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

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

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]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

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]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Most industrialized nations provide better health care to most citizens at about 2/3 of our cost per capita.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. The current fiscal trajectory will lead to national disintegration unless realistic reforms are enacted. The abolition of Medicare is not a realistic reform.
7. 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.
8. 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Read. This.


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]

Originally Posted by T3goalie

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?

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]

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

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

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

Read. This.


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]

Originally Posted by T3goalie

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]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

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]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

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]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

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]

Originally Posted by Row6

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]

Originally Posted by Row6

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]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

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]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

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?