What's wrong with free healthcare?

[Shading Inc.]

Yeah, what would be wrong with free (government subsidized) healthcare?

Of course, it would mean taxation (or some very generous billionaires, but let's not count on that), and as for example Nozick showed (in his Anarchy, State, and Utopia, 1974), taxation is forced labor; something anyone in his right mind (any reasonable person) would object to.

But then, anyone breaks a leg some day. Or well, maybe not exactly that, but the point be clear; we all need to be in a hospital some day, and medical care is a very expensive thing.

One might argue that it actually enhances one's freedom not to have to worry about keeping some money for medical emergency cases, or having to decide whether to take a health insurancy or not.

An obligatory health insurance for everyone, one could argue, is not unlike obligatory taxes used to finance an army: A military protects a country's citizens from external macro-scale violation of their freedom; an obligatory health insurance would protect a country's citizens from internal micro-scale violation of their freedom.

The question thus amounts to: Should a government be allowed to rule that every one of its citizens participate in a health insurance system?

A counter-argument might be that one can't say "I won't pay taxes for a bunch of guys with guns; I'll take care of myself when the barbarians come!", because every one of the country's citizens enjoys the protection of a military, so basically 'taking care of yourself' means 'having protection for free - while others still pay. Then, if 'taking care of yourself' would be allowed, probably nobody would want to pay - but then there wouldn't be a military. This might be accepted as a reason why if a country is to have a military, every single of its citizens should help to pay for it. However, so the counter-argument goes, this doesn't apply to an obligatory health insurance. One can say "I'll take care of myself", and actually be excluded from the protection of this system (that is, actually not having protection for free). Therefore, if anyone would want to exclude himself from this measure of internal protection, he or she should be allowed to do so.

If you accept this counter-argument, there might not really be a political issue anymore, but it might still be interesting to think about whether you're rather safe than sorry.

But wait! If you'll allow a little collaboration with good ol' Kant: If it is reasonable to rather be safe than sorry, if that is your maxim arrived at by correct use of reason, and assuming reason operated the same way in all rational beings, shouldn't you at the same time will that your conclusion would become a universal law? An obligatory health insurance system after all?

Jan.

[IAmMetaphysical]

One might argue that it actually enhances one's freedom not to have to worry about keeping some money for medical emergency cases, or having to decide whether to take a health insurancy or not.

An obligatory health insurance for everyone, one could argue, is not unlike obligatory taxes used to finance an army: A military protects a country's citizens from external macro-scale violation of their freedom; an obligatory health insurance would protect a country's citizens from internal micro-scale violation of their freedom.

Freedom in the politcal sense is very different from freedom in the metaphysical sense. The gov't should not be in the business of keeping people "free" from reality(the metaphysically given).

Edited October 20, 2006 by IAmMetaphysical

[bobsponge]

One problem is that when people feel 'protected' from something, such as when wearing seat belts or helmets, crumple zones, airbags, supposedly-safe soccer-mom minivans, they tend to take more risks and actually suffer the same number of, if not more, accidents. It's scientifically proven, and the term for it is Risk Homeostasis.

If people have no incentive to stay healthy, imagine what will happen to that tax-paid healthcare when they start eating McCholesterol every day, not exercising, and doing generally stupid things because "Hey, they'll fix me for free!"

Every ache, pain, cold and minor fever that normal rational people might take aspirin for, will then become something people go to the hospital for (because hey, it's "free!"), and then we'll be waiting for months for a scheduled operation (ala Canada) that could normally be done within 24 hours in a free-market system.

[gags]

Healthcare as you propose it would not be "free" in any rational sense of the word. Perhaps you should change the title of this thread to "What's wrong with stolen healthcare?"

[Shading Inc.]

Freedom in the politcal sense is very different from freedom in the metaphysical sense. The gov't should not be in the business of keeping people "free" from reality(the metaphysically given).

Do you mean you think countries shouldn't have militaries as well (in a world where having one for defensive reasons would be advisable)? If I radically think through what you're saying, there shouldn't even be a government at all. Or perhaps it's just not clear to me what your saying.

[BryanG]

So the only choice available is the false alternative of tax supported health care and no health care? Why is this?

[BrassDragon]

Yeah, what would be wrong with free (government subsidized) healthcare?

Of course, it would mean taxation (or some very generous billionaires, but let's not count on that), and as for example Nozick showed (in his Anarchy, State, and Utopia, 1974), taxation is forced labor; something anyone in his right mind (any reasonable person) would object to.

Well, there's your answer. If you want it more succinctly:

"Free" government healthcare is wrong because it relies on taxation, which is initiation of force against taxpayers.

Initiation of force is wrong because it contradicts a principle that every rational man should hold - it subverts rational thinking, and it subverts freedom.

What else is there to say? That should be enough. Can you really support something like universal health care, knowing the above?

But then, anyone breaks a leg some day. Or well, maybe not exactly that, but the point be clear; we all need to be in a hospital some day, and medical care is a very expensive thing.

One might argue that it actually enhances one's freedom not to have to worry about keeping some money for medical emergency cases, or having to decide whether to take a health insurancy or not.

But chances are, most rational people would end up paying in far more than they're getting out. I'm not going to be extremely overweight, have 11 children, or need to go in for alcohol poisioning. If I do need serious medical care, I'll pay to have it done right, rather than getting crappy public service. And yes, I have a close relative who was mistreated in the emergency room due to sheer stupidity and incompetence, so I mean that. So my point is, it's in my rational self-interest to save my money and pay for my own healthcare, than pay taxes and hope for the best.

An obligatory health insurance for everyone, one could argue, is not unlike obligatory taxes used to finance an army: A military protects a country's citizens from external macro-scale violation of their freedom; an obligatory health insurance would protect a country's citizens from internal micro-scale violation of their freedom.

An obligatory health insurance is a violation of freedom, not a protection of it. As you said, healthcare is incredibly expensive; it's not a right, but something that must be earned, whether we're talking about the jungle or the product of rational men living in the jungle, i.e. industrial society.

Other than that fallacy, what you said above is right. So the conclusion to draw is that initiating force against people to pay for the military is also wrong. I'm not happy that my tax dollars are being wasted in Iraq. Even if we were fighting in California against a land invasion from China, I don't want my money stolen to pay for it; I'd be happy to donate, and so would a whole lot of very wealthy individuals and corporations.

The question thus amounts to: Should a government be allowed to rule that every one of its citizens participate in a health insurance system?

A counter-argument might be that one can't say "I won't pay taxes for a bunch of guys with guns; I'll take care of myself when the barbarians come!", because every one of the country's citizens enjoys the protection of a military, so basically 'taking care of yourself' means 'having protection for free - while others still pay.

No. And as for the counter-argument - I think that's bunk, as should be clear from what I've already said.

If you'll allow a little collaboration with good ol' Kant: If it is reasonable to rather be safe than sorry, if that is your maxim arrived at by correct use of reason, and assuming reason operated the same way in all rational beings, shouldn't you at the same time will that your conclusion would become a universal law? An obligatory health insurance system after all?

Reason does operate the same way in all rational beings, but it doesn't say that "it's better to be safe than sorry," which is a generalization that's only useful in certain situations. Sometimes it's best to take risks. Anyway, this generalization certainly can't be applied to the universal healthcare quesion.

[Shading Inc.]

One problem is that when people feel 'protected' from something, such as when wearing seat belts or helmets, crumple zones, airbags, supposedly-safe soccer-mom minivans, they tend to take more risks and actually suffer the same number of, if not more, accidents. It's scientifically proven, and the term for it is Risk Homeostasis.

If people have no incentive to stay healthy, imagine what will happen to that tax-paid healthcare when they start eating McCholesterol every day, not exercising, and doing generally stupid things because "Hey, they'll fix me for free!"

Every ache, pain, cold and minor fever that normal rational people might take aspirin for, will then become something people go to the hospital for (because hey, it's "free!"), and then we'll be waiting for months for a scheduled operation (ala Canada) that could normally be done within 24 hours in a free-market system.

I don't think the analogy is correct. People with airbags etc. think they're safe, as in, that nothing is going to happen to them; whereas people who eat extra burgers, or jump from roofs know they're not safe, and that something is going to happen to them. Thinking nothing's going to happen to you is not the same as knowing you'll be fixed if something happens.

Also, I haven't specified anything about what would, and what would not be included in the health insurance I talked about, but if you really want to go into those details; it's probably a logical rule that medical care is only provided if it is actually needed.

Healthcare as you propose it would not be "free" in any rational sense of the word. Perhaps you should change the title of this thread to "What's wrong with stolen healthcare?"

Have you actually even read beyond the title and the first line of this topic?

[BrassDragon]

Have you actually even read beyond the title and the first line of this topic?

What gags is saying is that you're still paying for it by paying taxes - and also at the expense of your freedom from initiation of force (which is the only "right").

[Shading Inc.]

So the only choice available is the false alternative of tax supported health care and no health care? Why is this?

Can you point me to where I state that it is either this or that, and no other?

And have you ever heard about relevant argumentation, instead of just claiming something is false?

1. What gags is saying is that you're still paying for it by paying taxes - 2. and also at the expense of your freedom from initiation of force (which is the only "right").

He said 1, yes, but I said that as well, so he should have replied to what I said after I said 1, not repeating what I said and thinking it an argument.

He didn't say 2 at all.

Edited October 20, 2006 by Shading Inc.

[Inspector]

What you don't seem to know, Shading, is that Objectivism calls for a voluntarily supported government, not a tax-based one. So no, we do not advocate a tax-based government at all: not for its proper functions (military) and certainly not for improper ones (healthcare).

[Shading Inc.]

Well, there's your answer. If you want it more succinctly:

"Free" government healthcare is wrong because it relies on taxation, which is initiation of force against taxpayers.

Initiation of force is wrong because it contradicts a principle that every rational man should hold - it subverts rational thinking, and it subverts freedom.

What else is there to say? That should be enough. Can you really support something like universal health care, knowing the above?

I obviously wasn't through talking at this point. I brought up arguments that are generally thought of as justifying demanding people to pay taxes. These might be false, but you still have to show that they are, before you can expect anyone to be convinced of the wrongness of taxes.

But chances are, most rational people would end up paying in far more than they're getting out. I'm not going to be extremely overweight, have 11 children, or need to go in for alcohol poisioning. If I do need serious medical care, I'll pay to have it done right, rather than getting crappy public service. And yes, I have a close relative who was mistreated in the emergency room due to sheer stupidity and incompetence, so I mean that. So my point is, it's in my rational self-interest to save my money and pay for my own healthcare, than pay taxes and hope for the best.

An obligatory health insurance is a violation of freedom, not a protection of it. As you said, healthcare is incredibly expensive; it's not a right, but something that must be earned, whether we're talking about the jungle or the product of rational men living in the jungle, i.e. industrial society.

I'm not saying that healthcare is a right.

Healthcare being government-provided doesn't necessarily mean it's crap.

And what if you desperately and acutely need medical care in order to be able to live the life you want to live, but you have not yet been able to save enough money for it? Government-provided healthcare would have been a life-saver, but when there was a vote for it, it didn't pass, because of people like you. Would you feel regret?

So the conclusion to draw is that initiating force against people to pay for the military is also wrong. I'm not happy that my tax dollars are being wasted in Iraq. Even if we were fighting in California against a land invasion from China, I don't want my money stolen to pay for it; I'd be happy to donate, and so would a whole lot of very wealthy individuals and corporations.

I have to agree with you here.

However, this kind of reasoning wouldn't apply to health insurance. When there's China threatening to invade, every citizen is in danger, and so everyone is willing to contribute to the costs for defense (let's assume there're no people who would abuse all the others paying; choosing not to contribute themselves). But when you have an accident, it's only you in whose self-interest it is to raise money to pay for medical care - and what if you can't raise it?

What we see is that with a defensive military, it's only necessary to contribute as soon as a threat arises; but with medical care it might just be a good plan to insure your well-being beforehand.

Reason does operate the same way in all rational beings, but it doesn't say that "it's better to be safe than sorry," which is a generalization that's only useful in certain situations. Sometimes it's best to take risks. Anyway, this generalization certainly can't be applied to the universal healthcare quesion.

If you claim that the generalization can't be applied to the universal healthcare question, at least bother to tell me why. You're not providing any argumentation at all. Why is it rational to take the risk and don't go into insurances?

Jan.

Edited October 20, 2006 by Shading Inc.

[Shading Inc.]

What you don't seem to know, Shading, is that Objectivism calls for a voluntarily supported government, not a tax-based one. So no, we do not advocate a tax-based government at all: not for its proper functions (military) and certainly not for improper ones (healthcare).

Voluntarily or obligatory, it doesn't really matter if it would be rational to rather be safe than sorry - but you say it isn't?

[gags]

Have you actually even read beyond the title and the first line of this topic?

Yes I have actually read beyond the title. Have you actually thought about the implications of what you're proposing?

Following your logic, why should the government stop with healthcare? After all, food is a far more fundamental and immediate human need than healthcare. Why not simply collect taxes at the point of a gun so we can guarantee that everyone eats three good meals per day?

I'm not saying that healthcare is a right.

I'm glad to hear you say that.

Healthcare being government-provided doesn't necessarily mean it's crap.

Like most things the government does, government-provided healthcare is often crap.

And what if you desperately and acutely need medical care in order to be able to live the life you want to live, but you have not yet been able to save enough money for it? Government-provided healthcare would have been a life-saver, but when there was a vote for it, it didn't pass, because of people like you. Would you feel regret?

You don't seem to understand that another person's need does not create a demand on my life, or yours for that matter.

Voluntarily or obligatory, it doesn't really matter if it would be rational to rather be safe than sorry - but you say it isn't?

People take calculated risks all of the time. It is not irrational to take a calculated risk like going without health insurance. In any event, those who take such risks do it voluntarily and then have to live with the consequences of their decisions.

[IAmMetaphysical]

Do you mean you think countries shouldn't have militaries as well (in a world where having one for defensive reasons would be advisable)? If I radically think through what you're saying, there shouldn't even be a government at all. Or perhaps it's just not clear to me what your saying.

No, what I am saying is that the only proper function of gov't is protection against one man's abridging another's freedom, through initiation of force. It should not protect you from the law of causality, that is, natural impediments to your freedom.

Edited October 20, 2006 by IAmMetaphysical

[RationalBiker]

Voluntarily or obligatory, it doesn't really matter if it would be rational to rather be safe than sorry - but you say it isn't?

It's still makes a world of difference. Involuntary taxation is still involuntary and enforced at the point of a gun. There still remains the issue forcing productive people to provide for unproductive people who do not or will not provide for themselves.

As has been said, one person's need is not a license to take by force from another person.

[Inspector]

Voluntarily or obligatory, it doesn't really matter if it would be rational to rather be safe than sorry - but you say it isn't?

That's right; I say it isn't. It is of primary importance that a man be "safe" from one thing: the initiation of force. No service, health care or otherwise, is worth this.

[BrassDragon]

I obviously wasn't through talking at this point. I brought up arguments that are generally thought of as justifying demanding people to pay taxes. These might be false, but you still have to show that they are, before you can expect anyone to be convinced of the wrongness of taxes.

Those weren't just points; they were my argument. They should be enough to convince you that universal healthcare is immoral.

And what if you desperately and acutely need medical care in order to be able to live the life you want to live, but you have not yet been able to save enough money for it? Government-provided healthcare would have been a life-saver, but when there was a vote for it, it didn't pass, because of people like you. Would you feel regret?

I would rather die than demand another man sacrifice his life, his productivity, for me to live. But realistically, I would (and do) have a private insurance plan, which I pay for myself.

But when you have an accident, it's only you in whose self-interest it is to raise money to pay for medical care - and what if you can't raise it?

Exactly. It's only in my self-interest to pay for my own medical care, and nobody else's. But you seem to be suggesting that I should demand that you pay for it!

If you claim that the generalization can't be applied to the universal healthcare question, at least bother to tell me why. You're not providing any argumentation at all. Why is it rational to take the risk and don't go into insurances?

I wasn't trying to leave you in the dark, I thought what I said would be self-evident once it came up.

"Better safe than sorry" is an argument for private health insurance. Better safe, with insurance I earned and I know will keep me healthy, than sorry, with shitty medical care and taxes out my ass. Of course, you can put your perspective in there and use it to try to justify that if you want. The point is, it's a useless generalization.

Anyway, I'm be happy to discuss things with you if you have legitimate questions, but it looks to me like you may be better off reading some of Rand's work if you're really interested.

[JMeganSnow]

Also, I haven't specified anything about what would, and what would not be included in the health insurance I talked about, but if you really want to go into those details; it's probably a logical rule that medical care is only provided if it is actually needed.

Needed according to whom?! Who gets to decide this? Say I have ovarian cysts. I could just take tylenol or tylenol with codeine every period to get over the excruciating pain and hope they never develop into cancer. That's one option. Or, I could have expensive surgery to remove the cysts so that I don't have pain but I can still have kids. OR, I could just get a hysterectomy (which, IIRC, is actually easier and cheaper). Then, do I get hormone replacement therapy or just tough out the sweats and the bone loss? What do I do? How do you decide which treatment I "need"?

Whereas, if I pay for this myself, I can decide which option I want given my situation and the amount of money I have to pay for this crap.

Every service the government provides is shitty. Can there possibly be a reason for this? Is that within the realm of speculation? I think it is. The reason is that it's a violation of rights. Once you take that step, everything that follows after is a hideous downward spiral of destruction.

[softwareNerd]

But then, anyone breaks a leg some day. Or well, maybe not exactly that, but the point be clear; we all need to be in a hospital some day, and medical care is a very expensive thing.

One might argue that it actually enhances one's freedom not to have to worry about keeping some money for medical emergency cases, or having to decide whether to take a health insurancy or not.

What is so special about health. Cannot we use the same argument, to say the following:

Everyone needs a roof over their heads, and for the typical person, housing is the most "expensive thing" (i.e. it takes the largest share or a household's budget). One might argue that it actually enhances one's freedom not to have to worry about saving money for a house down-payment, or having to decide whether to take a home-owner's insurance. So, why not simply let the government give each family the housing they need.

Then, after housing and health, transportation might be the next big part of the average household budget. One might argue that it actually enhances one's freedom not to have to worry about saving money for a car-payments, or having to decide whether to take car insurance. Surely the government can give everyone the cars and gas that they need.

Soon, the government is giving to each according to his needs and we're all wallowing in more freedom than we can handle.

[Shading Inc.]

(Why won't the quote tag work..?)

Yes I have actually read beyond the title. Have you actually thought about the implications of what you're proposing?

You didn't display having read beyond the title, though. And yes, I have thought about the implications of the idea.

Please note that I'm not actually proposing to introduce this idea. I was just after weighing the pros and cons; as in, a discussion wherein people try to be objective, and consider every point of view. (Didn't Aristotle say that is the mark of a great mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it? Think first, judge later.) If it seems all I do is propose pros, that should probably be attributed to the fact that all you other people do is propose cons.

Following your logic, why should the government stop with healthcare? After all, food is a far more fundamental and immediate human need than healthcare. Why not simply collect taxes at the point of a gun so we can guarantee that everyone eats three good meals per day?

Yes, why not? (Perhaps because breaking a leg is a much more serious problem than not eating for a few days; or perhaps because food is much easier to obtain than medical treatment; or because you can see it coming that you're going to want to eat tomorrow, but not that you're going to break your leg tripping over the doorstep of the restaurant; or because everybody needs (and probably is going) to eat every day anyway, so taxing, then redistribution wouldn't make a lot of sense...)

I'm glad to hear you say that.

As a general rule, I try to not believe in things whose existence I can't prove.

Like most things the government does, government-provided healthcare is often crap.

Yes yes, but a decent government-provided healthcare system isn't unthinkable.

You don't seem to understand that another person's need does not create a demand on my life, or yours for that matter.

You don't seem to understand that a universal healthcare system would not just be a demand of others on your life, but also a demand of you on other people's lives - but more importantly; that it may also be a demand of you, on your own life. It may be in your own interest.

People take calculated risks all of the time. It is not irrational to take a calculated risk like going without health insurance. In any event, those who take such risks do it voluntarily and then have to live with the consequences of their decisions.

It may not be irrational to take a risk (I don't see what difference it makes if a risk is calculated or not; a risk is a risk), but can't see how it would be rational to take a risk. If you know your chance of breaking a leg is 49%, and your chance of not breaking it 51%, it would be rational (in an economic kind of way) not to insure yourself for breaking that leg, but I think that actually a lot of people would still get that insurance with this kind of numbers. What on earth is a calculated risk, and what on earth is rational in this case?

No, what I am saying is that the only proper function of gov't is protection against one man's abridging another's freedom, through initiation of force. It should not protect you from the law of causality, that is, natural impediments to your freedom.

What's the difference between aliens come to destroy our homes, and a meteor come to destroy our homes? The distinction between natural impediments and agrressive barbarians seems like a rather arbitrary one.

It's still makes a world of difference. Involuntary taxation is still involuntary and enforced at the point of a gun. There still remains the issue forcing productive people to provide for unproductive people who do not or will not provide for themselves.

As has been said, one person's need is not a license to take by force from another person.

Let 'involutary taxation for the common good' be A; 'unproductive people who do not or will not provide for themselves (but are still provided for) B. You say "if A, then B; but B is absurd; so -A". You do not seem to give thought to the possibility that -A may be absurd as well: If a country in need of a defensive military has no involuntary taxation, the defense of the country would depend on people voluntarily providing the means for a military. If everyone would provide, there would be no problem, but there are still the B-people; those who will not provide for themselves, that is, who will not tribute means for a military, but who would still enjoy the protection thereof. Now consider the situation where the entire population of a country consists of B. There will be no military this way. Then some people will get together and decide that if no-one else does, they will provide the means for a military. Their ten-men-army is doomed to lose, of course, so they gather up enough providers-of-means untill they stand a good defense. The same problem thus arises for -A as for A: The B-people are still provided for.

That's right; I say it isn't. It is of primary importance that a man be "safe" from one thing: the initiation of force. No service, health care or otherwise, is worth this.

Being safe from initiation of force requires just that; initiation of force. Unless of course there would be no man who would not adhere to this principle, but that is just not realistic. A service that keeps people safe from initiation of force requires certain means to operate, and where do these means come from? They are provided voluntarily by moral peope? Voluntarily you say? Not exactly, because if these moral people wouldn't provide, there wouldn't be this safe-keeping service. Seem more like involuntarily. Of course, they have the choice of providing or not providing, but if they want to be safe from initiation of force, they are forced to provide.

Those weren't just points; they were my argument. They should be enough to convince you that universal healthcare is immoral.

If there are arguments that may be thought of as countering your points; your points will not suffice to convince a lot of people.

I would rather die than demand another man sacrifice his life, his productivity, for me to live. But realistically, I would (and do) have a private insurance plan, which I pay for myself.

That first part sounds very altruistic. If you were to choose between your own death and somebody else's, you'd choose your own? Or if you were to choose between your own death and an hour of the surgeon's time, you would still want to die? That seems noble beyond anything I've ever heard of. Congrats on the insurance plan, btw.

Exactly. It's only in my self-interest to pay for my own medical care, and nobody else's. But you seem to be suggesting that I should demand that you pay for it!

That wasn't the suggestion. The idea was presented in the first post of this topic; an obligatory health insurance plan. Note that this would not necessarily mean you paying for other, and vice versa. It may also be thought of as each taking care of his own. However, it may not be equally easy to provide for oneself at every stage of one's life. Therefore, it may be rational to agree to receiving more care than you can pay for during this part of your life, and providing more than you consume, during that part of your life.

1. I wasn't trying to leave you in the dark, I thought what I said would be self-evident once it came up.

2. "Better safe than sorry" is an argument for private health insurance. Better safe, with insurance I earned and I know will keep me healthy, than sorry, with shitty medical care and taxes out my ass. Of course, you can put your perspective in there and use it to try to justify that if you want. The point is, it's a useless generalization.

3. Anyway, I'm be happy to discuss things with you if you have legitimate questions, but it looks to me like you may be better off reading some of Rand's work if you're really interested.

1. It wasn't self-evident at all.

2. Allow me to point out that this topic was never meant to be applied to the actual situation of your country. It was meant as a theoretical discussion.

3. In reply to you speaking of 'legitimate questions': Why is anything that appears to be in conflict with Rand's writings unconditionally wrong? That is not a very philosophic kind of view. Isn't it good to test your foundations times and times again?

Needed according to whom?! Who gets to decide this? Say I have ovarian cysts. I could just take tylenol or tylenol with codeine every period to get over the excruciating pain and hope they never develop into cancer. That's one option. Or, I could have expensive surgery to remove the cysts so that I don't have pain but I can still have kids. OR, I could just get a hysterectomy (which, IIRC, is actually easier and cheaper). Then, do I get hormone replacement therapy or just tough out the sweats and the bone loss? What do I do? How do you decide which treatment I "need"?

Practical issues can be dealt with, I'm sure. In any case, they're not within the scope of the discussion I had in mind when starting this thread. Besides, I don't think implementational problems that aren't insurmountable (or would you claim that they are?) a good argument in a theoretical discussion in the first place.

Whereas, if I pay for this myself, I can decide which option I want given my situation and the amount of money I have to pay for this crap.

Why is that impossible with a government-provided healthcare?

Every service the government provides is shitty. Can there possibly be a reason for this? Is that within the realm of speculation? I think it is. The reason is that it's a violation of rights. Once you take that step, everything that follows after is a hideous downward spiral of destruction.

"Every service the government provides is shitty, because it's a violation of rights"? That my lady, is one crappy piece of argumentation. Either that, or very inaccurately formulated.

What is so special about health. Cannot we use the same argument, to say the following:

[...]

I'm glad you're consequently thinking this through.

It's obvious that it would be great if each had what he needed in order to live a fine life.

But it's also obvious there're these unproductive people who do nothing but enjoy being provided for, and that this would be unfair for the productive people, and that in the end it would probably wreck the system.

So the one extreme, the government taking care of everyone's basic needs, is not acceptable; but does that necessarily mean we have to adhere to the other extreme?

Jan.

Edited October 21, 2006 by Shading Inc.

[DavidV]

There's a limit on the number of quotes allowed in a single post.

[RationalBiker]

You do not seem to give thought to the possibility that -A may be absurd as well:

Do not presume to know what I give thought to or not simply because we disagree. One can equally state that you have not given enough thought to the implications of legalizing robbery, or in believing that the end justifies the means, which are clearly the two primary principles involved, aside from the issue of individual rights being violated.

And also, does a group of people (in this case a nation) deserve to survive if they are almost wholly unwilling to provide for that survival for their own sake? I think not; nor do I think that it would come to that in the case of the US.

It doesn't matter that some people may benefit from the voluntary donations of others who are acting in their own rational self-interest (as those contributors are still directly benefitting from their own offerings). It is in the nature of all rational acts that all men benefit anyway as actions one person takes to provide for their own life relieve all other men from having to do so.

It's far better that leeches benefit by chance rather than by the sanction of the government where productive men are not merely giving freely, but are being punished for being productive since money is pried from their hands and used for things from which they receive absolutely no benefit. Taxed money never stops at providing services that all men need. When the government takes money by force, nothing stops them from spending it however they want. In a society that does not support "leeches" by involuntary taxation, there will be far fewer "leeches" as they will not be able to provide for themselves. Either that, or necessity will force them to be more productive for the sake of their own lives in which case they will still be less of a drain on other men as they are allowed, if not governmentally encouraged, to be now.

People have a right to life, but not a right to have that life provided for them.

I'm sure the street robber appreciates your plight. If he sticks a gun in your face and demands money from you, be comforted by the fact that perhaps he or someone else needs your money more than you do. That will make it right.

[Inspector]

The same problem thus arises for -A as for A: The B-people are still provided for.

Yes, but nobody is initiating force. Also, I'm going to quote Heinlein on this one: "A nation that cannot find enough volunteers to defend itself will not survive -- and does not deserve to."

Being safe from initiation of force requires just that; initiation of force.

It is obvious that you don't know what "initiation of force" is, or how it is distinct from retaliatory force.

A service that keeps people safe from initiation of force requires certain means to operate, and where do these means come from? They are provided voluntarily by moral peope? Voluntarily you say?

YES.

Not exactly, because if these moral people wouldn't provide, there wouldn't be this safe-keeping service. Seem more like involuntarily. Of course, they have the choice of providing or not providing, but if they want to be safe from initiation of force, they are forced to provide.

Here you switch the definition of the word "force." Which is about as intelligent as asking if you are gay [happy], and when you say yes, accusing you of admitting to being gay [homosexual].

The definitions being switched are "force" as in "the use of violence" and "force" as in "circumstances provide no other option."

To quote myself:

Not as in "I'm all out of strawberries so I am forced to eat blueberries." I mean FORCED as in burly men have strapped you to a table and are cramming blueberries down your throat. (like in The Devil and Homer Simpson)

[DavidOdden]

Yes, why not [provide free food]? (Perhaps because breaking a leg is a much more serious problem than not eating for a few days; or perhaps because food is much easier to obtain than medical treatment; or because you can see it coming that you're going to want to eat tomorrow, but not that you're going to break your leg tripping over the doorstep of the restaurant; or because everybody needs (and probably is going) to eat every day anyway, so taxing, then redistribution wouldn't make a lot of sense...)

That isn't a sufficiently strong reason to claim a difference between free health care and free food. For one, free health care is vastly more extensive (and expensive) than emergency-room treatments. It refers to treatment of colds, chronic diseases, medical consequences of bad lifestyle decisions, and childbirth, among other things. You can in fact go for years without seeing a doctor, but you can't go more than a few days without food. And let's not forget shelter and water. Shoes are part of what constitutes shelter. And being realistic, internet access is pretty important in this day and age, also a washing machine, a decent bed so that you can get some sleep. And a car or a bike.

Medical treatment isn't actually that hard to get, except in countries with socialist medicine. The reason why it takes 6 months to schedule that surgery is because your friendly government has restricted access to medical services by making doctors thralls of the state.

You don't seem to understand that a universal healthcare system would not just be a demand of others on your life, but also a demand of you on other people's lives - but more importantly; that it may also be a demand of you, on your own life. It may be in your own interest.

It may be, but it's my right to decide what's best for me. So I decide that it is not in my interest to have my money stolen from me to pay for the medical costs of some other person. There may be rich philanthropists who for some reason think it is in their interest to provide free health care, in which case they can establish a private fund. The objection is not to everybody having health care, it is to using force to confiscate my money in order to pay for this stuff for other people.

What's the difference between aliens come to destroy our homes, and a meteor come to destroy our homes? The distinction between natural impediments and agrressive barbarians seems like a rather arbitrary one.

There is a fundamental and important difference. A hurricane is by nature incapable of reason, and men should and do know this. The concept "civilized society" does not preclude the possibility of a hurricane, and men must each take whatever preparations are necessary to withstand or avoid a hurricane. Barbarians on the other hand are beings with a rational faculty, and can grasp the concept of rights and the idea that by nature, man lives according to reason and not brute force. The concept of "civilised society" does preclude barbarian hordes and thieves. The function of government is exclusively to control the use of force by men, in order to have a civilised society (which then gives rise to the peaceful endeavors that create food, medical treatment, shelter, internet access).

Let 'involutary taxation for the common good' be A;

But there is no such thing. There is no "common good". So your basic premise is false without even considering any other B-statement.

At any rate, there is nothing wrong with everybody having health care. There is nothing right about taxation or restricting free enterprise (prohibiting the free practce of the medical arts). Whatever system you can work out that is consistent with these basic truths is fine with me.