Is healthcare a right? why or why not?

[M14 Shooter]

This should be obvious. Its not ok when it fits into the classic definition of slavery. When it doesn't, than it is ok. As a loose description at least.

I see... slavery is OK so long as there arent whips on people's backs.
"Soft" slavery is OK. Gotcha.
How is this an objective distinction?

As for the "classic definition of slavery":
The 1926 Slavery Convention described slavery as "...the status and/or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised..." Slaves cannot leave an owner, an employer or a territory without explicit permission (they must have a passport to leave), and they will be returned if they escape. Therefore a system of slavery — as opposed to the isolated instances found in any society — requires official, legal recognition of ownership, or widespread tacit arrangements with local authorities, by masters who have some influence because of their social and/or economic status.

The International Labour Organization (ILO) defines forced labour as "all work or service which is extracted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily", albeit with certain exceptions of: military service, convicted criminals, emergencies and minor community services.

Both of these "classic" definitions, especially the second, accurately, if not literally, describe the relationship between the taxpayer and the welfare (et al) recipient, as enforced upon the taxpayer by the government.

Define objectivity for me.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
ob·jec·tive /əbˈdʒɛktɪv/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uhb-jek-tiv] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

Then when you are done with that I'd like to know how any subjective elements disallow me from having a "standing to argue" anything.

Because your argument is then subjective. You're simply arguing from your opinion, which, since it is subjective, isnt any more sound than any other subjective opinion. Whatever you rposition is, it holds no more water than saying "Coke is better than Pepsi because I like Coke".

 

[Bern80]

The quality of the surgeon's skill stands by itself. The issue of how to pay for his services is another issue.

So that would be a 'no'. How to pay for something is not a factor of that things quality.

 

[Bern80]

No, but it should be available to everyone.

And for the most part it is. Even to those with no money. Availabe to everyone is vague. There is a certain factor of timeliness to availabilty of healthcare as well.

its our responsibility to care for each other

Why? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for being charitable. By why is it a responsibility? Why am I obligated to give a rats ass about you (or anyone else)? Why is your health my obligation more so than your health is your own obligation?

It can 'the right thing to do' it can be compassionate, it can be selfish not to, but how is it obligation to care for others? That's a personal belief with no real truth behind it.

So do I. But that still leaves millions of people with no healthcare that you are ignoring.

I have no intention of ignoring them. My intent is to have a system that balances personal responsibility while providing healthcare to those that need it.

Sure you do. The government can't keep me from placing an ad in the newspaper. Freedom of speech...still a right, even though I am paying for said right.

So why should healthcare be different? Assumeing both speech and healthcare are rights, why is it okay for a newspaper to charge for teh service of providing add space, but it isn't okay for hospital to charge to fix a broken leg?

Yup...it should be supplied to you with no barriers to access. That doesn't mean those who can afford it should pay for it.

That's where the responsibility issue comes in. By paying for healthcare yourself it makes you more responsible for adequate access to it then someone else. If I, even though able, shouldn't have to pay for it, who is going to? Why is paying for my healthcare and health more the responsibility of 'who' ever that is than mine?

 

[Diuretic]

Its not a red herring, and taxation, in and of itself isnt the issue.
The issue is being forced to provide for others, and how that is slavery.


Yes... and I made the point that this is meaningless:
It doesnt matter how its decided that you are a slave -- you;re still a slave.

No, I think there's a wilful refusal on your part to take the point.

I asked you in an earlier post if you lived in a society or a landmass populated by individuals. You said both, thereby avoiding answering the question as it was put. But a valid answer would have been good.

A society is composed of people who come together to live with certain explicit and implicit agreements about how they will conduct themselves relative to one another. Each individual has rights but each individual also has obligations to other individuals and to the collective called 'society'. Among those obligations is the paying of income tax. Income tax is used by elected government to finance its programmes. Among those programmes may be a health care scheme which is provided as part of the government's obligtation towards the members of society. Acknowledging and complying with obligations is important for all components of society, if that doesn't happen then the social situation breaks down. Taxation isn't slavery. Slavery means that an individual is a chattel of another. If you want an analogy with slavery then look to those working at minimum wage, it's closer than your contention that taxation is slavery.

Now, if the landmass is composed solely of individuals a different set of rules kicks in. There's no taxation because there's no need for it as there's no government providing services. Each individual has to look after themselves. But of course to stay individual they have to eschew any sort of non-commercial (ie trading/bartering) relationships because if an individual male and an individual female get together they could end up having children and, waddyaknow, society starts up.

Ergo, humans are social animals (not a new idea of course). From that it seems that the natural state of humans is to live co-operatively (no single individual ever took down a mammoth by himself). Until we reach a utopia of anarchism (not the riot type, the political type) we're stuck with government as we know it. For government to function it requires finance, finance is raised (in part) by taxation. Therefore taxation is a social obligation on all of us. Taxation isn't slavery.

 

[Diuretic]

Yes. Why?

Why do you pay taxes?

 

[Diuretic]

So that would be a 'no'. How to pay for something is not a factor of that things quality.

As I pointed out, the quality of a surgeon's skills is a separate issue from how someone pays for the surgeon to use those skills. It seems we're in agreement on that.

 

[Larkinn]

I see... slavery is OK so long as there arent whips on people's backs.
"Soft" slavery is OK. Gotcha.
How is this an objective distinction?

Err no. You do, I hope, realize the difference between SOME of your labour going to someone else, and them having direct and complete control over everything you do, yes?

As for the "classic definition of slavery":
The 1926 Slavery Convention described slavery as "...the status and/or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised..." Slaves cannot leave an owner, an employer or a territory without explicit permission (they must have a passport to leave), and they will be returned if they escape. Therefore a system of slavery — as opposed to the isolated instances found in any society — requires official, legal recognition of ownership, or widespread tacit arrangements with local authorities, by masters who have some influence because of their social and/or economic status.

The International Labour Organization (ILO) defines forced labour as "all work or service which is extracted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily", albeit with certain exceptions of: military service, convicted criminals, emergencies and minor community services.

So if you don't go to work tomorrow...who will put a gin to your head? The work that you do tomorrow is "extracted under the menace of what penalty"?
Taxes? Certainly not. For if you didn't work you wouldn't pay those taxes. So really the standard for slavery which you are trying to promote is "Some (but not all) of the work that I voluntarily do goes to benefit others"...you really think thats slavery?

Because your argument is then subjective. You're simply arguing from your opinion, which, since it is subjective, isnt any more sound than any other subjective opinion. Whatever you rposition is, it holds no more water than saying "Coke is better than Pepsi because I like Coke".

Subjective elements does not mean it is completely subjective. Of course anything open to debate will have subjective elements. If it did not, and I was able to put it purely objectively, than you would be quite dumb. But, as most things do, it has subjective elements.

 

[Larkinn]

And for the most part it is. Even to those with no money. Availabe to everyone is vague. There is a certain factor of timeliness to availabilty of healthcare as well.

No, its not. Emergency healthcare is...standard healthcare is not.

Why? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for being charitable. By why is it a responsibility? Why am I obligated to give a rats ass about you (or anyone else)? Why is your health my obligation more so than your health is your own obligation? It can 'the right thing to do' it can be compassionate, it can be selfish not to, but how is it obligation to care for others? That's a personal belief with no real truth behind it.

Of course, its a moral belief. But holding the opposite moral belief is a very negative thing for society.

I have no intention of ignoring them. My intent is to have a system that balances personal responsibility while providing healthcare to those that need it.

With a bunch of people caught in the middle, no doubt.

So why should healthcare be different? Assumeing both speech and healthcare are rights, why is it okay for a newspaper to charge for teh service of providing add space, but it isn't okay for hospital to charge to fix a broken leg?

Can you exercise said right without paying for it? Thats the difference.

 

[Bern80]

No, its not. Emergency healthcare is...standard healthcare is not.

Hence 'for the most part'

Of course, its a moral belief. But holding the opposite moral belief is a very negative thing for society.

Again I ask why am I obligated to care about you?

Of what opposite belief do you speak? That people should take a modicum of responsibility for themselves?

With a bunch of people caught in the middle, no doubt.

Caught in the middle how so? Why would I intend for that?

Can you exercise said right without paying for it? That's the difference.

not clear on what you mean. Right now you can't exercise either of those rights w/o paying for it? The question why is it okay to charge people to exercise one right and not the other?

 

[Bern80]

As I pointed out, the quality of a surgeon's skills is a separate issue from how someone pays for the surgeon to use those skills. It seems we're in agreement on that.

You said the following:

The claim of best healthcare in the world is fallacious.

Citing that there were other factors to care including accessibility. But accessibility is not a factor of whether healthcare is good or bad. The accessability of healthcare has nothing to do with it's quality. The operative part of the word healthcare is 'care'. You can't rate something as good or bad if you never received it in the first place. It would be like if I asked you to tell me if the milk in this empty glass is good or bad.

 

[Diuretic]

True enough. I suppose my focus is on the system of access/delivery and the policies that support it rather than the quality.

 

[Bern80]

True enough. I suppose my focus is on the system of access/delivery and the policies that support it rather than the quality.

Which is my primary concern with government getting more involved in the industry. If the system is now going to be funded through taxes what will that do to quality? What good is access/delivery if when you do need it the quality of care is poor?

 

[Diuretic]

Which is my primary concern with government getting more involved in the industry. If the system is now going to be funded through taxes what will that do to quality? What good is access/delivery if when you do need it the quality of care is poor?

Fair questions.

If the system was funded only through taxes how would that differ from the current system in the US? That's a question not a gambit by the way.

 

[Bern80]

Fair questions.

If the system was funded only through taxes how would that differ from the current system in the US? That's a question not a gambit by the way.

Not quite sure what you mean. Right now the system isn't funded only through taxes, or even primarily through taxes. Can you be more specific?

 

[Diuretic]

Not quite sure what you mean. Right now the system isn't funded only through taxes, or even primarily through taxes. Can you be more specific?

Certainly. Let's assume that the current situation regarding health care in the US doesn't exist, there's a clean slate. Now let's assume a national scheme is put in place and it's funded totally from taxes (and to keep it simple let's say the federal government administers it). What would the system look like?

In asking that question I'm of course asking for a hypothetical comparison with how it looks in reality at the moment.

I'm not looking for some sort of cyber-combat here, just wondering how you would see the system in the hypothetical scenario I've indicated.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Certainly. Let's assume that the current situation regarding health care in the US doesn't exist, there's a clean slate. Now let's assume a national scheme is put in place and it's funded totally from taxes (and to keep it simple let's say the federal government administers it). What would the system look like?

In asking that question I'm of course asking for a hypothetical comparison with how it looks in reality at the moment.

I'm not looking for some sort of cyber-combat here, just wondering how you would see the system in the hypothetical scenario I've indicated.

Government is wasteful, has way to much overhead and has no incentive to save or be efficient. Government drones ( non specific skilled workers, administrators and such, have a vested interested in ensuring their purpose to exist continues whether needed or not.

A lot of Doctors , I won't say all, that get into the field for medicine as practicing physicians do so for the potential life style the job will bring them. bad doctors are weeded out of the better jobs and either end up in nowhere ville or unemployed.

Government control would eliminate incentive and upward potential of doctors, Administrators are who make it big in Government jobs. Government breeds mediocracy.

But the real problem with Government control would not be the Doctors, I am sure we would still have the dedicated want to be such. The problem would be medicine and research. Ours is the best in the world because of the money making potential. It costs BIG bucks to research and develop new medicines and treatments as well as new equipment for better testing as well as better techniques to solve medical problems.

Government control would end the ability of the research and development from being competitive, it would rob it of the ability to make money. There would be no incentive for profit and no incentive for cheaper and more efficient equipment or tests.

 

[Bern80]

Certainly. Let's assume that the current situation regarding health care in the US doesn't exist, there's a clean slate. Now let's assume a national scheme is put in place and it's funded totally from taxes (and to keep it simple let's say the federal government administers it). What would the system look like?

In asking that question I'm of course asking for a hypothetical comparison with how it looks in reality at the moment.

I'm not looking for some sort of cyber-combat here, just wondering how you would see the system in the hypothetical scenario I've indicated.

RGS said it pretty well.

To add my two cents. I noted that costs being what they are the only real way to pay those costs is to pool money together somehow (for most people that is, some require no insureance and some do choose not to have any). Right now those 'pools' of money come from the various insureance companies. Many 'pools' of money to pay the costs.

Okay healthcare is paid solely through taxes. Now we just have one big huge pool of money to pay medical costs. What I'm afraid of is that the big pool is gonna be far less then the sum of the little pools. It would have indirect benefits of course. Primarily the enormous load it would take off most employers because that is primarily how premiums are paid now.

Here are few things that are really important to think about that I'm not sure have been though if we fund solely through taxes.

As I said right now employers pay the bulk of healthcare premiums. I pay part that automatically comes out of my pay check and my employer pays the other part. That break down if I recall was like 1:4 or maybe 1:3 respectively. So what happens to that if we switch to just taxes? We can't expect our facilities to take a 75-66% hit in what they make can we? Though admittedly this part is tricky. I don't know how the premiums we pay would translate to the amount of taxes we would need to pay to compensate.

To get a clear picture though I think we need to use some more hypotheticals.

1)If paid through taxes then the amount employers pay is gone. That would reduce the sum of the 'pools' of money by at least %50 if I had to guess.

Should we then assume that if this is government run the tax rate would be roughly equivalent to what usedto come out of our paychecks? If so, then the pool of money the government is working with is the same as sum of the insurance company 'pools' less the portion contributed by employees. Can we expect our medical industry to run on a pool of money that is at least 50% less than what it was working with before? I don't know whether that hypothetical is even reasonabte or not mainly because we don't know (or I don't know) the percent of money paid to insureance companies that is used strictly to cover costs. We would kind of need to know that as starting point.

So that's one big set of issues.

The other is an ethical one on some levels. That being should the people providing healthcare be allowed to 'test the market' to figure out what they can get for their services? Should they be allowed to set prices at all? Because if it's a tax only system the won't be able to do that. What your doctor is allowed to make is not determined by the worth of his services now but whatever tax rate the government imposses to pay for the system. Which goes back to why should the healthcare professionals not be allowed to set prices for their services like any other company?

Lots to chew on. i want to see if I can find anything on how much of what we pay to insureance companies actually goes toward medical costs cause then we could do some real number crunching.

 

[Psychoblues]

Maybe healthcare is not a right but it is damn sure a responsibility of a society. I hope this clears up the disillusions.

 

[Diuretic]

Government is wasteful, has way to much overhead and has no incentive to save or be efficient. Government drones ( non specific skilled workers, administrators and such, have a vested interested in ensuring their purpose to exist continues whether needed or not.

A lot of Doctors , I won't say all, that get into the field for medicine as practicing physicians do so for the potential life style the job will bring them. bad doctors are weeded out of the better jobs and either end up in nowhere ville or unemployed.

Government control would eliminate incentive and upward potential of doctors, Administrators are who make it big in Government jobs. Government breeds mediocracy.

But the real problem with Government control would not be the Doctors, I am sure we would still have the dedicated want to be such. The problem would be medicine and research. Ours is the best in the world because of the money making potential. It costs BIG bucks to research and develop new medicines and treatments as well as new equipment for better testing as well as better techniques to solve medical problems.

Government control would end the ability of the research and development from being competitive, it would rob it of the ability to make money. There would be no incentive for profit and no incentive for cheaper and more efficient equipment or tests.

On R and D. I think I'd be in favour of a mixed approach. If R & D in medical and pharmaceutical research is left solely to non-government corporations then the vagaries of the market kick in. Now I'm not anti-market, it does have a way of sorting things out. But - and this is a fairly crudely drawn point but it's out of necessity - what if corporate R & D went for certain research paths and ignored others due to commercial interests (which would be rational corporate behaviour)? Do you think that government should fund research in worthwhile areas that might not be so popular with the corporate bodies?

On the market and profit motive in the healthcare sector. As I indicated previously, the market is great for certain things. The twin laws of demand and supply will sort out the provision of commodities well enough. The question is, should the provision of healthcare be treated as a commercial commodity or a common good?

 

[Diuretic]

RGS said it pretty well.

To add my two cents. I noted that costs being what they are the only real way to pay those costs is to pool money together somehow (for most people that is, some require no insureance and some do choose not to have any). Right now those 'pools' of money come from the various insureance companies. Many 'pools' of money to pay the costs.

Okay healthcare is paid solely through taxes. Now we just have one big huge pool of money to pay medical costs. What I'm afraid of is that the big pool is gonna be far less then the sum of the little pools. It would have indirect benefits of course. Primarily the enormous load it would take off most employers because that is primarily how premiums are paid now.

Here are few things that are really important to think about that I'm not sure have been though if we fund solely through taxes.

As I said right now employers pay the bulk of healthcare premiums. I pay part that automatically comes out of my pay check and my employer pays the other part. That break down if I recall was like 1:4 or maybe 1:3 respectively. So what happens to that if we switch to just taxes? We can't expect our facilities to take a 75-66% hit in what they make can we? Though admittedly this part is tricky. I don't know how the premiums we pay would translate to the amount of taxes we would need to pay to compensate.

To get a clear picture though I think we need to use some more hypotheticals.

1)If paid through taxes then the amount employers pay is gone. That would reduce the sum of the 'pools' of money by at least %50 if I had to guess.

Should we then assume that if this is government run the tax rate would be roughly equivalent to what usedto come out of our paychecks? If so, then the pool of money the government is working with is the same as sum of the insurance company 'pools' less the portion contributed by employees. Can we expect our medical industry to run on a pool of money that is at least 50% less than what it was working with before? I don't know whether that hypothetical is even reasonabte or not mainly because we don't know (or I don't know) the percent of money paid to insureance companies that is used strictly to cover costs. We would kind of need to know that as starting point.

So that's one big set of issues.

The other is an ethical one on some levels. That being should the people providing healthcare be allowed to 'test the market' to figure out what they can get for their services? Should they be allowed to set prices at all? Because if it's a tax only system the won't be able to do that. What your doctor is allowed to make is not determined by the worth of his services now but whatever tax rate the government imposses to pay for the system. Which goes back to why should the healthcare professionals not be allowed to set prices for their services like any other company?

Lots to chew on. i want to see if I can find anything on how much of what we pay to insureance companies actually goes toward medical costs cause then we could do some real number crunching.

Those are good questions, they provoke thought. I can't answer them immediately but they're worth thinking about.

Just one point and I don't mean to be ideological so please don't treat it this way. Given the wealth of the United States I think the fear that the scheme would be underfunded is - although understandable - unlikely. The amount of money that has been spent and is being spent on the occupation of Iraq for example (I emphasise, I'm not being ideological, I'm merely pointing out that the money is available) if it were spent on healthcare in the US may well be able to fund the system so that everyone in the US gets world class healthcare. Since I have no idea how much it would cost I'm guessing of course, but I do think the federal government would have ability to pay.

On your other points I'll need to think more about them to try and come up with some responses.