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 Unseen on September 14, 2011 at 8:30pm

@Gaytor   "Anonymous, your position ignores that currently many people cannot afford care. So they don't have a choice."

 

I agree. Some people suffer from the delusion that simply because a choice is out there, it's available to anyone who wants it.

 

@Brady   We need cost control to catch abusers and make them suffer. Once the word gets out that it's not worth it to abuse the system, abuse will go wayyy down. It seems to me a federal enforcement agency would pay for itself quite easily.

Comment by Anonymous on September 14, 2011 at 9:43pm

@Brady, without critical thought that would be funny. Either that or I just didn't explain myself well. I'll assume the later. Data from the scientific method only has utility dependent on how we feel. Utility is in direct relation to feeling. If one "feels" like they get utility from health insurance, they should purchase it. If one "feels" like they don't they shouldn't. The scientific method is king when it comes to learning objective truth, feeling is king when it comes to our personal decisions. Charts are great in understanding the world around you, but it is only how you feel about the data that will compel you to action. That is where theists go wrong, they think that feeling can help describe the world around them. Atheists go wrong when they think objective evidence should determine how a person must feel.  When feeling itself is really no more than our "interpretation of objective evidence".

 

@Kris, @Gaytor,

It seems we keep running around in circles, I think I need to simplify my premises to stop the madness. It is the basis for all of my reasoning for this subject. If you are going to convince me or others like myself otherwise you need to address a specific premise.

 

My Premises

  1. All decisions that we make are based on feeling. Which includes how we feel about our actual/percieved environment through physical observation.
  2. Forcing ideologies on others is an unfair, irresponsible and dangerous form of government. You should do what you feel is right. And in turn if you wish for your actions to be treated with respect, you should respect the choices of others.
  3. The rights of its citizens that government should equally protect us from others (including the government):
    1. the right to life
    2. the right to liberty
    3. the right to property

My Issues with Universal Health Care

  1. Universal Health care breaks 2.  Health care is nothing more than an ideology, which is not an equally shared view by all. In fact for those that even agree on some form of universal health care cannot come to a consensus of what it should be. I bet you that Kris and Brady don't agree, so who gets to choose? Ron Paul is a doctor and he recommends capitalistic health care.
  2. Universal Health care breaks 3-2. I among all Americans would no longer have the liberty to choose capitalistic health care. A health care professional would not be able the liberty to provide capitalistic health care.
  3. Universal Health care breaks 3-3.  Just because it is universal, doesn't make it free. And as people these days don't seem to be donating any of their hard earned cash to the government, the government decides to take from unwilling persons.
I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.  I believe my reasoning is based on solid and fair universal principles. You know, like math and science :)  All I keep hearing from others that promote universal health care seems to be based on feeling alone. You know, like religion. If you can prove me wrong please do, I have never heard one universal principle that would even come close to mandate universal health care.
Comment by kris feenstra on September 14, 2011 at 10:39pm

Universal Health care breaks 2.  Health care is nothing more than an ideology, which is not an equally shared view by all

 

Look, if you want me to take you seriously, don't spout nonsense.  Saying it's nothing more than an ideology doesn't make it true.  As it stands, it's not true.  Healthcare refers to a broad range of practical measures and services for which there have been multitudinous studies looking at the pros and cons of various practices, methodologies, and delivery systems and insurance.  I don't claim to have any answers on what the best system is, but I will support practical outcomes and evidence first and foremost, not ideologies.

 

I don't really give a damn about Locke here.  He's been dead for three hundred years, so, while undoubtedly a clever man, I don't think he has a lot of sage advice to offer on the best and most economically fair means of healthcare distribution regarding both the benefits to individuals and to society at large.

 

"I believe my reasoning is based on solid and fair universal principles. You know, like math and science :)  All I keep hearing from others that promote universal health care seems to be based on feeling alone."

 

You can believe that all you want, but you've shown no evidence of it here.  The conversation has been kept at a very cursory level thus far.  I have yet to offer you any emotional reasons for supporting universal healthcare.  I really haven't gone into the issue at depth at all yet because you insist on asking silly questions that show a lack of understanding on how universal healthcare works and what the potential options available are.

Comment by Brady on September 14, 2011 at 11:08pm

@Kris I think you are missing the point. Health care is an ideology once it becomes an ideal that a person or group feels it should be forced onto others. Now, everyone does not require health care and not everyone wants it. However, because you feel that they do and your willing to force it on them. You are making it an ideology.

I will say this again. Indigenous tribes throughout the world (where they exist) function quite well and happy as a society. Who are you or me to say how they should be living? Just because we feel we benefit from indoor plumbing and clean water doesn't mean that we are any better than them or that our way of life is superior. We have no right to force western culture on anyone no matter how good your intentions.

So, yes it is an ideology. It's the same reasoning that religions use to spread their gospel. They feel they are doing it with the greatest intentions and also feel society as a whole will benefit from their beliefs. I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but just realize that your practicing the same reasoning.

Comment by kris feenstra on September 14, 2011 at 11:17pm

Kris I think you are missing the point. Health care is an ideology once it becomes an ideal that a person or group feels it should be forced onto others. Now, everyone does not require health care and not everyone wants it.

 

I'm not missing the point.  You're simply making an absurd argument for me that I am not making myself.  

Comment by Unseen on September 15, 2011 at 12:06am

@Jim   The ideal model for an insurance company is to have a body of subscribers who never get ill. Of course, that isn't possible, so they concentrate on making as much money as they can by cherry picking. The primary genius behind and insurance company is its main flaw. By googling around you'll find out how the profit motive works in practice. Happily collecting premiums month after month, when you make a claim, they pay it. Unless it is a very large claim. In that case, it gets sent to a department that looks at the contract to see if the insured made even the smallest of white lies. Or a mistake. That will allow them to void the contract and not pay the claim. If that doesn't work, then they start delaying payment. Delay, delay, delay. Obviously, if they delay payments or deny paying for treatments, this hastens the insured off the face of the earth, and voila, they are no longer a liability. The plain fact is that covering people once they get ill is dreadfully unprofitable, and the company's first duty is NOT to the insured, but to the stockholders. Which is wacky, even if those opposed to national healthcare won't admit it.

Comment by Anonymous on September 15, 2011 at 12:31am

@Kris: You are often calling foul on no specific point, yet when you do you've been dead wrong each time.

Look, if you want me to take you seriously, don't spout nonsense.  Saying it's nothing more than an ideology doesn't make it true.  As it stands, it's not true.  

Definition of Ideology from wikipedia:

An ideology is a set of ideas that constitutes one's goals, expectations, and actions.

Please tell me how universal health care does not fit the definition of ideology? You weren't just spouting out nonsense, were you? Don't you have a set of ideas in how you expect universal health care would meet your specific goals?

 

Then you have the boldness to say,

You can believe that all you want, but you've shown no evidence of it here.  The conversation has been kept at a very cursory level thus far.  I have yet to offer you any emotional reasons for supporting universal healthcare.  I really haven't gone into the issue at depth at all yet because you insist on asking silly questions that show a lack of understanding on how universal healthcare works and what the potential options available are

Bold yet unintelligent.  Did I not list you a set of 3 premises, in which you completely ignored? You choose not to argue these points, then start hypocritically throw out insults that have only apply to yourself. Then you purport to be based on evidence but have not shared one iota.

 

Sorry to break it to you, but universal health care is not a premise. It is a hopeful outcome, an ideology.  You have shared no premises, and you have completely avoided mine. And until you can actually bring up a valid talking point, you're just making noise. If it has been held at a cursory level, it is your fault not mine.

Comment by kris feenstra on September 15, 2011 at 1:39am

"You are often calling foul on no specific point, yet when you do you've been dead wrong each time."

 

Often?  Cite four specific instances then.  Should be easy.  Make sure to prove that I was "dead wrong"

 

"Please tell me how universal health care does not fit the definition of ideology?"

 

i) Your claim was that it's "nothing more than an ideology" which is false.

 

ii) Universal healthcare isn't a set of ideas intrinsically; it's a set of practices and methodologies for delivering health services.  It describes any system that applies healthcare benefits universally across a given society.  Ideologies can be paired with various universal healthcare proposals, but universal healthcare refers to the healthcare delivery itself, not those ideologies per se.  As I have said before, I will support the system that can demonstrate the best outcomes for individual health on average and for a functioning society.  A person can disagree with the ideology tacked onto a universal healthcare plan yet still accept that the practical outcomes of the plan itself are beneficial (without accepting the associated ideology in part or in whole).

 

iii) This definition is very broad and vague.  By that standard and interpretation, baseball could also be deemed an ideology.  Your set of numerated principles below is definitely an ideology.

 

iv)  That definition isn't cited (beyond wikipedia), and is clipped from the rest of the paragraph which expands and clarifies the definition being used.

 

Did I not list you a set of 3 premises, in which you completely ignored?

 

None of which were based in "solid and fair universal principles" such as "science and math".  I don't dispute that those are your principles.  Your statement was that I needed to address your premise if I was going to convince you.  I don't recall claiming I was trying to convince you about universal healthcare.  I addressed the portion of your post that I disagreed with, which is the point that healthcare is "nothing more than an ideology".

 

You choose not to argue these points, then start hypocritically throw out insults that have only apply to yourself.

 

I never said I was going to argue those points, but as a matter of keeping record, I was addressing your objection that universal healthcare violates your second principle.

 

As for hypocritical, I don't recall faulting you at any point for throwing out insults.

As for throwing out insults, simply point them out.  Was it 'spouting nonsense' that offended?  I won't retract 'silly questions'.  They were, objectively, silly.  I also went to the effort of responding to most of them directly.

 

"Then you purport to be based on evidence but have not shared one iota."

 

I've stated that I will advocate the position that has the best evidentiary support.  Thus far, I have not actually advocated a specific position.  I have also stated that I don't pretend to have any perfect solutions to the overall issue of healthcare.  As I've stated, this conversation has really only touched the topic at a cursory level.  I am not faulting you for not providing evidence.  I am stating that you have not demonstrated that your reasoning is based on "solid and fair universal principles" such as "science and math".  You have not.

Comment by Anonymous on September 15, 2011 at 4:11am

@Kris, after reading your last response. I really just have nothing left to say to you on this subject.

 

Can someone actually base a reasoning/premise for mandating universal health care?

Comment by Phil Tibbs on September 15, 2011 at 11:32am

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.

 

I'm not sure what a gun has to do with this discussion, but your comment isn't in keeping with the way our country was founded...  Your Our taxes aren't just for things that only you want.  It's not fair to use our money to fund only conservative programs and not worry about anything else. 

 

Our country has spent billions of dollars rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan, but many of our politicians balk at spending tax revenue on the health and "general welfare" of our own citizens.

 

 

 

Comment

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

Join Think Atheist

  

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 Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service