Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Leibowitz interview with Kristol: Health Care

Rate this topic


2046

Recommended Posts

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/28/kristo...-care-soldiers/

Last night on The Daily Show, host Jon Stewart peppered right-wing pundit Bill Kristol with questions about why he is opposed to health care reform that includes a public health insurance option. Why is government-run health care “good enough for the military,” but “not good enough for the people of America?” Stewart asked.

Kristol — who has urged conservative activists and Republicans to “resist the temptation” to work with Democrats in crafting health reform and instead “go for the kill” — responded that the military “deserves it,” but the American people do not:

STEWART: Are you saying the American public shouldn’t have access to the same quality health care that we give to our better citizens?

KRISTOL: To our soldiers? Absolutely. [Crowd boos]

Kristol explained that soldiers get paid less, but “one way we make it up to” them is by giving them “first-class health care.” “I feel like you’ve trapped me somehow,” Kristol observed. Indeed, Stewart explained the flaw in Kristol’s logic:

STEWART: I just want to get this on record — Bill Kristol just said that the government can run a first-class health care system.

KRISTOL: Sure it can. [Crowd applauds]

STEWART: And a government-run system is better than a private health care system.

Kristol tried to backtrack, saying he wasn’t sure the military system is “better,” and later argued that other government-run systems aren’t providing the best health care.

Stewart wrapped up Kristol’s argument by stating, “So what you are suggesting is that the government could run the best health care system for Americans, but it’s a little too costly, so we should have the shitty insurance company health care.”

What is the Objectivist response?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a bit shocked that a conservative would agree with the notion that the government can run an efficient health care system. Given that he accepts that, it's absurd that his reason for opposing it is that soldiers deserve better care than everyone else. That sounds a lot like my coworker telling me that I should be forced to use the public health care option for because I shouldn't have better care than anyone else. He's saying the exact opposite, but it seems based on the same root principle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you please clarify your responses with reasons why and/or a statement of what would work differently in a Capitalist system?

Umm...Okay then.

In a capitalist society, the government has nothing to do with healthcare. The doctors and the hospitals set their own rates, and insurance companies do the same. You pay and you get healthcare. You are only responsible for yourself, not for others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Umm...Okay then.

In a capitalist society, the government has nothing to do with healthcare. The doctors and the hospitals set their own rates, and insurance companies do the same. You pay and you get healthcare. You are only responsible for yourself, not for others.

I am asking about military, police, and other government employees' health care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about it? You can give government employees health care, but obviously it wouldn't be paid for with taxes.

Shitty response. Who gets it? Where does it come from? And why do they get it from public funds? Who manages it? Is it privatized? Or do soldiers just get their medical bills paid by the Bureau of Medical Bills? Is there rationing for them? Do you try to keep costs down, then? Who decides? Who handles it? What is the justification? Or do soldiers have to pay for it themselves if they get wounded? Why or why not? What about police officers? What about health care for a government clerk or official? Why or why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't necessarily the case that in a free market, your employer would routinely offer health insurance as a benefit--and that would include government employees. It's done that way here and now because the employer gets a tax benefit from doing so--one that we do not get if we purchase our own insurance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you please clarify your responses with reasons why and/or a statement of what would work differently in a Capitalist system?
Well, for starters, what Kristol says about army folks having the best healthcare sounds like a lie. However, that's not the main problem.

Stewart's trick is to ask whether Americans all deserve good health care (forget whether the army guys get good health care). The correct answer is "no" (in the sense that Stewart meant it, and in the sense the audience would take it). However, since Kristol is a GOP guy, he fundamentally agrees with the Democrats on the purpose of government, and only disagrees on the means. To him, the market should be "allowed" to function in healthcare, as a means to the government ensuring healthcare is available. Therefore, when questioned in terms of purpose of government, he finds himself on Stewart's side.

Any person "deserves" what he has earned. Without government regulations, it would be very simple tp pay for very good healthcare.

However, the answer to "do all Americans deserve a Lexus" is also "no".

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the Objectivist response?

1) No one should be surprised that a conservative can be so easily played for a fool. Kristol especially.

2) Employees should not hazard their lives for their employers unless they agree beforehand and are compensated accordingly. Military are put in harm's way deliberately but are not compensated accordingly, certainly not well enough to pay for their own emergency medical care. Emergency medical aid to be effective has to be integrated into the force not foraged for or bought on the battlefield.

The military health care system is set up to handle mass casualty situations and is also optimized for traumatic wounds from explosions and gunshots ; it is planning ahead for emergency situations and justified on a cost basis and a moral basis of responsibility and a morale basis for the troops involved. It is not economical to extend to the entire country and is not good at more ordinary health care concerns that do not arise from combat. There are plenty of VA hospital scandals that illustrate how ill-suited a government run system is for ordinary medical problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The government can run a small system of hospitals for veterans and soldiers somewhat well only in the context of a private health-care industry. They cannot run a monopoly well.

The reasons:

1. The government hospitals are able to hire staff and experienced managers, from the private sector, at comparable cost. These professionals are motivated by the profits of the free market, and trained by the private companies who are interested in having them well trained. These professionals would not come to exist, if bureaucrats held a monopoly, over the entire country. Then, we would eventually have a health care system comparable to that of the former Communist block.

2. The government hospitals would profit from the technological advances and knowledge produced by a vibrant free market, as government bureaucrats run only a tiny entity, with no control over the research and production of medicine, equipment, or, for the most part, even the improvement of medical procedures and groundbreaking treatment. They would be confined to offering the best treatment they can, to soldiers.

3. The government would not be able to drive up prices by artificially driving up demand, as their hospital system is pretty well insulated from the rest of the consumer market (they only treat soldiers, who are not potential clients on the free market), especially from the insurance market. That is one of the reasons why soldiers should indeed get treatment in government owned hospitals, rather than get free insurance, payed for by the government. (another reason is just basic practical considerations-soldiers move around, often out of the reach of American civilian hospitals, they need the government to build hospitals on military bases abroad - having a private company do that would leave them in a position to set their own prices, in collusion with bureaucrats)

As for the moral reasons why they shouldn't run a monopoly, those have been covered well, above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last night on The Daily Show, host Jon Stewart peppered right-wing pundit Bill Kristol with questions about why he is opposed to health care reform that includes a public health insurance option. Why is government-run health care “good enough for the military,” but “not good enough for the people of America?” Stewart asked.

Soldiers are supposed to be on the battle field to fight for our freedoms, not to enslave us via socialized medicine. And make no mistake, socialized medicine enslaves people. I respect soldiers who fight for our liberties, not soldiers who fight for our enslavement. It is only soldiers who fight for our liberties that I would very gladly pay for the medical care of and do so voluntarily.

Soldiers provide a service which entails huge risks. Is Stewart too dishonest to recognize that fact? I mean, isn't it glaringly obvious???

They should be compensated for those risks. Soldiers are performing one of the legitimate functions of government, defense. Other citizens aren't providing those services.

As to socialized medicine, not only is it immoral, it doesn't work. This has been established many times. A military hospital isn't socialized medicine, since it is compensating people for their services and so long as the service is rendered within the context of a free society, the quality medical goods and services would all come from the private sector. The government hospitals don't have to do any innovation, since it will be taken care of in the free industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should be compensated for those risks. Soldiers are performing one of the legitimate functions of government, defense. Other citizens aren't providing those services.

As to socialized medicine, not only is it immoral, it doesn't work. This has been established many times. A military hospital isn't socialized medicine, since it is compensating people for their services and so long as the service is rendered within the context of a free society, the quality medical goods and services would all come from the private sector. The government hospitals don't have to do any innovation, since it will be taken care of in the free industry.

Unfortunately, I don't concede that many/most of our soldiers are fighting for liberty at the moment. Most are out there fighting (unconstitutional) altruistic wars or are engaging in imperialism. Many are being trained to handle crowd-control and street-patrolling - jobs fit for a policeman at best. Soldiers are required to disobey unlawful orders, so many of them presently deserve to be fired or tried in court. The last thing we should be doing is giving them free medical care. It's shitty medical care at that - some of the most inefficient and bureaucratic systems in the country!

But that's beside the point. Government is to provide protection of individual rights and nothing more - veterans' hospitals don't accomplish this task, no matter what or whom they may be serving. whether funded voluntarily or by taxation. They have no place in the government. Government should pay soldiers with money. Soldiers should then spend that money on medical care in the private sector. Government insurance would remove opportunity from the private sector, and would thus be against the principles of a laissez-faire capitalistic society.

Edited by Andrew Grathwohl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I don't concede that many/most of our soldiers are fighting for liberty at the moment. Most are out there fighting (unconstitutional) altruistic wars or are engaging in imperialism.

"imperialism"? What do you mean by that?

Anyway, without our military there is no doubt we would not be as free as we are.

But that's beside the point. Government is to provide protection of individual rights and nothing more - veterans' hospitals don't accomplish this task, no matter what or whom they may be serving. whether funded voluntarily or by taxation. They have no place in the government. Government should pay soldiers with money. Soldiers should then spend that money on medical care in the private sector. Government insurance would remove opportunity from the private sector, and would thus be against the principles of a laissez-faire capitalistic society.

On the battlefield hospitals would be required. There is nothing wrong with funding this as a government service to soldiers, so long as that service is paid for by private donations to government. However, since we are no where near that point now, I have nothing against public financing of such hospitals as we move toward a completely free system. I mean, hospitals for veterans are way down my list of priorities of things to phase out.

Now, to be sure, I agree that it would probably be better, once a soldier it out of the battle field, that he be admitted to a private hospital, where he can get the best care, and all of this should be paid for by the "government."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I don't concede that many/most of our soldiers are fighting for liberty at the moment. Most are out there fighting (unconstitutional) altruistic wars or are engaging in imperialism.

If our soldiers aren't fighting for your liberty, then who the Hell do you attribute your freedom to say that to? Did you fight for liberty in some battle I never heard of?

But that's beside the point. Government is to provide protection of individual rights and nothing more - veterans' hospitals don't accomplish this task, no matter what or whom they may be serving. whether funded voluntarily or by taxation. They have no place in the government. Government should pay soldiers with money. Soldiers should then spend that money on medical care in the private sector. Government insurance would remove opportunity from the private sector, and would thus be against the principles of a laissez-faire capitalistic society.

Even if we forget the great debt we owe WW2 and Vietnam veterans, current American soldiers are future veterans. Guaranteeing they will be taken care of for the rest of their life, if injured, helps them perform immensely better.

I can't think of a single better investment into a free country than a guarantee that injured soldiers will be cared for. That's a lesson from history, as well as an obviously practical course of action today.

Now, to be sure, I agree that it would probably be better, once a soldier it out of the battle field, that he be admitted to a private hospital, where he can get the best care, and all of this should be paid for by the "government."

Sorry Thales, I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. I did give a few reasons in my previous post, the main point is that the private hospital that has the government as its major client would not be very private. Look at current colleges and hospitals. A small, government run hospital system could offer high quality care, and leave the rest of the health care market to function free of government interference.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soldiers provide a service which entails huge risks. Is Stewart too dishonest to recognize that fact? I mean, isn't it glaringly obvious???

Stewart never said that there weren't risks. The point is Kristol said soldiers deserve their own mini-government run health care plan and non-soldiers don't. Neither soldiers nor non-soldiers deserve it more. Stewart would obviously support universal health care, but at least he isn't saying anyone deserves it more. When talking about a good like health care, "deserving it" should not be part of the discussion. To me, the only thing anyone deserves or doesn't deserve is money (in the sense that lazy people don't and productive people do).

Of course it is perfectly fine to donate money to people who take on risks such as fighting in the military. But I do not think there should be veteran hospitals. Anything beyond a battlefield hospital (with regards to government being involved in health care) is clearly going beyond the bounds of the proper functions of a military. Yes, soldiers should be compensated, but I do not think health care should be how they're compensated. At most, maybe the military can offer to pay all health care costs for a period of time for certain individuals. But the military should not have special agreements with insurance companies or hospitals and it should not try to form an insurance branch of its own, even at this point when public funding exists. In order to get government to run as you think it should, getting rid of something like "military run and funded hospitals" should be one of the first things to go.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soldiers are supposed to be on the battle field to fight for our freedoms, not to enslave us via socialized medicine. And make no mistake, socialized medicine enslaves people. I respect soldiers who fight for our liberties, not soldiers who fight for our enslavement. It is only soldiers who fight for our liberties that I would very gladly pay for the medical care of and do so voluntarily.

Soldiers provide a service which entails huge risks. Is Stewart too dishonest to recognize that fact? I mean, isn't it glaringly obvious???

They should be compensated for those risks. Soldiers are performing one of the legitimate functions of government, defense. Other citizens aren't providing those services.

As to socialized medicine, not only is it immoral, it doesn't work. This has been established many times. A military hospital isn't socialized medicine, since it is compensating people for their services and so long as the service is rendered within the context of a free society, the quality medical goods and services would all come from the private sector. The government hospitals don't have to do any innovation, since it will be taken care of in the free industry.

Not that I disagree, but I think you're making it more complicated than it has to be. Regardless of the risks that they take, I have no problem with soldiers having health-care provided by the government, because they are (gasp!) government employees! Health care happens to be part of the compensation they receive for their work...which is fine, especially considering the meager salaries that they receive. It's pretty standard for employers to provide their employees with health care. Why would the government be any different?

Edited by The Wrath
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My response is that the questions posed by Stewart, and the answers given by Kristol are absurd. Military health care doesn't come close to resembling 'civilian health care.' I actually think Stewart comes out the stupidest in this interview because he has been in a flurry to support health care reform for a few weeks now, and if there's one way not to sell the Obama health care reform it would be by telling the American people that they are going to get Military style health care. Kristol is only slightly less absurd than Stewart, but this shouldn't be surprising to anyone given his neoconservative ideology; Kristol actually believes it's possible for the government to run health care better than the free market can, and believes in the necessity to at least accept or run on certain socialist ideas in order to get into power. The absurdity is that both Kristol and Stewart have lost all reality on this issue, and are trying to promote their positions with concrete examples or propositions that they no nothing about--though they should, especially Kristol since he 'supported the troops' by promoting the Iraq war.

As far as why the military has government health care, which means that the military branches use money given to them by the federal government, is because the military is a part of the government. The role of the military is to defend the country, of course, and to do that soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen must be fit to perform the job. That requires health services both on and off the battlefield, so to speak. Military health care is a necessity and function of the military itself, and has absolutely nothing to do with socialism or national health care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stewart never said that there weren't risks. The point is Kristol said soldiers deserve their own mini-government run health care plan and non-soldiers don't. Neither soldiers nor non-soldiers deserve it more.

Soldiers do deserve it. Their job is to go in harms way, and part of reasonable compensation is to make sure their health is taken care of. They provide a service. This is the difference between them and any other citizen.

Stewart would obviously support universal health care, but at least he isn't saying anyone deserves it more. When talking about a good like health care, "deserving it" should not be part of the discussion. To me, the only thing anyone deserves or doesn't deserve is money (in the sense that lazy people don't and productive people do).

Listen, socialized medicine is not the same thing as providing soldiers with health care. Socialized medicine is a claim on the lives of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who gets it? Where does it come from? And why do they get it from public funds? Who manages it? Is it privatized? Or do soldiers just get their medical bills paid by the Bureau of Medical Bills? Is there rationing for them? Do you try to keep costs down, then? Who decides? Who handles it? What is the justification? Or do soldiers have to pay for it themselves if they get wounded? Why or why not? What about police officers? What about health care for a government clerk or official? Why or why not?

Who gets it? Soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen in order to fulfill their job in the military, with the role of defending the country. Why do they get it from public funds? Because it is the military, part of any legitimate government, and that's how the government funds itself. Is there rationing for them; do you try to keep costs down then; who decides; who handles it? It's not like 'civilian health care', there is rationing, costs should be lower because many of the institutions are run by military personnel who specialize in the particular services. What's is the justification? That's been given in a previous post. What about police officers? Any smart district is going to offer police officers health care as an incentive to join the police force, and a way to keep health liabilities down; it would be asinine not to offer it. What about health care for a government clerk or official? It could be offered to a clerk as an incentive, but I don't see the necessity in it. Officials are different, and it would depend on the official and what role he played in the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to be snide or short, but I don't see how anyone who says that military personnel should be responsible for the treatment of their injuries could be thinking critically about the issue. Imagine if you lost your finger, or a measly part of the damn thing, on the job; imagine if you lost more than a finger in an explosion or firefight during combat. Any military personnel to be injured in such circumstances is in no way responsible for their own treatment. VA clinics provide necessary care for military personnel. There's really nothing more to say about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...