or any other pressing issue. You're not having the same debate they are having, whether you think you are or not.

[Minister_of_Information]

A lot of these Leftists and liberals would disagree with you on that point. I've read and heard many arguments from them stating that governments should (social(ist) obligation) provide universal healthcare to their citizens for "free".



Sorry, I don't "feel" it.



This is a nice fantasy and all, but you should know that governments do absolutely NOTHING efficiently. And why should they? They have no competition. In fact, contrary to popular opinion, it's in every government's best interest to waste the people's money as inefficiently as possible, lest the people become independently wealthy, have time for leisure, read books, become educated, learn how to think critically, and then inevitably realize just how much their corrupt, unnecessary government is screwing them over. Of course, governments can't have that, right? So production must be arbitrarily restricted through onerous regulations. Excess wealth must be siphoned off in taxes. The majority of people's leisure time must either be limited via their need to work so that they can pay thousands of taxes and keep up with a government-manufactured high cost of living or occupied with mindless bread and circuses. For the majority of children, both parents will have to work, so the State will raise them and fill their heads with garbage in little concentration camps called "public schools". This will insure that the cycle of dependency continues, which only serves to empower the government further.

That brings me to my final point, which is to say that, while your intentions may be pure and your heart in the right place, the people who you are providing intellectual support to in this debate over health care have no interest in "social obligations" or "taking care of the sick and dying". What they are really interested in is power and control. That's what it is always about, whether it's gun control, wealth redistribution, or any other pressing issue. You're not having the same debate they are having, whether you think you are or not.

The leftists can disagree all they like, or preach that an outcome has to be guaranteed -- that changes nothing. Triage is as ancient as caring for the sick, and people have an inherent sense of when efforts are wasted and therefore when they should be limited. When the choice is between survival and the sick and the dying, the sick and dying will be left behind. To die.

That feeling -- and it is a feeling -- that prompts you to help a helpless person is what I am describing. Perhaps you don't feel it, but you are definitely in the minority. It is the judgment of how to act upon this feeling that is what is up for grabs, not the feeling itself.

The problem with dogmatic ideology regardless of whatever virtues it possesses is that there is always some circumstance where it leads to a conclusion that is absolutely false. And in this case the dogmatic ideology that the free market is a panacea for all social problems (and to hell with those that it does not cure) ignores a few realities:

Care for the sick and the dying can never be done both ethically and profitably. It is only profitable to insure young healthy people who don't need much care -- unless you think insurance companies should be able to decide who is going to be treated and who is going to be allowed to die. Ethical decisions of this magnitude are not viable in commercial hands, they require political sanction.
We already have a tacit single payer system -- Medicare -- that bridges all of the cost gaps with what is effectively a blank check. This system has no cost controlls.
Most industrialized nations provide better health care to most citizens at about 2/3 of our cost per capita.
The US public at the present time is politically unwilling to turn away people at the Emergency Room door. This is the foundation of the "back door" single payer -- basic care for the uninsured that could be achieved much more efficiently and cheaply is now done in the Emergency Room on the public nickel.
The US public at the present time is politically unwilling to let granny die in the street. Yet since we are unwilling to make choices, the net result is that we spend 80% of our resources trying to keep people alive in the last 6 months of their lives. 50% of care expenses are consumed by 5% of patients. This is where the choices about what we are willing to pay for must be made, and will be made when things get bad enough.
The current fiscal trajectory will lead to national disintegration unless realistic reforms are enacted. The abolition of Medicare is not a realistic reform.
Uniform standards of care could provide the necessary foundation for the elimination of liability-induced redundant and unnecessary medical care, as well as wholesale tort reform. It also could significantly improve the outcomes and costs of the system as a whole, which at present is organized around the assumption that every doctor is equally qualified to make recommendations and decisions about what care is appropriate in every case.
A bare bones cost controlled single payer system would prevent the very worst outcomes for everyone, which at the present time amount to essentially unavoidable national ruin.

[T3goalie]

There is no right to health care. But there is a social obligation to do what is feasible. And there is a world of difference between the two.

Your premise is that there is a "social obligation"... Of whom? To whom? To what extent or scope? For what length of time? From where does this social obligation arise? Is it Biblical? Is it government prescribed? Is it permanent? Is it temporary? Is it bilateral? How is feasibility determined" Who determines such? Can one opt out? Is there an inherent obligation as in a debt to 3rd parties? Is it an obligation in a mandatory sense?

Does this include cradle to grave care? cell phones? contraception? abortion? food stamps? housing? Medicare? Medicaid? welfare?

Who is required to sacrifice and play lamb? Are there permanent recipients and permanent lambs?:huh:

[ChartsandGrafs]

A bare bones cost controlled single payer system would prevent the very worst outcomes for everyone, which at the present time amount to essentially unavoidable national ruin.

Have you ever considered the possibility that this - national ruin - is the entire goal?

Read. This.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51rw7Cy8fjL._SL500_.jpg

If avoiding national ruin truly is your goal, then your argument should be directed towards getting the government OUT of the health care equation, not further enmeshed in it. The government has no role in health care to begin with. This is the domain of charities and private foundations, not government.

You'll probably respond with something along the lines of, "but it's not politically possible or expedient to do that, and we're so far down the road to single-payer that there's no going back, so why bother", right? You want to somehow help steer a bad situation somewhere you believe is good and which can be done efficiently, right?

It's not going to happen. Disaster is and always has been the goal, and disaster is exactly what we are going to get. There simply aren't enough people standing up and calling this garbage for what it is.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Your premise is that there is a "social obligation"... Of whom? To whom? To what extent or scope? For what length of time? From where does this social obligation arise? Is it Biblical? Is it government prescribed? Is it permanent? Is it temporary? Is it bilateral? How is feasibility determined" Who determines such? Can one opt out? Is there an inherent obligation as in a debt to 3rd parties? Is it an obligation in a mandatory sense?

Does this include cradle to grave care? cell phones? contraception? abortion? food stamps? housing? Medicare? Medicaid? welfare?

Who is required to sacrifice and play lamb? Are there permanent recipients and permanent lambs?:huh:

Some of that was covered in the following responses. Then again, you probably already figured that out by now.

But I like your style anyway.

[T3goalie]

A bare bones cost controlled single payer system would prevent the very worst outcomes for everyone, which at the present time amount to essentially unavoidable national ruin.[/list][/QUOTE] :lie::lie::lie:

Welcome to Fantasy Island! LOL... Total Absolute BS.

[Minister_of_Information]

Have you ever considered the possibility that this - national ruin - is the entire goal?

Read. This.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51rw7Cy8fjL._SL500_.jpg

If avoiding national ruin truly is your goal, then your argument should be directed towards getting the government OUT of the health care equation, not further enmeshed in it. The government has no role in health care to begin with. This is the domain of charities and private foundations, not government.

You'll probably respond with something along the lines of, "but it's not politically possible or expedient to do that, and we're so far down the road to single-payer that there's no going back, so why bother", right? You want to somehow help steer a bad situation somewhere you believe is good and which can be done efficiently, right?

It's not going to happen. Disaster is and always has been the goal, and disaster is exactly what we are going to get. There simply aren't enough people standing up and calling this garbage for what it is.

Glenn Beck, is that you?

It might help you fellows out a bit if you stop to consider that the first societies were based in kinship: tribes. Typically limited in size to about 200 members. Basically there must be a critical mass of interpersonal relationships among the tribe members to prevent an inevitable fracture into two separate tribes (and the consequent severing of social bonds along with the likely commencement of mortal hostility over territory). It is in this context that the social instinct -- a felt obligation -- to assist one's fellow tribe members where appropriate existed for most of human history. If the family next door is short of food because the husband is sick and cannot hunt, the community will ensure that they do not starve. For those members who flout this meta-ethic sufficiently to the taste of the tribal members in accordance with their cultural mores, the ultimate outcome could be ostracism or even banishment. In a society that depends upon concerted economic action for survival, quite obviously this is a death sentence. So it is natural that reciprocal solidarity is a natural aspect of human socities, and though this solidarity is neither absolute nor illusory.

This sort of ethical dynamic underlies our most basic social functions where the individual gives way to the group: the creation and maintenance of an army of young men for military purposes, the administration of government and justice by the elders, the husbanding of common resources, and the redistribution of resources among the tribe in times of emergency. Private property and individual rights are a subset of this ethical milieu, and they exist conditionally as a consequence of this social organization. For how can one own property, unless it is in the eyes of a society that acknowledges ownership and is able to enforce this right? Rights that are inimical to society are not rights.

Now quite obviously, our society is a great deal larger and more abstract than these earlier social organizations like the tribe. And therein lies the problem: the social sanction and ostracism that serves as a check against the abuse of social generosity and good will depends upon personal rather than abstract knowledge of character. So obviously people look to abuse the system, and this puts the system as a whole in jeopardy. Some people may indeed hope for the destruction of society most earnestly in hopes that they can remake it anew, yet I believe that in the US the instinct to self-preservation on the part of the majority and our cultural inclination to individual liberty will outweigh whatever political obstructions these nihilists will place in the way. When the nation is about to be destroyed by debt, a consensus will arise that will, I believe, wash away all opposition. What it takes to get there is a matter for speculation.

Again, I reiterate my belief (based on data rather than ideology) that a single payer system can be significantly more efficient than anything that is likely to emerge from a private insurance system. And again, this is mostly because the care of the sick and the dying cannot be both ethical and profitable, because decisions about who lives and who dies cannot be pawned off on private enterprise. Protest all you like against this fact, but it is simply not ethically viable.

Despite the rosy views some hold for a bygone era, earlier systems of charity are simply no longer viable either in the modern world. The world in which charity was the only recourse was the world of Oliver Twist and The People of the Abyss (you should read the latter if you haven't). Most people lived in extended families surviving via subsistence agriculture, and those that fell through the cracks or ran into trouble in an urban setting made do with whatever assistance was available or starved to death. And this did happen as well. It is simply unconscionable that in a society imbued with the plenty we enjoy should resort to a system for supporting the unfortunate that wills that certain people starve to death, or else scrape by in abjectly miserable existences. Moreover the large cohabitating families that take care of the bulk of charity that begins at home simply no longer exist. If you want a highly mobile society based on nuclear families and isolated individuals, many more people are going to depend on charity than ever did before. This is why the charity systems could not cope with the misery surrounding the Great Depression. And things were so bad that if the government had not taken action, the Revolution you appear to be dreading might have occurred 80 years ago. So I think we should count our blessings and attempt to deal with reality as we find it, rather than as we might wish it to be.

[Minister_of_Information]

A bare bones cost controlled single payer system would prevent the very worst outcomes for everyone, which at the present time amount to essentially unavoidable national ruin.[/list] :lie::lie::lie:

Welcome to Fantasy Island! LOL... Total Absolute BS.

How can I argue with that intimidating font?

[T3goalie]

You can't. BS is BS in any font. "We are the world, we are the people... for everyone"

[Minister_of_Information]

In case I need to specify, "everyone" means all US citizens. So not sure what you're getting at.

[T3goalie]

Crystal clear MOI. Still nonsense.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Glenn Beck, is that you?



Time to get your eyes checked, Karl Marx. But don't worry, it's on me. After all, I have a "social(ist) obligation" to do so.

[Minister_of_Information]

Time to get your eyes checked, Karl Marx. But don't worry, it's on me. After all, I have a "social(ist) obligation" to do so.

Actually you do not have an obligation to help anyone receive eye care; in fact that is a great example of where the free market can triumph when given the chance. But, I wouldn't want to cloud up your black and white world with a bunch of gray.

PS Don't forget to check under your bed tonight, there might be a commie under there.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Actually you do not have an obligation to help anyone receive eye care; in fact that is a great example of where the free market can triumph when given the chance. But, I wouldn't want to cloud up your black and white world with a bunch of gray.

I'm so fortunate to have someone like you informing me on what social(ist) obligations I do and don't have.

Will you also be picking the gulag I reside in?

PS Don't forget to check under your bed tonight, there might be a commie under there.

Nah, I keep a plate of fresh garlic and a tub of holy water down there to keep 'em far away in Washington.

[gatorpa]

Yes it would, but then we'd have to be paying union like wages to workers for them to even begin to afford American health care, and you know how much you and most other TH posters would hate that.

American Healthcare costs so damn much in part because of the "I want everything" mentality coupled with the misconception that everything can be diagnosed with a test and that every ache, pain, sniffle needs to be treated by somebody.

[gatorpa]

It's a right by law, not because I have a concept, though I do approve of it. There are subsidized housing programs and I'm OK with them as well.

Do you contract to repair, build or remodel said subsidized housing?
Do you do any of the above for "low-income" customers?

How would you feel if the Gov told you that you must see a certain number for those customers? And decided what you could charge?

After all we all need good housing right?

[Minister_of_Information]

I'm so fortunate to have someone like you informing me on what social(ist) obligations I do and don't have.

Will you also be picking the gulag I reside in?



Nah, I keep a plate of fresh garlic and a tub of holy water down there to keep 'em far away in Washington.

I'm happy to help.

Out of curiousity, what is your ethical justification for military conscription and discipline?

[ChartsandGrafs]

I'm happy to help.

Out of curiousity, what is your ethical justification for military conscription and discipline?

Say what? Where did that line of questioning come from?

What makes you think I'd have any interest in attempting to justify military conscription and discipline?

[Minister_of_Information]

Say what? Where did that line of questioning come from?

What makes you think I'd have any interest in attempting to justify military conscription and discipline?

Do you agree that in times of emergency, it is ethical for the government to conscript men and subject them to military discipline in order to defend the nation?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Do you agree that in times of emergency, it is ethical for the government to conscript men and subject them to military discipline in order to defend the nation?

No, conscription is just another form of slavery, and I don't find slavery to be very ethical. If you have to enslave a man to defend something, then whatever you've enslaved him to defend is probably not worth fighting for anyway.

Just pretend I answered "yes" and continue on, though. I want to see where that was going.

[Minister_of_Information]

No, conscription is just another form of slavery, and I don't find slavery to be very ethical. If you have to enslave a man to defend something, then whatever you've enslaved him to defend is probably not worth fighting for anyway.

Just pretend I answered "yes" and continue on, though. I want to see where that was going.

Principles are written in blood: they cannot exist without the will to defend them. If social cooperation allows us the force to carve a dominion out of the state of nature and see it governed in accordance with our principles, and to thereby to collaboratively enjoy the fruits of liberty, then it is necessary to defend that society from existential threats to ensure our liberty. If we fail to defend our society from conquest by other societies, the principles we prefer to live by are moot.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Principles are written in blood: they cannot exist without the will to defend them. If social cooperation allows us the force to carve a dominion out of the state of nature and see it governed in accordance with our principles, and to thereby enjoy the fruits of liberty, then it is necessary to defend that society from existential threats. If we fail to defend our society from conquest by others, our principles are moot.

Wait, help me out here. I'm lost.

Was the above response inspired by what I said about military conscription as slavery, or is this where you were originally going to begin with? Because if it's the latter, then I don't understand what this has to do with any alleged social obligation to provide health and medical care to others.

Just say what you're trying to say. It's easier that way.

[Minister_of_Information]

If you are alleging that conscription is slavery, you are thereby discounting the idea that conscription serves the interests of the conscripted. The above reply illustrates otherwise.

[gatorpa]

If you are alleging that conscription is slavery, you are thereby discounting the idea that conscription serves the interests of the conscripted. The above reply illustrates otherwise.

But slavery may serve the interest of the enslaved as well. (If I go capture some poor soul living in poverty, bring him here and force them to be my maid/butler etc, yet house them, feed them and treat them kindly I certainly have assisted in improving their interests). Improving their quality of life by making them my slave and taking them from squaller does not negate the crime of enslaving them.

[ChartsandGrafs]

If you are alleging that conscription is slavery, you are thereby discounting the idea that conscription serves the interests of the conscripted. The above reply illustrates otherwise.

So, what you are saying, and correct me if I am wrong, is that slavery is OK as long as it serves what you believe are the interests of the conscripted, and this belief of yours supersedes the individual beliefs of those targeted for conscription? You believe that you, or some nameless group of people, through some corrupt political process, gets to make this determination for other individuals? Is that what you are saying?

Your previous response:

Principles are written in blood: they cannot exist without the will to defend them. If social cooperation allows us the force to carve a dominion out of the state of nature and see it governed in accordance with our principles, and to thereby enjoy the fruits of liberty, then it is necessary to defend that society from existential threats. If we fail to defend our society from conquest by others, our principles are moot.

I guess I am failing to see how this illustrates anything at all. A society is nothing more than a group of individuals, each having the choice to determine whether he or she believes that particular society is worth fighting and potentially dying for. It is not your decision to make, it is their decision. It is as simple as that. You have no business talking about the so-called "fruits of liberty" one second and then trying to to justify the forcing of people to serve interests not of their choosing the next.

Conscription, whether economic or military, is slavery. It makes hardly any difference whether it is a cotton field or a battlefield. There is no philosophical way around it.

[Minister_of_Information]

So, what you are saying, and correct me if I am wrong, is that slavery is OK as long as it serves what you believe are the interests of the conscripted, and this belief of yours supersedes the individual beliefs of those targeted for conscription? You believe that you, or some nameless group of people, through some corrupt political process, gets to make this determination for other individuals? Is that what you are saying?

Your previous response:



I guess I am failing to see how this illustrates anything at all. A society is nothing more than a group of individuals, each having the choice to determine whether he or she believes that particular society is worth fighting and potentially dying for. It is not your decision to make, it is their decision. It is as simple as that. You have no business talking about the so-called "fruits of liberty" one second and then trying to to justify the forcing of people to serve interests not of their choosing the next.

Conscription, whether economic or military, is slavery. It makes hardly any difference whether it is a cotton field or a battlefield. There is no philosophical way around it.

Yes you are wrong, and I am happy to correct you. Your premise is mistaken. Conscription is not slavery, it is conscription. Slavery is slavery, and it is never ethical. Conscription is ethical if it serves the interests of the conscripted. And if avoiding subjugation via conquest is in the interests of a free people, then conscription may also be in their interests (depending on circumstances). In order to be free, they must act according to a maxim that ensures that freedom is not interrupted by foreign subjugation, and that will require military force. And military force may require conscription.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Yes you are wrong, and I am happy to correct you. Your premise is mistaken. Conscription is not slavery, it is conscription. Slavery is slavery, and it is never ethical.

What's the essential difference between conscription and slavery? If I forcefully extract your labor from you, against your wishes, by making you spend your time fighting on a battlefield you don't want to be on or picking cotton in a field you don't want to be in, what's the difference? Either way, you're being forced to serve interests not of your choosing, while having your freedom, time, effort, and labor stripped away from you.

They're basically the same thing. Strip all the patriotic, nationalistic, and slave morality crap away, and both are the same, with the only differences being cosmetic in nature. One form of this slavery - conscription - serves a military function, while the other - chattel - serves an economic function. But since nearly all military actions have an economic component involved, it's very much accurate to classify conscription as a classic form of slavery as well.

I've seen all the best arguments on this subject and none of them hold up. But if you want to try, feel free.

Conscription is ethical if it serves the interests of the conscripted.

No it's not, and it never will be. It's never, ever ethical to force a man to serve interests not of his choosing. And no, you don't get to decide what a man's interests are, he does. You can disagree, and try to persuade him with your gift of gab, but you don't have a right to put a gun to his head and threaten his life to get him to do what you demand.

What's the matter with you?

And if avoiding subjugation via conquest is in the interests of a free people, then conscription may also be in their interests (depending on circumstances).

Hello! Being forced, at gunpoint, to serve interests not of your choosing is to be SUBJUGATED. It doesn't matter if the gun being pointed at you is being held by an enemy at the gates or your next door neighbor, the result is the same. In each case, it's just one group of people using guns to force another group of people to serve interests not of their choosing.

It's a crime either way you slice it.

In order to be free, they must act according to a maxim that ensures that freedom is not interrupted by foreign subjugation, and that will require military force. And military force may require conscription.

Look, dude, it's not "freedom" if people can legally force you to serve interests not of your choosing. If you put a gun to my head and tell me that I must carry a rifle to protect my freedom, I'll ask you, "if I truly enjoy the gift of freedom as you say, then wouldn't I have the freedom to make this choice for myself?".

Again, sorry to burst this bubble of yours, but conscription = slavery.

[Minister_of_Information]

I'm becoming accustomed to the observation that you are mistaken yet again. Freedom does not exist in an ideal plane devoid of struggle, or upon islands populated by solitary individuals; if it exists it must survive life on earth and the state of nature in which it finds itself. This state of nature is quite naturally the war of all upon all, and the war of all upon all is inimical to liberty. Liberty can only exist via the military cooperation of a society of individuals, who having conquered a particular territory and kept it secure from incursion, conspire to have their ethos enacted by virtue of this selfsame force of arms. So quite clearly, those who will that they live in a state of liberty, also will that they act in concert to defend that state when necessary, if they are to be self-consistent. The will to be free is the consent to collaborative defense of that freedom -- even if particular individuals fail to see the connection. And the defense of freedom may require conscription.

When it comes to slavery, of course, there can be no discussion of consent.

[Dreamliner]

Offhand I'd say that conscription is even worse than slavery. At least with slavery your owner didn't have you being killed or killing others in mind. It was in his best interest to keep you healthy.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I'm becoming accustomed to the observation that you are mistaken yet again. Freedom does not exist in an ideal plane devoid of struggle, or upon islands populated by solitary individuals; if it exists it must survive life on earth and the state of nature in which it finds itself. This state of nature is quite naturally the war of all upon all, and the war of all upon all is inimical to liberty. Liberty can only exist via the military cooperation of a society of individuals, who having conquered a particular territory and kept it secure from incursion, conspire to have their ethos enacted by virtue of this selfsame force of arms. So quite clearly, those who will that they live in a state of liberty, also will that they act in concert to defend that state when necessary, if they are to be self-consistent. The will to be free is the consent to collaborative defense of that freedom -- even if particular individuals fail to see the connection. And the defense of freedom may require conscription.

When it comes to slavery, of course, there can be no discussion of consent.

You're engaging in the same kind of basic contradiction Burke engages in. Burke claims robbery is wrong and a violation of individual rights, but Burke loves himself some government, and government can't exist without robbing people to finance its protection racket operation, so government robbery is OK, since the end justifies the means.

Here you are committing the same contradiction, but instead of robbery, it's forced servitude in the military.

The enemy is coming and wants to subjugate us and force us to serve interests not of our choosing! The enemy wants to violate our freedom! This makes them the "bad guys"! Minister of Information has just the solution! He proposes to subjugate his neighbor, and millions of others, and force him to carry a rifle and fight the enemy to the death. Yes, he proposes to force his neighbor to serve an interest not of his choosing and violate his neighbor's freedom.

So who's the real enemy in the above scenario? You both want to commit the same crime. You both want to subjugate your neighbor, force him to serve interests not of his choosing, and violate his freedom. Which enemy is worse? The stranger who's a thousand miles away that you can see approaching and prepare for, or the guy who says he is your friend while holding a gun to your back?

In my estimation, you're the enemy. You're the dishonest one. You speak in flowery language about liberty, freedom, and cooperation, but what you're really saying and what you really mean is force, slavery, servitude, and obligation. You believe you possess some right to determine what another man's interests are and you're willing to hold a gun to his head to make sure he pursues them. Worst of all, you're prepared to murder him if he doesn't, even if not by your own hand.

Tell me, are you typing any of this stuff out with a straight face, by chance?

[Minister_of_Information]

You're engaging in the same kind of basic contradiction Burke engages in. Burke claims robbery is wrong and a violation of individual rights, but Burke loves himself some government, and government can't exist without robbing people to finance its protection racket operation, so government robbery is OK, since the end justifies the means.

Here you are committing the same contradiction, but instead of robbery, it's forced servitude in the military.

The enemy is coming and wants to subjugate us and force us to serve interests not of our choosing! The enemy wants to violate our freedom! This makes them the "bad guys"! Minister of Information has just the solution! He proposes to subjugate his neighbor, and millions of others, and force him to carry a rifle and fight the enemy to the death. Yes, he proposes to force his neighbor to serve an interest not of his choosing and violate his neighbor's freedom.

So who's the real enemy in the above scenario? You both want to commit the same crime. You both want to subjugate your neighbor, force him to serve interests not of his choosing, and violate his freedom. Which enemy is worse? The stranger who's a thousand miles away that you can see approaching and prepare for, or the guy who says he is your friend while holding a gun to your back?

In my estimation, you're the enemy. You're the dishonest one. You speak in flowery language about liberty, freedom, and cooperation, but what you're really saying and what you really mean is force, slavery, servitude, and obligation. You believe you possess some right to determine what another man's interests are and you're willing to hold a gun to his head to make sure he pursues them. Worst of all, you're prepared to murder him if he doesn't, even if not by your own hand.

Tell me, are you typing any of this stuff out with a straight face, by chance?

Actually I'm smirking at the moment.

To quote the ever so mortal 2Pac: "I was given this world I didn't make it." Part of the will to live an ethical life is the will to see things as they are rather than as we would like them to be. If we want our lives to be lived in accordance with what is right, we must have the might to make it happen. Slavery wasn't ended by a bunch of flowery words, it was ended by men with guns and the will to use them. The end of slavery was the forceful imposition of Western values upon an unconsenting world. Later on the world came to agree, perhaps.

You can make the same observation about the American revolution itself. A plurality either favored the status quo or did not oppose it. Only a minority acted, overtly or covertly, to support the revolution. So should the minority eschew liberty when a majority prefer chains? Of course not. If people prefer to act in inconsistent ways or hold beliefs that are inconsistent with their ideals and interests, well that is more or less inevitable. But if they enjoy liberty and prefer to keep it, they have to be willing to defend it. If they object conscientiously let them carry the wounded and dead out of battle. If they actively undermine that defense of liberty, let them be tried and executed as traitors. This isn't how we would like things to be, but the fact is that the existence of liberty requires an army, and an army requires discipline. Maybe some day that will be different, but I doubt I will live to see it.

"Only the dead have seen the end of war." -- Plato

[ChartsandGrafs]

To quote the ever so mortal 2Pac: "I was given this world I didn't make it." Part of the will to live an ethical life is the will to see things as they are rather than as we would like them to be. If we want our lives to be lived in accordance with what is right, we must have the might to make it happen. Slavery wasn't ended by a bunch of flowery words, it was ended by men with guns and the will to use them.

Really? If slavery ended, why does the government have a primary claim over your labor and extract a sizable portion of it through threats and violence via the income tax?

Slavery never ended, it just morphed and changed hands from the private to the public sector.

The end of slavery was the forceful imposition of Western values upon an unconsenting world. Later on the world came to agree, perhaps.

LOL, Western values. Fantasy land stuff.

You can make the same observation about the American revolution itself. A plurality either favored the status quo or did not oppose it. Only a minority acted, overtly or covertly, to support the revolution.

American Revolution = Government Mafia turf war

Basically just two groups of rich people fighting over who was going to have the supreme legal authority to rule over and exploit the growing pool of highly productive American peasants.

So should the minority eschew liberty when a majority prefer chains? Of course not. If people prefer to act in inconsistent ways or hold beliefs that are inconsistent with their ideals and interests, well that is more or less inevitable. But if they enjoy liberty and prefer to keep it, they have to be willing to defend it. If they object conscientiously let them carry the wounded and dead out of battle. If they active undermine that defense of liberty, let them be tried and executed as traitors. This isn't how we would like things to be, but the fact is that the existence of liberty requires an army, and an army requires discipline. Maybe some day that will be different, but I doubt I will live to see it.

"Only the dead have seen the end of war." -- Plato

More contradictory nonsense. What you're describing isn't a society based on true liberty or freedom. What you're really describing is a slave morality society where one group of men gets to determine the interests of another group of men and has the legal authority to force them to serve interests not of their choosing.

There's nothing about such a society that's worth defending, which is why no man has the right to force himself on others. The only society worth defending is the kind of society where every man is free to act and make his own decisions, as long as those actions and decisions don't violate the rights of other men.

Can you or can you not construct an argument justifying your slave morality society that doesn't rest upon a giant, white elephant contradiction?

[Minister_of_Information]

Can you construct an argument that doesn't rely on begging the question?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Can you construct an argument that doesn't rely on begging the question?

Sure, just as soon as you stop contradicting yourself.

[Minister_of_Information]

Sure, just as soon as you stop contradicting yourself.

There's a difference between a paradox and a contradiction.

[ChartsandGrafs]

There's a difference between a paradox and a contradiction.

Sure, but what you're proposing is no paradox. It's not even close to a paradox. It's a textbook contradiction.

True freedom means the freedom to make one's own decisions in both life and in death. True freedom means self-ownership of one's life and one's body. You're advocating involuntary, forced servitude here. You're advocating that one man can dictate to another man what his best interests are. And your whole justification for this is based on the most obvious of contradictions, that freedom and liberty must be sacrificed to protect freedom and liberty.

The contradiction can't possibly be any more obvious.

[Minister_of_Information]

Sure, but what you're proposing is no paradox. It's not even close to a paradox. It's a textbook contradiction.

True freedom means the freedom to make one's own decisions in both life and in death. True freedom means self-ownership of one's life and one's body. You're advocating involuntary, forced servitude here. You're advocating that one man can dictate to another man what his best interests are. And your whole justification for this is based on the most obvious of contradictions, that freedom and liberty must be sacrificed to protect freedom and liberty.

The contradiction can't possibly be any more obvious.

A man's will to be free is his will to defend that freedom. He cannot have one without the other. A man that has decided to be free has already made his choice.

[ChartsandGrafs]

A man's will to be free is his will to defend that freedom. He cannot have one without the other.

Who gets to decide that for him, though?

You or him?

[Minister_of_Information]

I did not decide it, I am merely reporting it.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I did not decide it, I am merely reporting it.

Cop out.

You know you don't need to report anything to me. I know the score. You agree with it, but don't like having to come up with answers for it.

Cognitive dissonance, perhaps?

[Row6]

The leftists can disagree all they like, or preach that an outcome has to be guaranteed -- that changes nothing. Triage is as ancient as caring for the sick, and people have an inherent sense of when efforts are wasted and therefore when they should be limited. When the choice is between survival and the sick and the dying, the sick and dying will be left behind. To die.

That feeling -- and it is a feeling -- that prompts you to help a helpless person is what I am describing. Perhaps you don't feel it, but you are definitely in the minority. It is the judgment of how to act upon this feeling that is what is up for grabs, not the feeling itself.

The problem with dogmatic ideology regardless of whatever virtues it possesses is that there is always some circumstance where it leads to a conclusion that is absolutely false. And in this case the dogmatic ideology that the free market is a panacea for all social problems (and to hell with those that it does not cure) ignores a few realities:

Care for the sick and the dying can never be done both ethically and profitably. It is only profitable to insure young healthy people who don't need much care -- unless you think insurance companies should be able to decide who is going to be treated and who is going to be allowed to die. Ethical decisions of this magnitude are not viable in commercial hands, they require political sanction.
We already have a tacit single payer system -- Medicare -- that bridges all of the cost gaps with what is effectively a blank check. This system has no cost controlls.
Most industrialized nations provide better health care to most citizens at about 2/3 of our cost per capita.
The US public at the present time is politically unwilling to turn away people at the Emergency Room door. This is the foundation of the "back door" single payer -- basic care for the uninsured that could be achieved much more efficiently and cheaply is now done in the Emergency Room on the public nickel.
The US public at the present time is politically unwilling to let granny die in the street. Yet since we are unwilling to make choices, the net result is that we spend 80% of our resources trying to keep people alive in the last 6 months of their lives. 50% of care expenses are consumed by 5% of patients. This is where the choices about what we are willing to pay for must be made, and will be made when things get bad enough.
The current fiscal trajectory will lead to national disintegration unless realistic reforms are enacted. The abolition of Medicare is not a realistic reform.
Uniform standards of care could provide the necessary foundation for the elimination of liability-induced redundant and unnecessary medical care, as well as wholesale tort reform. It also could significantly improve the outcomes and costs of the system as a whole, which at present is organized around the assumption that every doctor is equally qualified to make recommendations and decisions about what care is appropriate in every case.
A bare bones cost controlled single payer system would prevent the very worst outcomes for everyone, which at the present time amount to essentially unavoidable national ruin.

Good post.