Libertarians would stand by and watch someone die rather than help someone caught in a bad spot. I suppose if someone gets a flat tire and they need a jack you'd laugh and drive off?

Comment by Gaytor on September 14, 2011 at 4:34pm

Anonymous, your position ignores that currently many people cannot afford care. So they don't have a choice. Any choice. Some people have pre-existing conditions so not only do they not have any choice, but they can't lose or quit their jobs under threat of death due to the pre-existing condition. You are effectively pitting the choice of some to not spend money versus the unmitigated death of others. 

And what choice are you really defending? Currently it's insurers whom are pulling the trigger on who lives or dies. Currently it's insurers whom have your fears in their hands and the exercise that power with profit as their motive. So I'm confused as to what it is that you are afraid of. Under a Bismarck system, you would have the ability to choose any doctor. We would all pay less. We would all have equal care. Our paying for others would be mitigated by paying less. 5 to 8% of GDP less.   

Comment by Anonymous on September 14, 2011 at 4:44pm

The notion that by default, atheists must not care for one another is a view of the world that lacks humanity. Life is not emotionless because I don't see a god in my creation. If you have another point, I've missed it. More to the healthcare point and science. One program leads to higher costs, higher infant mortality, a 10% denial of care, overall costs 30 to 50% higher... don't you want to know what that other program is? If not, which one of us is not using science?

The problem is that science is not a cure all. Just because numbers on a chart may seem to show advantage of one system over another, it is really how we feel that really matters. You could also show a chart that says that american's like red better than yellow.  This doesn't mean you should mandate all our cars to be certain color. It is about free choice, and respecting other's rights to make their free choice as long as they don't trample on the rights of others.

 

If you wish to share your property to help provide health care, then do so. Don't try convincing someone with a gun to come force any of my friends or family to donate to your ideology.

Comment by kris feenstra on September 14, 2011 at 4:48pm

"Either for one deciding to purchase health care, or for an employer to do the same.  And whatever choice one makes, as long as it does not trample on the rights of others I can respect."

 

This doesn't address the point.  There is a tenable case for the benefits of universal basic health care under either private, public or combined systems.  There is also a case to be made that under current employment conditions, not everyone has the financial means to afford it, neither are they in a good position to negotiate with their employers.  The former point can be debated, the the latter point is objective.

 

"Ideals need to be left to personal decision not government enforcement."

 

It's not about ideals.  It's about pursuing what is the most practical and functional policy.  This is not to say that my position is necessarily perfect or correct, but I'm not pushing some 'let's all play nice' philosophy.  Interdependence is the current reality of modern civilizations, and modern policy has to reflect the need for people to cooperate.

Comment by Gaytor on September 14, 2011 at 4:55pm

It is about free choice, and respecting other's rights to make their free choice as long as they don't trample on the rights of others.

Would you count other people dying for that choice as a trampling of their rights? 

 

The problem is that science is not a cure all. Just because numbers on a chart may seem to show advantage of one system over another, it is really how we feel that really matters.

You can't be serious. 

Comment by Anonymous on September 14, 2011 at 5:14pm

Anonymous, your position ignores that currently many people cannot afford care. So they don't have a choice. Any choice. Some people have pre-existing conditions so not only do they not have any choice, but they can't lose or quit their jobs under threat of death due to the pre-existing condition. You are effectively pitting the choice of some to not spend money versus the unmitigated death of others.

I am not ignoring that people get sick and die.  Me mentioning health care proves this fact. And if my position only ignores, is that really so bad anyways. What is better. A government that has the right to take away our life, property and pursuit of happiness so that they can pay for those that don't take responsibility for themselves.

And what choice are you really defending? Currently it's insurers whom are pulling the trigger on who lives or dies. Currently it's insurers whom have your fears in their hands and the exercise that power with profit as their motive. So I'm confused as to what it is that you are afraid of. Under a Bismarck system, you would have the ability to choose any doctor. We would all pay less. We would all have equal care. Our paying for others would be mitigated by paying less. 5 to 8% of GDP less.

I am defending the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.  What are you defending? If you don't like your insurer, don't give them any more money. It is the only communication they will understand.

 

The rest of my comment may be entertaining to some, however, the rest really is just a red herring...

 

Let us pretend that health care really is more important than those rights XD, and we should provide universal health care.  You run into more ideology issues.

 

Who decides how much health care is enough? You or me or one of the millions of other ideas out there? What happens when everyone wants to see the best doctor? Can a doctor refuse services? What if I find great mental health advantage in bi-daily massages? Should that be covered, if not, who chooses what should be covered and why? I could come up with a million of these, but I will just keep it short.

 

Our country leads in medical innovation, in which all other countries across the world benefits.  Do you really want government getting more involved in this? They don't have the best track record for making great decisions. I hate to break it to you, but the government isn't all-knowing and as all-powerful as you would like to think.

Comment by Anonymous on September 14, 2011 at 5:39pm

I said,

The problem is that science is not a cure all. Just because numbers on a chart may seem to show advantage of one system over another, it is really how we feel that really matters.

Gaytor said,

You can't be serious. 

I stand by my statement, I actually base my personal beliefs on principle. But I would be happy to change my point of view if you actually gave me reason. There is a difference between subjectivity and objectivity. Science is fantastic with objectivity, not so much with subjectivity. If you need more on this subject, I'd be happy to enlighten you.

 

Gaytor said,

Would you count other people dying for that choice as a trampling of their rights?

I'm not sure what you are talking about. It almost sounds like you think that health insurance = immortality. And because I don't agree with your ideology you come to the conclusion I approve of people dying.  Do you really want me to explain the logic disconnect?

 

So answer me thes questions. Because the government has the ability to force us all into universal health care, why should it be their responsibility? And if it is their responsibility because of their ability, why not take it one step further and have the american people (the top percentage of the worlds wealth) use their ability as reason to provide universal and equal health care to the world? Do you really think that american lives are more important than the rest of the 6 billion?

Comment by Gaytor on September 14, 2011 at 6:38pm

So answer me thes questions. Because the government has the ability to force us all into universal health care, why should it be their responsibility?

Because 45,000 of it's citizens die every year due to a lack of care. 9 September 11th per year every 1.3 months a September 11th happens that is preventable. We can go in and kill 500,000 people and spend over a trillion dollars on one September 11th, but we'll be damned if we'll keep people alive with the same ferocity?

 

Again to your question why should it be their responsibility: Let me rephrase that. Why should it be OUR responsibility? (Gov of the people and all) Because the Capitalist system that we have chosen isn't working. It isn't delivering the best health care in the world. If 10% of the people are left out due to costs (again, my healthcare costs 19k per year for 2 people before I get care) or preexisting conditions, then we are not meeting the needs of the people. We are meeting the needs of most. Our representatives are not in Washington to attempt to represent most of us. We all deserve representation in a Representative Democracy. Since Capitalism can't get it's shit together on this, they can compete with non-profits. You can certainly choose your profit care.

 

provide universal and equal health care to the world

Our representatives don't represent the world. We don't govern the world. We have defined borders. Those outside of the borders should find a system that would work in their country with their culture. Article 25 of the UN Declaration of human rights : 

 

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Your politics are not square with what the rest of the world thinks. I don't need your Ayn Rand view of the world. I find her repugnant and malevolent. She stands for principle over reality and I see that you've followed her closely. You are free to hold that your ideas are more important than this 17 year old. I wonder how Ayn would view her freedom of choice since a corporation is what gave up on her will to live? We rank #37 in care and #1 in price with less than 90% coverage and you defend it? Would you change your mind if we were #57? 100? Or will ideology always be more important than dead bodies?

Comment by Brady on September 14, 2011 at 6:41pm

LMAO! This is the best thing I have heard from an atheist.

Just because numbers on a chart may seem to show advantage of one system over another, it is really how we feel that really matters. - Anonymous

Is it really how we feel that matters? I know a lot of religious people that argue that feelings outweigh science too.

Humor aside, I have to agree with @Anonymous. Ability does not equal responsibility. Most people here will argue that the US should not be the police of the world or push our ideology on sovereign nations. However, it seems that those same people are quite fine with it as long as it is there ideology. 

@Gaytor I am sorry I confused you with the  "sounds like a new religion". I tend to associate ideology closely with religion. Either way, the forcing of either of those on others based purely on knowing what is best, will always cause a great deal of conflict. Who has the authority that knows what is best for that indigenous tribe in the Amazon? No one. It's best to stick out of forced ideology regardless how noble your intent. 

Comment by kris feenstra on September 14, 2011 at 7:09pm

"Who decides how much health care is enough? You or me or one of the millions of other ideas out there?"

 

Preferably medical professionals evaluating need, cost and health outcomes.

 

"What happens when everyone wants to see the best doctor?"

 

I don't think most people actually have an opinion on who the best doctor is.  Competency and accessibility are often the primary concerns.  Even people I've know who are staring down surgical removal of tumors didn't spend their time looking for celebrity doctor du jour.  Medicine has always been an issue of managing resources, and whether or not a system provides universal health care doesn't alter that issue in principle.  Millions of Americans all have insurance now, and it's not like they all demand to see the very best specialist.  Why would that change just because more people have been included in the plan?

 

"Can a doctor refuse services?"

 

What services and why?  What's being changed is the base group for insurance coverages.  This does not necessarily imply any specific change in how doctors practice.  Different health care systems will have different rules and procedures.

 

"What if I find great mental health advantage in bi-daily massages? Should that be covered, if not, who chooses what should be covered and why?"

 

It's not a question of what you find convenient personally.  As I've stated before, it comes down to need, costs, and measured outcomes.  The process involves medical professionals heavily.  That's not to say there are no political elements, but that's already true in the US anyway on certain issues.  The point is, the fundamental policy does not have to be strictly opinion based.  Policy can be informed by medical professionals, studies and statistical data.

 

In most cases, your massages would not be covered under any mandatory health care plan.  There's no clear medical need.  'It makes me feel good' has ever been a justifiable reason for including an item in health insurance coverage.  That said, I live in a province that provides government health care.  The health care provided by the state is not designed to cover every conceivable medical expense; it's designed to cover the costs of medical practices that help people lead functional and productive lives.  Again, it looks at the severity of the need, the cost, and the overall outcomes.  On top of that, I have private insurance through work that covers non-essential items such as non-emergency dental, optometry, massage therapy and a number of other things.  A universal health care system can be formed any number of different ways.  It can be strictly public, strictly private, a mix of public and private, all-inclusive or partial coverage.

 

"Our country leads in medical innovation, in which all other countries across the world benefits.  Do you really want government getting more involved in this?"

 

Possibly.  It's a complex issue.

 

"Because the government has the ability to force us all into universal health care, why should it be their responsibility?"

 

It becomes their responsibility if evidence indicates that it is sound policy for maximizing the overall welfare of their constituency.  Granted, that can be a difficult thing to define, but the point is, I don't think anyone is actually arguing that the government should mandate healthcare on the sole basis that they can.

 

"why not take it one step further and have the american people (the top percentage of the worlds wealth) use their ability as reason to provide universal and equal health care to the world?"

 

/body>
Comment by Unseen on September 14, 2011 at 7:58pm

It confounds me that people who have health insurance can't view national healthcare as insurance against the loss of their current health insurance. Believe me, the person who has their insurance through their company, loses their job either through being laid off or the failure of the business, can't make the COBRA payments, and then finds him/herself without health insurance will change teams on the matter of national healthcare pretty quickly.

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

Blog Posts

PI = 4

Posted by _Robert_ on September 16, 2014 at 8:53pm 4 Comments

Invictus

Posted by Marinda on September 11, 2014 at 4:08pm 0 Comments

Ads

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service