Bill Clinton calls U.S. healthcare immoral

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

Then I'd say your desire for health care is greater than your desire for a job. But I'd also say you probably know very well that you won't lose your job. But I don't know your situation, so I'm only guessing.

I'm not saying altruism doesn't exist. I'm saying that both arguments require self-interest, and that self-interest doesn't invalidate an argument.

Just wondering. As for the job, it depends on what kind of UHC we get - but there's always more mindless corporate work out there for a guy like me.

I'll also say that, while you may argue that it's simple semantics, I believe there's a difference between self-interest and selfishness, much like the difference between child-like and childishness.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

Just wondering. As for the job, it depends on what kind of UHC we get - but there's always more mindless corporate work out there for a guy like me.

I'll also say that, while you may argue that it's simple semantics, I believe there's a difference between self-interest and selfishness, much like the difference between child-like and childishness.

If you want to differentiate between self-interest and selfishness, I can get on board with that depending on your definitions. But you can't erase my self-interest by calling it "selfish", anymore than I could erase the self-interest of someone who wants healthcare by calling them "selfish".

Look, nothing is preventing you from becoming a doctor and giving away your services for free. Nothing is preventing you from inventing medicines and handing them out at cost. I won't question your right to do that, nor would your motivations matter to me. That would be altruism. Simply demanding that one sector of society provide healthcare to another while being willing to enforce your demands with violence doesn't seem terribly altruistic.

my2hands

FFG


1.do you think our current health care system should be improved?

2. if so, how would you like to see this achieved (nothing too fancy, just big picure please)

redrock

farfromglorified wrote:

Look, nothing is preventing you from becoming a doctor and giving away your services for free.

That's the second time you say that ref UHC... UHC doesn't mean a doctor giving away services for free..... why do you keep on going with this kind of example/arguement?

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

If you want to differentiate between self-interest and selfishness, I can get on board with that depending on your definitions. But you can't erase my self-interest by calling it "selfish", anymore than I could erase the self-interest of someone who wants healthcare by calling them "selfish".

Look, nothing is preventing you from becoming a doctor and giving away your services for free. Nothing is preventing you from inventing medicines and handing them out at cost. I won't question your right to do that, nor would your motivations matter to me. That would be altruism. Simply demanding that one sector of society provide healthcare to another while being willing to enforce your demands with violence doesn't seem terribly altruistic.

Meh, we're already being taxed. I'd just rather we spent it on healthcare rather than some of the wasteful things we dump it on now. And it wouldn't be demanding that one sector provide healthcare to another (though it is heartening to see you use the word "society"). It would be demanding that most of the population provide healthcare to the entire population.

Look, there's plenty preventing me from becoming a doctor. Funds, for one. There's no way I could afford to give away my services for free - at least not completely. Besides, I don't have a medical mind. And funds would be a hinderence toward starting a pharmaceutical company as well - that and I'm not a chemist.

On top of it all, I wouldn't describe myself as altruistic - or a pacifist.

redrock

farfromglorified wrote:

Simply demanding that one sector of society provide healthcare to another while being willing to enforce your demands with violence

:eek: I don't know why I'm always amazed when you think everying is enforced with violence. I think you just like messing with us....

I bet your friend who paid (and is still paying) $10.000 that he didn't have to get a nail out of his toe would have been grateful for a bit of UHC!!!! I bet he could be satisfying some other basic desires with that kind of money instead of spending it on medical bills.

farfromglorified

my2hands wrote:

1.do you think our current health care system should be improved?

Improved implies a goal or goals. And, yes, I think there is much room for improvement in our current health care system. Lowering costs would be a great start towards the topic of this thread.

2. if so, how would you like to see this achieved (nothing too fancy, just big picure please)

Lower costs are accomplished by increasing supply, decreasing demand and ensuring competition. That can be achieved by doing the following things:

- The United States government and state/local governments should make any corporation or individual serving in any health care related function completely tax-exempt.
- State government control of the insurance industry should be completely repealed. In many states, basic insurance rates would drop 50-60% if they were not forced to cover by the states services like IVF and other high-cost, low-used, services.
- Silly medical malpractice suits should be effectively outlawed by establishing precedent around willful negligence, barring patients from suing doctors and hospitals who simply make accidental mistakes.
- American consumers need to reconsider their involvements in the market as well. Employer-sponsered insurance plans have contributed to a "free healthcare" psychology, and as such consumer demand for healthcare has skyrocketed, thereby increasing prices. Consumers need to recognize that health care costs are increasing in large part becaose of their increased demands.
- American workers should continue to demand healthcare from their employers, and treat guaranteed insurance packages just like they treat their wages; refuse to work for an employer who will not provide some form of health insurance in exchange for labor. Consumers should also refuse to exchange with corporations that do not provide health insurance to their workers.
- Americans in general need to live healthier lives. The better we eat, exercise and live, the less of these services we'll need in the first place. Government's job is to protect us from the bad choices of others, not to erase the consequences of our bad choices on ourselves.
- Corporate strangleholds in certain sectors of the health care market need to be removed. Consumers need to reward providers focused on providing quality services as opposed to those focused on empire-building, profit maximization, or legal monopoly holdings. The recognition that competition will produce lower costs and further advances is paramount.

These are some broad stroke approaches here. Feel free to shoot holes or ask questions.

farfromglorified

redrock wrote:

:eek: I don't know why I'm always amazed when you think everying is enforced with violence. I think you just like messing with us....

I do like messing with you. But that doesn't change the fact that it is enforced with violence. If people were willing to pay for their neighbor's healthcare, you wouldn't need UHC. The fact that they are unwilling is why you need to pass laws about it and force them to do it. And you force them via physical punishments. It's not complicated.

I bet your friend who paid (and is still paying) $10.000 that he didn't have to get a nail out of his toe would have been grateful for a bit of UHC!!!! I bet he could be satisfying some other basic desires with that kind of money instead of spending it on medical bills.

Um, that wasn't my friend. Someone simply used my name in their quote.

farfromglorified

redrock wrote:

That's the second time you say that ref UHC... UHC doesn't mean a doctor giving away services for free..... why do you keep on going with this kind of example/arguement?

I didn't say UHC means doctors giving away their services for free. Doing so would simply be truly altruistic. In many nations, however, doctors give portions of their labor away at their own cost, since prices and therefore wages end up being fixed by the states.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

Meh, we're already being taxed. I'd just rather we spent it on healthcare rather than some of the wasteful things we dump it on now.

Well, me too. If you want to tie UHC to a gaurantee to strip away equal expenditures from other services, I'd vote for it so long as there is no price fixing.

And it wouldn't be demanding that one sector provide healthcare to another (though it is heartening to see you use the word "society"). It would be demanding that most of the population provide healthcare to the entire population.

:rolleyes:

Half the population pays no general tax. The top 5% pay most of the tax. The actual providers of the services is a tiny percentage, while the consumer base is a huge majority. So this doesn't really make much sense.

Look, there's plenty preventing me from becoming a doctor. Funds, for one. There's no way I could afford to give away my services for free - at least not completely. Besides, I don't have a medical mind. And funds would be a hinderence toward starting a pharmaceutical company as well - that and I'm not a chemist.

On top of it all, I wouldn't describe myself as altruistic - or a pacifist.

Fair enough. I didn't mean to imply, by the way, that you could just magically become a doctor or whip up some Prozac in your kitchen. I was referring to the fact that nothing prevents you from entering the process of learning how and acting in such a way to do those things.