The Second Coming of the Great Political Thread

[The Ozzman]

Then what's the incentive for the people to remain having low medical costs?

 

[cookiecutter]

Not having a crippling medical condition...

 

[skeptik]

Nobody wants to fucking get sick. Nobody wants to NEED to use their health care plan. Of course health care isn't "a basic human right" because "basic human rights" don't exist. But part of the 'social contract' of living in a society is protection, and that includes one's own well-being from non-human conflicts, including injuries and diseases.

 

[Pessimism]

Life is a right. Health care is essential to maintain life. I can't imagine how people come to the conclusion that only people with money deserve decent health care.

The great thing about this post is that the entire foundation of modern medicine's ethos is to better human life no matter what. Which is the prime reason why most hospitals will treat people whose lives are threatened even if they are to get no money from such treatment in the end.


This is of course assuming that humanitarian views of life, or that life itself is of a qualifiable worth are indeed true (or at least held as truth for the "betterment" of society/species.

You can argue for or against any of these things quite easily.



edit: good post Nec and Master.

 

[cookiecutter]

Of course health care isn't "a basic human right" because "basic human rights" don't exist. But part of the 'social contract' of living in a society is protection, and that includes one's own well-being from non-human conflicts, including injuries and diseases.

When I say basic human right this is what I mean.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Life is a right. Health care is essential to maintain life. I can't imagine how people come to the conclusion that only people with money deserve decent health care.

In the interpretation of basic human rights that I'm familiar with, none of those rights involve having a right to free resources. I'll agree that life is a right, but only inasmuch as other people aren't directly interfering with your right. It's still your responsibility to take care of yourself.

I don't think providing health care to the needy is an inherently bad idea, but not everybody in this world believes they have an obligation to give their money/resources to other people with whom they have no connection. There's some value in individual autonomy that's violated by universal health care - by being obligated to pull the weight of people you would never even consider helping otherwise.

That's the reason why most charity is optional in the world. If you feel you need to contribute to the needy, then that's great. But some of us just want to run our own lives.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

You'd run into a ton of problems if full-time work was the criteria. For one, there are always people who are transitionally unemployed, which is a natural occurrence that no one should be punished for. Then there are those who have lost work due to outsourcing or layoffs, and also can't really be considered deadbeats either. Then you've got housewives who either work part-time or not at all. College students and grad students are in a gray area as well. Then you've got retirees. How are you going to distinguish between people who have actually retired, and those 40-60 year olds who lost a job and stopped looking.

I would also say that people with high medical costs should be the first ones to get federal aid. There are some conditions that no person can reasonably be expected to pay for. The average person does not incur excessive expense for most of their life. If someone has to pay for their care, it should be those with very low costs.

Good points. My criteria could probably use a little work. But the basic idea was a compromise between the liberal viewpoint (minimising suffering) and the conservative viewpoint (maximising personal autonomy).

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Nobody wants to fucking get sick. Nobody wants to NEED to use their health care plan. Of course health care isn't "a basic human right" because "basic human rights" don't exist. But part of the 'social contract' of living in a society is protection, and that includes one's own well-being from non-human conflicts, including injuries and diseases.

Isn't the social contract idea supposed to be simply to not interfere with other people's lives (i.e. not kill, steal, or harm) as much as possible?

 

[MasterOLightning]

Good points. My criteria could probably use a little work. But the basic idea was a compromise between the liberal viewpoint (minimising suffering) and the conservative viewpoint (maximising personal autonomy).

A better approach would be to provide care to all taxpayers. Since a good tax system demands all to be equally burdened by taxes, everyone would be making an equal sacrifice in order to have health care provided. This would minimize abuse by illegals, which conservatives are always so concerned about. Even then, there are problems concerning emergency care, or illegals choosing not to be treated for risk of deportation (which actually happens now, I believe).

Part of the idea of the social contract involves giving up some degree of autonomy for the betterment of all. If people refrained from taxation and respected property rights to the extreme, there would never be things like purified public water sources that are clearly great for everybody. We would never have such systems unless people forfeited some property rights. And really, how is protecting people from being assaulted or killed any different from protecting them from bad water, or protecting them from illness? A libertarian system would see that a government agent prevents a potential murder, or breaks up a fight that could lead to injury. Of course this comes at an expense. Yet it is somehow different when people are threatened by disease, and the expense is no longer justified? I don't know what kind of person feels that people should be protected from harm at the hands of man only, but not from an illness.

Doesn't the word "social" have some connotation of, you know, people interacting together? Too often the libertarian viewpoint seems to be concerned with allowing people to live in a bubble, free from anything they don't want.

 

[The Ozzman]

No one should have to forfeit property rights. Absolutely no one (unless there's a damn good reason for it, like failure to pay your rent, arrest, etc). Therein lies a dilemma, because I think everyone should have a place to live and be able to own it, whether it's a house or an apartment or whatever.

Health care isn't a need because, as Dodens said, no one WANTS to get sick. You buy insurance IN CASE you get sick. The same goes for home insurance or fire insurance, but we obviously don't have rights to either.

 

[cookiecutter]

I think you misunderstood Dodens' point. He said people don't want to get sick in response to you suggesting that people would purposefully get sick more often because they didn't have to pay for it, which obviously is absurd.

Health insurance is different from home insurance because not everyone has home, and even if they do, it is just a thing, not a human. Everyone has a body that can get and will get sick or injured. Helping people is far more important than helping someone's house.

 

[The Ozzman]

Well, my point was not that people would get purposely sicker more often so they wouldn't have to pay for it. That's not what I was implying. I was referring to this quote from MoL:

I would also say that people with high medical costs should be the first ones to get federal aid. There are some conditions that no person can reasonably be expected to pay for. The average person does not incur excessive expense for most of their life. If someone has to pay for their care, it should be those with very low costs.

and then my subsequent response:

Then what's the incentive for the people to remain having low medical costs?

I interpreted 'cost' as 'how much you pay for your premiums/insurance policy' not 'how often do you get sick?' or 'do you have a debilitating illness?' I mean, I'm not going to go out and get Emphysema just because it would increase my health care costs and, subsequently in MoL's argument, be paid for by the government. That's the stupid thing to do, especially in a very healthy person's case.

I was taking it as, if we're going by policy premiums and such, what would be the point of having a low-cost health insurance policy or premium when you could just get a very expensive one and have the government pay for it?

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[cookiecutter]

I think part of government funded medicine implies that it is free to use, but you pay more taxes so there are no policies or premiums.

 

[The Ozzman]

The extra taxes are, in essence, the implied premium or the cost of care for the year

TANSTAAFL

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

 

[skeptik]

Everybody pays the same. And you're not paying CHARITY for OTHER PEOPLE'S HALTH CARE. You're paying TAXES for YOUR OWN FUCKING HEALTH CARE. You don't seem to be realizing that. You contributing the same amount as every other tax payer (depending on whether it's state or federal of course) for the same exact service, so how it is all of a sudden 'charity' to pay taxes for you own health care I'm not quite following. Just because the money goes into a larger pool that distributes health care to all publicly rather than privately doesn't somehow magically turn it into charity.

Oh and you apparently don't realize just how much 'property rights' you're giving up every day of your life just by living in society. If you're so concerned about property rights, you'd better find a secluded and uninhabited island to mark as your own and defend for yourself, otherwise you're compromising your rights.

 

[The Ozzman]

I would also say that people with high medical costs should be the first ones to get federal aid. There are some conditions that no person can reasonably be expected to pay for. The average person does not incur excessive expense for most of their life. If someone has to pay for their care, it should be those with very low costs.

That was MoL's argument, I was trying to refute his argument. When you were talking about charity, were you talking to him?


Also, the whole 'jeopardizing my property rights everyday by functioning in society' is a completely ludicrous argument. Choosing to jeopardize them (whether by paying money for something or selling something) and being forced to jeopardize them are two completely different things, Mateo.

 

[skeptik]

What the hell are you jeopardizing?

 

[The Ozzman]

What the hell are you jeopardizing?

Oh and you apparently don't realize just how much 'property rights' you're giving up every day of your life just by living in society.

You tell me

 

[skeptik]

I'm talking about additionally. You choose to live in this society, don't you? If not, then GTFO plz. I'm asking you what you will additionally be 'jeopardizing' by the government implementing a universal health care policy.

 

[The Ozzman]

I'm talking about additionally. You choose to live in this society, don't you? If not, then GTFO plz. I'm asking you what you will additionally be 'jeopardizing' by the government implementing a universal health care policy.

Well, if we're going to implement MoL's policy, then additional money I EARNED that I could use for other things and that I should be able to spend HOW I SEE FIT.

If it's a policy like yours, where you pay in for your own health care, I don't see a problem with that. Of course, we won't know about any problems until it's actually implemented. The only thing that I could possibly be jeopardizing is lower quality of care, but that's dependent on some other factors too.