Did you just say value is not measured collectively while refering to the effect on an entire country?
Did you just say value is not measured collectively while refering to the effect on an entire country?
You have no idea what Rand believed, but like most "libertarians," you think you do. Her treatise was on the creativity of the individual, not the downfall of the collective. Nothing in those books has interested me since high school because this lack of compassion falsely reassured by her work is nothing but selfish greed. Stop trying to make it something it's not.
Roark was an artist, not a tycoon. You wouldn't know art even if a Pollock fell on your head.
the sayer of so wrote:
Value is not measured collectively so the country as a whole will not be better off with universal healthcare;
How do you propose to measure the benefit to "the country as a whole" if it is not "measured collectively"?
. . . some individuals may be better off (the sick, irresponsible, incompetent, lazy, etc.) but others will be worse off (those who aore nne of the above).
As an example of one of the truly relevent issues in healthcare, we in the US operate largely under an employer-provided insurance system. So it can be argued that employers would benefit under an insurance system where they do not directly bear the costs. If you accept this then employers would be part of your "etc".
Citizen Runner wrote:
How do you propose to measure the benefit to "the country as a whole" if it is not "measured collectively"?
I was refuting someone else's concept of value to "the country as a whole" and was merely borrowing his phrase to argue that such a thing doesn't exist.
If citizens dont have a basic right to health care then the government doesnt have the right to force us to pay any taxes, serve in the military, serve on jury duty, etc. etc. Its called "QUID PRO QUO". Lets join the rest of the civilized industrialized world and provide free, accessible health care as a basic human right. No games or flim flam "public options", just plain old Single Payer, Medicare for all. It would cost a lot less than our grossly inflated military budget
clever, never wrote:
You have no idea what Rand believed, but like most "libertarians," you think you do. Her treatise was on the creativity of the individual, not the downfall of the collective. Nothing in those books has interested me since high school because this lack of compassion falsely reassured by her work is nothing but selfish greed. Stop trying to make it something it's not.
Selfish greed is a good thing, not a bad thing.
the sayer of so wrote:
Value is not measured collectively
Incorrect
The people suffering for lack of health care are not, for the most part, irresponsible or lazy. They work in jobs that don't provide health care and cannot afford to buy it on their own.
I don't think that a country should spend trillions of dollars on wars and the military-industrial complex, yet lack access to health care for all.
caveman wrote:
If citizens dont have a basic right to health care then the government doesnt have the right to force us to pay any taxes, serve in the military, serve on jury duty, etc. etc. Its called "QUID PRO QUO".
Nope. The government forces you to pay taxes so that you get roads, police, military, judicial system, etc. Things for which it is not practicable for individuals to provide for themselves. The society cannot function without them
Healthcare does not fall into this category, not even when some cannot afford it. Our society functions without state provided healthcare. It has functioned this way for 234 years and will continue to do so.
You do not get to simply add healthcare into the list of services because you want it. The problem is not declining healthcare, it is the rising expectations of the populace. The average life expectancy of Americans has never in history been higher than it is now. Yet people whine that we have a "crisis".
There is no crisis. You simply need to stop expecting an MRI for every paper-cut you get.
the sayer of so wrote:
Selfish greed is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Well, that explains a lot. I hope you have a very fruitful life and are never on the wrong side of greed for now, because your worldview will shatter when you hit rock bottom. There's always a bigger fish.
llllll wrote:
I don't think that a country should spend trillions of dollars on wars and the military-industrial complex, yet lack access to health care for all.
I do
deleuze wrote:
This is a good post from a guy I usually disagree with. The language of "rights" is in most cases unhelpful because if there's one thing harder than solving the problem of health care, it's solving the philosophical question of what human nature is and what rights follow from that nature.
So, I'd politely disagree w/Mtn Dew and say that instead of trying to find agreement on the ideological question first--what rights we do or do not have--we simply discuss the idea of governmental regulation of healthcare, its possibilities and limitation without resorting to the language of rights.
A good rule of thumb: when people start asserting their right for something, it's because they've run out of reasons for it. In fact, this is exactly what the language of rights is for--to legitimate coercion when arguments end. No one will be coerced under any health care plan that has been proposed. Unless you want to define a possible increase in taxation as coercion.
Well, I would say an increase in taxation is coercive, but that's just me. It's fine and dandy to suggest our country will be better of with socialized medicine or an increase in government regulation (albeit it is an incorrect suggestion), but it is another thing to assert that such a thing is a "right". It may seem to be semantics, but I don't know of a coherent argument that healthcare is a right that doesn't completely contradict itself or water down the notion of rights in the first place.
I think you're pretty spot on with your post on the whole, although we currently have an incredible amount of coercion (i.e. "regulation") in our healthcare today. We will only see more coercion.
As a practical matter we would be better off with a less regulated, more free market system in my opinion. If we (the state) are going to supposedly increase demand we (the state) darn well better come up with a good way to increase supply by just as much if not more.
If there are really 40 million people without health insurance (there aren't), then there must be a commensurate increase in the amount of doctors, nurses, hospitals, drugs, band aids, ambulances and everything else necessary to provide medical care. Otherwise there will be shortages. I tend to think the ideas being floated around will both increase demand and shrink supply which will be a disaster. What will be worse is that lack of innovation that won't even be noticed. I can't imagine how many drugs aren't on the market due to FDA regulations.
It is like claiming everyone has a right to home, but we're not going to increase the amount of houses in the country or increase the amount of those products used to create housing. Oh, and we're going to regulate the people currently involved in housing much more.
the sayer of so wrote:
Selfish greed is a good thing, not a bad thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sure you mean that since it lead to, the 1917 Russian revolution, the creation of labor unions, the wars in the middle east . . .
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".
Rights are not created or given by Government. Government can only attempt to secure or protect the unalienable (Inalienable or unalienable refers to that which cannot be given away or taken away) rights of citizens. The specific rights mentioned in the US Declaration of Independence and US Constitution are not intended to be the comprehensive list of rights possessed by citizens, just those that are specifically protected.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people".
Government's role is to attempt to prevent me, in the exercise of my rights, from denying someone else their right. If I murder someone (take away their right to life) I forfeit my right to liberty (and probably the pursuit of happiness). It is not the Government's role to provide the sustenance required to live, a "Get out of Jail Free" card, or the resources I will need to pursue my path to Happiness.
Many may feel they have a "right" to healthcare. What they have is a right to pursue healthcare. Any Government program that forcibly takes money from citizens to help guarantee healthcare for other citizens is violating the property rights of the former. I think it would be foolish, but if people wanted and got a VOLUNTARY Government run health insurance program, more power to them. So yes, I am saying Medicare, Medicaid and other such programs are wrong. Not the sentiment of helping people in need, just the practice of it being an involuntary program run by the Federal Government. Programs such as the VA, should be considered separately because the beneficiaries have contributed significantly to the general defense of our country and in effect have health benefits by virtue of an employment contract that should be honored.
scottdye wrote:
the sayer of so wrote:
Selfish greed is a good thing, not a bad thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sure you mean that since it lead to, the 1917 Russian revolution, the creation of labor unions, the wars in the middle east . . .
We depend on the government to get all our little creature comforts that make us fat, lazy, and sick, and then we also depend on the government to make us healthy so we can continue this cycle. Maybe if we realized this, healthcare would not be such a big issue.
the sayer of so wrote:
edumacator wrote:So tell me OP, was it Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead? Be honest now.
To the others, if you accept the Western view of rights, he's definitely correct. The "right to life" doesn't mean right to healthcare since this violates right #3: the right to property. You can't have a right that violates other peoples' rights. This is of course all predicated on you believing in the Lockean view on human rights.
Of course all of this is really a moot point, because we certainly don't have a right to highways or court systems, but those are probably beneficial to life in this country. OP, life is seldom as black and white as Ms. Rand would have you believe.
I didn't just read Atlas Shrugged yesterday. I've believed as Rand does for as long as I can remember.
Rand was a 1-dimensional, short-sighted, aristocratic copy-cat; there is no truth to her beliefs, only hypocrasy. Hmmm..... I guess the theme is similar. You have no rights without society. You're on here declaring yourself to be the one who decides what rights we all have. You have no unalienable right to property, your life or anything.
scottdye wrote:
the sayer of so wrote:
Selfish greed is a good thing, not a bad thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sure you mean that since it lead to, the 1917 Russian revolution, the creation of labor unions, the wars in the middle east . . .
You're confusing greed with malevolence.
llllll wrote:
If a child who is born to parents who do not have health care gets cancer, should the state intervene or not? Should that child die?
Can you justify your position here?
Clearly you believe that the state should help the child.
How much of the money that you spend on things you don't need (like internet access to post on LRC) could you have donated to save children with cancer? Or, to get much more bang for your buck, to children in countries who die because they don't have food or water?
People love to talk about "saving the children," while they clearly don't give that exact thing any priority greater that however much of their taxes the government takes and may or may not spend on such things.
If saving that children is so important to you, quit your job and volunteer in africa. Or donate all your disposable income to children's cancer charities. Until then, f*** off.
Superiority Complex wrote:
If someone cannot afford the premiums or is excluded from coverage because they are sick then they are being denied a fundamental right.
Can you please show me where it is stated that we have a fundamental right to insurance coverage?
Do all of you people understand how insurance works? It's just a pool of money from a lot of people to cover unlikely costs of a few. If there is a group of people who is upset that they can't find coverage, why don't the get together, pool their money, and bam!, they've got insurance?
scottdye wrote:
Actually, the Declaration of Independence specifies that healthcare is a "right" By stating that the pursuit of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights".. Without healthcare you may be impinging on ones right to life.
For the love of god, how many times?
Please provide me with guns, my own newspaper, my own church, and a building in which to assemble. I need these so that you don't impinge on my other rights.
Right to life != right to health care.
Right to bear arms != right to have guns provided by the government.
Right to free speech != right to have the government publish my beliefs for all to see.
Etc.
F***, this is not hard.