Health Care: Right, Privilege or Responsibility

[Tonka Time]

all 3, and o doyle rules !

 

[Cythraul]

"Hey, leave that guy alone who thinks Hitler should have taken over the world and eradicated the Jews from the planet. He just has a different opinion than yours."

Yeah but that's a good opinion.

Btw, I voted 'privilege' because I'm an asshole.

 

[Cythraul]

You seem to think that pure capitalism is inherently the fairest possible way to run an economy, but you are ignoring the fact that people with more assets automatically have an unfair advantage over people with fewer assets.

So let me see what you're implying here:

(1) That because I possess an unfair advantage (presumably because the higher degree of wealth and opportunities available to me are not deserved in any ordinary sense), somebody else who's less advantaged has a legitimate claim against me.

And, not exactly implied by your statement but something I presume you'd agree with:

(2) That the mere existence of an inequality of the sort described above constitutes grounds for state intervention in redistributing wealth to mitigate said inequality.

Alright, so what's your justification for (1)? Suppose I marry a woman who rejected a previous suitor for my better looks, higher intelligence, etc. Presumably I am in no ordinary sense deserving of my "unfair" advantage over this other fellow. But does this "unfair" advantage give him a legitimate reason for complaint against me? I would say no, and I would like to think that nobody has the right to force me to mitigate the inequality here.

What's your justification for (2)? Presumably there are principles of justice and fairness in the acquisition and transfer of wealth. One of these would presumably be that acquisition or transfer of wealth by means of coercion is unjust and thus illegitimate. So, assuming that, say, A's wealth is acquired legitimately, and A's wealth is greater than B's, how does the mere fact of that inequality justify an illegitimate transfer of A's wealth to B, i.e. redistribution through coercion?

Partial redistribution of wealth is the only way society can compensate for the lack of opportunity that poor people have relative to rich people.

Maybe so, but that doesn't entail that coercive means of redistribution are justified. This is where we make a distinction between what is morally right and what constitutes just practices on the part of the state.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

So let me see what you're implying here:

(1) That because I possess an unfair advantage (presumably because the higher degree of wealth and opportunities available to me are not deserved in any ordinary sense), somebody else who's less advantaged has a legitimate claim against me.

And, not exactly implied by your statement but something I presume you'd agree with:

(2) That the mere existence of an inequality of the sort described above constitutes grounds for state intervention in redistributing wealth to mitigate said inequality.

Alright, so what's your justification for (1)? Suppose I marry a woman who rejected a previous suitor for my better looks, higher intelligence, etc. Presumably I am in no ordinary sense deserving of my "unfair" advantage over this other fellow. But does this "unfair" advantage give him a legitimate reason for complaint against me? I would say no, and I would like to think that nobody has the right to force me to mitigate the inequality here.

What's your justification for (2)? Presumably there are principles of justice and fairness in the acquisition and transfer of wealth. One of these would presumably be that acquisition or transfer of wealth by means of coercion is unjust and thus illegitimate. So, assuming that, say, A's wealth is acquired legitimately, and A's wealth is greater than B's, how does the mere fact of that inequality justify an illegitimate transfer of A's wealth to B, i.e. redistribution through coercion?

My justification for (1):

(P1) In order for someone to have a reasonable opportunity for social and economic advancement, they must be able to afford important services such as health care and education. This opportunity for advancement has a great effect on one's quality of life.

(P2) By P1, someone without a reasonable opportunity for advancement has a greatly lower quality of life than that of someone with this opportunity.

(P3) Although services like education and health care are not affordable to some people of limited means, they are well within the means of the U.S. as a whole if the funding for them is pooled by all U.S. citizens.

(P4) By P3, pooling one's money with all other U.S. citizens to fund services like education and health care does not have a serious adverse effect on one's quality of life, even if one suffers a net loss of money due to the public funding.

(P5) By P2 and P4, the disadvantage to those who suffer a net loss of money due to public funding is far outweighed by the benefit to those who could not otherwise afford the public services.

Also, the case of the woman who dumps the less desirable suitor does not apply to this situation. Even if you assume that the more desirable suitor has an unfair advantage, most people would agree that people have the right to choose their spouses, and for any sort of coercive intervention of that sort to occur would be a much more serious harm (i.e. from not being free to choose one's spouse) than government redistribution of wealth toward certain public services would be to those who suffer a net loss from them.

As to (2), the mere existence of an inequality does not constitute grounds for state redistribution of wealth, because there is always a risk that such redistribution could cause enough of a net loss to the wealthy that it cripples economic freedom and destroys people's hopes of achieving greatness. Redistribution of wealth should only occur if it does not put those values at risk. The United States, however, is a prosperous enough nation that publicly funding education and health care does not put those values at risk.

Maybe so, but that doesn't entail that coercive means of redistribution are justified. This is where we make a distinction between what is morally right and what constitutes just practices on the part of the state.

The moral risk of coercive redistribution toward certain publicly-funded services is far outweighed by the moral risk of leaving a significant portion of the U.S. population without those services.

 

[Cythraul]

My justification for (1):

(P1) In order for someone to have a reasonable opportunity for social and economic advancement, they must be able to afford important services such as health care and education. This opportunity for advancement has a great effect on one's quality of life.

(P2) By P1, someone without a reasonable opportunity for advancement has a greatly lower quality of life than that of someone with this opportunity.

(P3) Although services like education and health care are not affordable to some people of limited means, they are well within the means of the U.S. as a whole if the funding for them is pooled by all U.S. citizens.

(P4) By P3, pooling one's money with all other U.S. citizens to fund services like education and health care does not have a serious adverse effect on one's quality of life, even if one suffers a net loss of money due to the public funding.

(P5) By P2 and P4, the disadvantage to those who suffer a net loss of money due to public funding is far outweighed by the benefit to those who could not otherwise afford the public services.

I think I agree with P1-P5, but I don't think the argument establishes what you want it to. The argument at the very least would establish that the advantaged have an imperfect duty to pool their resources to help the disadvantaged. But that does not entail that the state has a right to violate its perfect duty not to take the property of its citizens without their consent. Why would considerations of utility override a state's perfect duties towards its citizens? You can certainly make that argument, but surely such an argument would license all sorts of violations of duty. At any rate, I would say that rights and their corresponding perfect duties do not even gain their justification from considerations of utility, so why should I believe that such considerations render them nullified?

Also, the case of the woman who dumps the less desirable suitor does not apply to this situation. Even if you assume that the more desirable suitor has an unfair advantage, most people would agree that people have the right to choose their spouses, and for any sort of coercive intervention of that sort to occur would be a much more serious harm (i.e. from not being free to choose one's spouse) than government redistribution of wealth toward certain public services would be to those who suffer a net loss from them.

Do you really want to make these sorts of arguments about comparative utility? Do you really want to accept the consequences of a view which maintains that the proscription on violating perfect duties is somehow abrogated by considerations of utility? Again, I would say that rights and their corresponding perfect duties do not even gain their justification from considerations of utility, so why should I believe that such considerations render them nullified?

I think you and I are having a fundamental disagreement about what justifies actions, so I don't think all your talk about comparative utility nor my bleating on about rights and duties is going to sway either one of us.

As to (2), the mere existence of an inequality does not constitute grounds for state redistribution of wealth, because there is always a risk that such redistribution could cause enough of a net loss to the wealthy that it cripples economic freedom and destroys people's hopes of achieving greatness. Redistribution of wealth should only occur if it does not put those values at risk. The United States, however, is a prosperous enough nation that publicly funding education and health care does not put those values at risk.

See my replies above.

The moral risk of coercive redistribution toward certain publicly-funded services is far outweighed by the moral risk of leaving a significant portion of the U.S. population without those services.

What is a moral risk? By my lights, there are no grounds for the state to enforce imperfect duties; such actions violate one's autonomy and are a rank violation of a state's perfect duties. Keep in mind, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the idea that the wealthy have a moral obligation to helped those less advantaged.

 

[SentinelSlain]

Are you implying that me saying that is me trying to cover up my own immorality?

indeed

 

[SentinelSlain]

I don't see the relevance of the more desirable mate thing. The whole money system is an artificial thing, not really something that comes under what you are naturally born with. People did and could exist without it. Being rich isn't part of who you are as a person, you can just look at the emptiness that goes with it and judge a person on that.

 

[Dak]

I am thankful that the pilgrims and pioneers didn't have the attitude that seems so prevelant across the western world now.

They didn't get in their wagons and small wooden ships after being garunteed universal hurricane insurance or universal indian insurance, or even health insurance for that matter.

Your statements, vihris, have nothing to do with answering the statement that [forced help from someone in the form of social programs amounts to nothing other than legalized theft]. As far as I am concerned, anyone who wants Government assistance for something other than general public assistance (IE: Police/Military etc) is deplorably weak and lazy, and those who don't need but still clamour to "help the less fortunate" are just as lazy for not starting a charity etc themselves. To want the Govt to do for you or to do for someone else makes you nothing more than a life-sucking virus on the productive element in society.

I overall agree with Cythrauls post so I won't re-iterate the whole thing but:

What is a moral risk? By my lights, there are no grounds for the state to enforce imperfect duties; such actions violate one's autonomy and are a rank violation of a state's perfect duties. Keep in mind, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the idea that the wealthy have a moral obligation to helped those less advantaged.

Agree. I personally believe those who are in better standing should help the less fortunate.....but they should NOT be forced to, or have it forcibly done for them by a governing entity. It must be voluntary.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

But they won't do it if it's voluntary, because people are fucking assholes. If we can't trust the most respected bankers and CEOs in America with not being greedy fucking pieces of shit, why should we trust them with helping the smaller people. You are fucking stupid.

 

[AchrisK]

But they won't do it if it's voluntary, because people are fucking assholes. If we can't trust the most respected bankers and CEOs in America with not being greedy fucking pieces of shit, why should we trust them with helping the smaller people. You are fucking stupid.

But some people do. A lot of "religious" organizations do a lot of charity work. A lot of churches take care of families within them that are in trouble. A lot of people (mostly conservatives) give a lot of money to a lot of causes that actually help people. A lot of bleeding heart liberals keep all of their own money and do not practice what they seem to preach. They want the government to practice what they preach, but for them it's all "me me me". Of course these are generalizations and are not always true.

If you think he is stupid because he disagrees with you, then you're narrow minded.

 

[Dak]

But they won't do it if it's voluntary, because people are fucking assholes. If we can't trust the most respected bankers and CEOs in America with not being greedy fucking pieces of shit, why should we trust them with helping the smaller people. You are fucking stupid.

Your post amounts to nothing more than "verbal defecation". How do you know no one would do it? No one has any incentive to donate now other than tax breaks because the Govt is already [attempting] to help. Lets say you're right and no one would help the less fortunate. SO FUCKING WHAT? Tough shit. That still isn't a legit arguement for legalizing theft. Personal fucking responsibility.....how many times am I going to have to repeat it?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Your post amounts to nothing more than "verbal defecation". How do you know no one would do it? No one has any incentive to donate now other than tax breaks because the Govt is already [attempting] to help. Lets say you're right and no one would help the less fortunate. SO FUCKING WHAT? Tough shit. That still isn't a legit arguement for legalizing theft. Personal fucking responsibility.....how many times am I going to have to repeat it?

Didn't you just acknowledge that people with more assets have an unfair advantage? Apparently the basic economic facts I pointed out to you earlier just went right over your head. "Legalising theft", as you call it, is no worse than letting the rich control the economy and keep the poor barely scraping by to survive. THAT is theft - theft of opportunity.

And this "personal responsibility" line is ridiculous, because poor people are not wilfully putting themselves in the situation they're in. Most people who are poor were born poor. It's extremely hard to rise from poverty, and to write off their situation as primarily due to laziness is patently ignorant.

 

[Dak]

Didn't you just acknowledge that people with more assets have an unfair advantage? Apparently the basic economic facts I pointed out to you earlier just went right over your head. "Legalising theft", as you call it, is no worse than letting the rich control the economy and keep the poor barely scraping by to survive. THAT is theft - theft of opportunity.

And this "personal responsibility" line is ridiculous, because poor people are not wilfully putting themselves in the situation they're in. Most people who are poor were born poor. It's extremely hard to rise from poverty, and to write off their situation as primarily due to laziness is patently ignorant.

It still doesn't matter. The idea that everyone deserves to start with and maintain the same amount of assets is communist at its core. You did not state basic economic facts ,merely economic opinion, other than the fact that yes those with more money [omg amazingly] have better odds of making it.

Being able to say "so what, play the fucking hand you are dealt" is not ignorant, it's being a responsible, accept no excuses productive member of society.
Your insistance that it is ok to play Robin Hood because some people have it harder in life is based off of a lifetime of socialistic brainwashing aimed at turning everyone eventually into wards of the state.
When will you get it through your head that no one deserves shit other than what they earn, regardless of the difficulty of obtaining it versus someone else.
The fact that you find personal responsibility rediculous says everything.So what if poor people were born poor? I have yet to see any kind of convincing evidence that social programs manage to do anymore than keep them alive and functioning, as opposed to allowing them to "go to the next level". The large majority of people on a handout never get off it. Its too easy, its FUCKING FREE, why should they work to be better?

Edit: "theft of opportunity" I got a great laugh out of this one. Why don't you move to a North Korea get an eye opening lesson on what theft of opportunity really is.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Being able to say "so what, play the fucking hand you are dealt" is not ignorant, it's being a responsible, accept no excuses productive member of society.

orly

 

[skeptik]

As a citizen of the United States, you agree to pay taxes in order for the government to properly govern and to govern fairly. Part of the government's moral obligation to its citizens is to at least attempt to rectify injustices inherent in the system, so to say that paying taxes into welfare programs is "legalized theft" is, from the horse's own mouth (or ass, rather), "verbal defecation", as you have already agreed to contribute to welfare programs by being a taxpaying citizen. You can hardly be burglarized of what you have already consented to contribute.

 

[AchrisK]

Whether his extreme views have any validity when applied to a country full of humans is a question, but I agree with the sentiment. The way it should work is that people take care of themselves and their (extended) families and take responsibility for their actions. What seems to have happened is that by starting to be the nanny, the US has created an expectancy that has led to apathy and a mindset of entitlement. That along with moral decay and the subsequent breakdown of the family as the foundation of the US population have led us to our current state.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

It still doesn't matter. The idea that everyone deserves to start with and maintain the same amount of assets is communist at its core. You did not state basic economic facts ,merely economic opinion, other than the fact that yes those with more money [omg amazingly] have better odds of making it.

Being able to say "so what, play the fucking hand you are dealt" is not ignorant, it's being a responsible, accept no excuses productive member of society.
Your insistance that it is ok to play Robin Hood because some people have it harder in life is based off of a lifetime of socialistic brainwashing aimed at turning everyone eventually into wards of the state.
When will you get it through your head that no one deserves shit other than what they earn, regardless of the difficulty of obtaining it versus someone else.
The fact that you find personal responsibility rediculous says everything.So what if poor people were born poor? I have yet to see any kind of convincing evidence that social programs manage to do anymore than keep them alive and functioning, as opposed to allowing them to "go to the next level". The large majority of people on a handout never get off it. Its too easy, its FUCKING FREE, why should they work to be better?

Edit: "theft of opportunity" I got a great laugh out of this one. Why don't you move to a North Korea get an eye opening lesson on what theft of opportunity really is.

1. What you have is not automatically what you deserve. How many different ways do I have to say this? It's quite ironic that you keep saying nobody deserves anything, yet you happen to make an exception for people who already have money. They don't deserve what they have anymore than someone who has nothing does. If you're going to take up such double standards as this, you need to explain why someone who already has money deserves it more than someone who has nothing - and good fucking luck doing that.

2. I said absolutely nothing about equalising assets completely. Once again you misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not talking about communism, and I certainly don't support it. I'm saying a balance between pure communism and pure capitalism is the best way to operate a society, and none of your morally apathetic "you're on your own" ideology is an acceptable counterargument to that.

3. I did not say personal responsibility is ridiculous. Congratulations, you have twisted my words around to suit your extremist worldview once again. I said your use of the term "personal responsibility" is inaccurate because you assume that responsibility is the only thing that matters in getting ahead, when it clearly is not.

4. The whole fucking point of social programs IS to keep people alive and functioning. Being alive and functional is a requirement for most people to advance socially, aside from those who experience dumb luck on the order of finding an oil spout in their backyard. It doesn't even matter if poor people on a handout start fewer companies and make fewer scientific discoveries on average than well-off people do. As long as keeping those people alive and functional is well within the means of society as a whole, doing so can only result in greater overall prosperity for that society. Prosperity doesn't come from letting 1% of the population hoard all the money to themselves instead of using it to stimulate the economy.

5. Theft of opportunity is a perfect description of what pure capitalism results in. You hypocritically assert that people only deserve the money they have, and not the opportunity to make money as well. I have yet to hear you explain this double standard.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

One other thing, Dakryn: how is what you're saying any different from saying that nobody deserves life, freedom and safety? I could just as well assert, like you have, that none of these rights "matter" in society, and that we'd get by just fine if we let the most powerful among us rule the world by force and make everyone else their slaves. I don't see any major difference between this and what you're saying.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I think I agree with P1-P5, but I don't think the argument establishes what you want it to. The argument at the very least would establish that the advantaged have an imperfect duty to pool their resources to help the disadvantaged. But that does not entail that the state has a right to violate its perfect duty not to take the property of its citizens without their consent. Why would considerations of utility override a state's perfect duties towards its citizens? You can certainly make that argument, but surely such an argument would license all sorts of violations of duty. At any rate, I would say that rights and their corresponding perfect duties do not even gain their justification from considerations of utility, so why should I believe that such considerations render them nullified?

You seem to assume that the state has a perfect duty not to take the property of its citizens without their consent. Surely nobody questions that this is acceptable in the case of national defense. I don't think you can define what the state's perfect duty is so conveniently. I would think that considerations of overall utility would necessarily fit within that duty somewhere.

Do you really want to make these sorts of arguments about comparative utility? Do you really want to accept the consequences of a view which maintains that the proscription on violating perfect duties is somehow abrogated by considerations of utility? Again, I would say that rights and their corresponding perfect duties do not even gain their justification from considerations of utility, so why should I believe that such considerations render them nullified?

I think you and I are having a fundamental disagreement about what justifies actions, so I don't think all your talk about comparative utility nor my bleating on about rights and duties is going to sway either one of us.

Ignoring the point about the state's perfect duty for a moment, of which I need a better explanation from you, let me address the issue of comparative utility.

I'm not exactly sure what the definition of "utility" is, so you may have to help me with that. I assume it to mean something which is in the best interest of someone - and, by extension, that overall utility is that which is in the best interest of everyone combined.

If that's the case, maximising overall utility must necessarily involve a balance between reducing harm and protecting freedom. I say "balance" because these two aims often conflict with each other (i.e. giving people the freedom to own guns, even though they result in more overall harm to society).

Given that, comparing the overall utility of two different possible social policies naturally involves some degree of ambiguity and arbitrariness, so it's difficult if not impossible to evaluate all possible social policies this way; but there are certain ones, such as the issues of public education and health care, where the comparative utility is quite easy to determine.

What is a moral risk? By my lights, there are no grounds for the state to enforce imperfect duties; such actions violate one's autonomy and are a rank violation of a state's perfect duties. Keep in mind, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the idea that the wealthy have a moral obligation to helped those less advantaged.

Never mind the term "moral risk". "Overall utility" is most likely a better one.

 

[Cythraul]

And this "personal responsibility" line is ridiculous, because poor people are not wilfully putting themselves in the situation they're in. Most people who are poor were born poor. It's extremely hard to rise from poverty, and to write off their situation as primarily due to laziness is patently ignorant.

So then the idea is that because the poor have never at any point consented to their lot in life, and because they've never done anything deserving of said lot, it is therefore unjust to perpetuate a system which keeps them in this position. Presumably, if they had agreed to their lot in life, then perpetuating this system would not be unjust. Well then, according to that reasoning I can just as well support my and Dakryn's position. Suppose my wealth is regularly redistributed to help the poor. Now presumably I did nothing to deserve having my money taken away from me against my consent (not on any sane interpretation of desert, that is), assuming of course that my wealth was not acquired illegitimately. But add to this the further condition that I do not consent to these transfers of wealth. Then to perpetuate such an arrangement would presumably be unjust!

I'll get to your response to my previous post a little later.