Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

What's wrong with free healthcare?

Rate this topic


Shading Inc.

Recommended Posts

Why is that impossible with a government-provided healthcare?

Public healthcare cannot be "free". That would violate reality. "Free" really means "free for some, and more expensive for others."

Govt healthcare is inherently a redistribution scheme. If it weren't it would be private healthcare. Private healthcare serves its purpose just fine, which is to allow an individual to pay for insurance commensurate with the identifiable risk level he incurrs.

The problem is that the cost of such insurance is above the means of some, and this is what all government healthcare schemes attempt to fix. They do this by diverting money from some to others.

When Megan says, "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" the part that govt healthcare can't abide by is bolded part. Public healthcare may try to imitate private in all facets, but the amount of money Megan pays will NOT be commensurate with the level of risk she takes. She is subsidizing someone else. She can do fine by herself, someone else needs her to participate so they can get her money. That is the whole reason govt gets involved.

As for crappy argumentation, your first post is a wonderful example. If you are trying to be a devil's advocate, your argument is hardly a coherent stand. If you actually stand by any of the arguments you cite (which is hard to believe since it is so full of "mights" and "coulds"), then this whole post would belong in the debate forum. It is not encumbent on me or anyone else to answer all the possible arguments against a case in order to be convincing as you claim here. Instead a coherent argument from my position suffices. If you wish to engage in debate it is encumbent on you to actually state where you stand, with a coherent argument, and then I'd be happy to answer it.

All of the arguments you cite rely on the fundamental answers to two questions.

a. What is the proper function of government?

b. Is healthcare within that proper function?

Objectivism answers these two questions very clearly and distinctly. (if you're an Objectivist, then I'd be happy to provide you citations, if you are not, then this thread really belongs in the debate forum.)

a. the proper function of government is to protect individual liberty (i.e. rights) by limiting the initiation of physical force.

b. Health care is a thing. It is the product of someone's labor. As such, it cannot be a liberty (a right). For anyone to claim it as a right means that someone can claim a right to the product of someone else's labor. This is an initiation of physical force on others and as such, government must not only not condone it, govt. must prevent it.

These are the fundamental issues. All of your arguments, if they are yours, must necesarily disagree with these in order to justify themselves. If you would like to put together a coherent argument that you would stand behind yourself, or propose a hypothetical with which you want to test the Objectivist counter great.

I'm surprised my colleagues engaged on you non-fundamentals. But then we all want to believe that people who come to the board really want to learn about Objectivism, and we tend to give the benefit of the doubt. It's unclear to me what you intentions are, and your tone strikes me as as bit belligerant. If you are simply playing devil's advocate, well, then forgive me. But if you are not, then many people have given you more of their time than you would otherwise deserve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Then let's hope there's not a limit to the number of posts.

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.

I'm not presuming; I'm merely saying what things seem to be like to me.

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.

I don't think there's any 'deserving' figuring here. If a nation manages, or doesn't manage to survive, this is not because it deserves, or doesn't deserve to; but simply because of the things it does or doesn't.

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.

No, there's a distinction between actions in one's own interest that benefit others as well; and actions in one's own interest that benefit no-one else: Me planting a tree in my garden in order for me to have some shade in case of violent sunshine might benefit my neighbours as well if my garden is small enough or the tree big enough; but me eating a sandwich in order for me not to starve benefits only me.

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.

I agree with you on this, but it just is not an argument against the original line of thought presented in the first post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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."

As I said in my previous post, adding 'deserving' to the picture, though attractive use of language it may seem, doesn't explain anything.

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

What do you mean to say?

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.

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."

In both cases of the meaning of 'force' there's the option between violence and submitting means in order to sublimize this violence.

In the case of obligatory taxes, the government forces the choice between violence and submitting means.

In the case of no taxes at all, the B-people force the moral people to choose between violence and submitting means - or in any case, a choice between violence and submitting (probably) more means than they would have in the case of obligatory taxes.

If you accept that death is not an option, then in the case of no obligatory taxes, the non-B-people are still forced to provide, and the B-people are provided for. Therefore, "if A, then B; but B is absurd; so -A" is not a viable argument in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean to say?

I mean to say that there is a HUGE difference between the initiation of force, and force used to defend oneself against the initiator. Your statements treat them both the same.

In both cases of the meaning of 'force' there's the option between violence and submitting means in order to sublimize this violence.
You're playing a shell game, perhaps even with yourself. Comparing two incomparable things.

In the case of obligatory taxes, the government forces the choice between violence and submitting means.

Thus, the government is the initiator of force, the one separating the people and their property. This is wrong. The government becomes the master of the people, and, being in a position of power can submit further demands.

In the case of no taxes at all, the B-people force the moral people to choose between violence and submitting means
No, the B people do nothing of the sort! Here you go switching the definition of force again. The ones responsible for the situation are the ones who initiate force (the criminals or invaders).

But the government in that case does not initiate force, and is not the master of the people, it is a servant. It is in no position to submit demands as it claims no moral authority to the property of the people. It is a simple exchange for a service.

- or in any case, a choice between violence and submitting (probably) more means than they would have in the case of obligatory taxes.

Oh, come on! That is total bunk! In the case of obligatory taxes, the taxman always demands more and you know it. Once you break the moral principle that people have a right to keep their property, then the government can demand more and more of it to "do good." Witness the welfare state. Governments today spend hundreds of times the amount of money on welfare schemes than they do on defending citizens, which is the only cost in the case of a voluntary government. Your statement couldn't be more wrong and the evidence is everywhere.

If you accept that death is not an option, then in the case of no obligatory taxes, the non-B-people are still forced to provide, and the B-people are provided for.

Again, switching the definition of force. But the key is that in this situation the government is not a monster. It is not the initiator of force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Well then perhaps a good argument as to why not everything one could ever wish for should be provided for, is that it would be impossible to realize. However, if one extreme of the continuum is absurd, does that mean we should clutter at the opposing extreme? Good old Aristotle advocated a golden mean...

But that would of course be an entirely different argument - one I do not want to examine right now.

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.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that government-provided healthcare is necessarily a crappy thing (that is, not in the way a stone I throw to the sky (in my garden, which is located on Earth) necessarily comes falling down again).

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.

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).

I really don't get it. Me falling down a stairs, breaking a leg; barbarians coming for my money, life and wife; or a meteor, just coming - they're all a danger to me, they all bring with them the possibility of my freedom being violated; and (assuming real mad barbarians), none of them can be negotiated with. I will need and want to protect myself from them.

The original idea was (but let me formulate it differently now) that it might be a good idea to set up a fund all would contribute to, in order for all to be guaranteed protection and/or compensation when needed. Don't be tricked by the 'for all' in this, because one might as well say that each is doing the best for him- or herself. I have called this obligatory taxation, but one might as well think of it as a very attractive alliance; give up some, gain a lot. We can even weaken the obligatory part: If you don't like the membership fee of this alliance and'd rather be an objective individualist; fine, just make sure to leave our territory and never bother us again. See?

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

If 'involutary taxation for the common good' is not acceptable, how about 'involuntary taxation for the well-being of every single man'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not presuming; I'm merely saying what things seem to be like to me.

Okay, you are wrong.

I don't think there's any 'deserving' figuring here. If a nation manages, or doesn't manage to survive, this is not because it deserves, or doesn't deserve to; but simply because of the things it does or doesn't.
Devoid of the concept of 'justice', you are correct. However, since your position appeared to be an ethical question ("What's wrong with X" (involuntarily taxed health care or military protection)), then the concept of justice (what one deserves) is very much relevant to the issue. If you are simply asking is it possible for the government to involuntarily tax people to provide healthcare, devoid of any concern for justice then the answer is; yes it can. However, accomplishing that by means of involuntary taxation is what is wrong as well as assuming that health care is even within the proper domain of the government.

but me eating a sandwich in order for me not to starve benefits only me.
On the contrary, assuming the sandwich was gained by rational means, the person you bought the ingredients from benefitted as well and it also means that that is one sandwich no one else has to provide for you.

I agree with you on this
I'm glad because it is very much relevant to the issue of involuntary taxation, regardless of the alleged benefit one would supposedly reap. Justice demands that men not have their property taken from them by force (assuming they themselves have not violated someone's rights in gaining said property).

If 'involutary taxation for the common good' is not acceptable, how about 'involuntary taxation for the well-being of every single man'?
Semantics doesn't change the problem.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but that doesn't mean that government-provided healthcare is necessarily a crappy thing (that is, not in the way a stone I throw to the sky (in my garden, which is located on Earth) necessarily comes falling down again).

Although David's statement is by no means a comprehensive proof, you may safely assume that the Objectivists here do in fact believe that government-provided healthcare is necessarily a crappy thing, in the same way that a stone thrown to the sky will necessarily come falling down again. Not just inasmuch as force is used, but also that it will provide poorer service than if the government was involved.

The proof of this is complex, but available.

But to sum up, there are two things wrong with "free" healthcare.

1) It isn't free; someone must pay for it, by force. The initiation of force is morally wrong and so, then, is "free" healthcare.

2) Government-provided "services" will inevitably suck. It is unavoidable because of the very nature of government "services." Private services will always be of greater utilitarian benefit as well as being better because force is not initiated. (of course, force is still a part of why they are inevitably poor in quality)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have called this obligatory taxation, but one might as well think of it as a very attractive alliance; give up some, gain a lot. We can even weaken the obligatory part: If you don't like the membership fee of this alliance and'd rather be an objective individualist; fine, just make sure to leave our territory and never bother us again. See?

This argument is interesting. I have heard versions of it from a number of communists and socialists. I had the interesting and uncomfortable experience of living in a commune for a few weeks, which I didn't care for, but serves to demonstrate my point.

A group of people that chooses to share resources and work toward their common good can do so in a capitalist society. Such is the case with a commune. You could do the same thing with regard to healthcare or any other social program. In capitalist terms, it would be a not-for-profit health insurance program where everybody paid as much as they were able and used the fund when they needed it.

On the other hand, the reverse, as you state honestly, is not true. In a communist society, people are not able to live like capitalists. Even with your fairly benigin outlook, you require people that want to live like we do, to leave. Why is that? Why couldn't we just choose not to participate in your voluntary not for profit healthcare system or any other socialist plan that you dream up?

Exile is not voluntary. It is arranged and maintained by initiating force. Which is something which doesn't seem to trouble you, I realize. This leads me to believe that you are not thinking in principle. So to get to a more basal level, why is it so important to you to have everyone else live as you think they ought to? In as abstract a sense as you are able, why not let individuals be free to spend the product of their efforts on whatever they please? Why must other people be given the power to step in and force compliance with their own desires? And lastly, why, if people cannot be trusted to make decisions with regard to their life and property should public officials be trusted?(The only logical answer here to stay consistent is that public officials are not "people" which I would agree to on one of my more cynical days.)

As a side note regarding the alleged crisis in healthcare take note of a few facts:

-If you are a male in your 30's with reasonable health, you can get basic health insurance to cover emergencies with a high deductable for about $50/month. In the US, there really are not many who cannot afford that. There are quite a few, however, who choose not to afford it.

-50% of hospitals revenue comes from medicare/medicaid. Medicare sets prices for individual procedures and requires them to accept medicare patients for that price. This in turn, causes hospitals to charge more with regard to insurance companies and indivdual payers to make up for the loss. So that extravagent $50/month insurance bill would in all likelyhood be significantly less if healthcare was not already heavily socialized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"no man's need constitutes an obligation on the part of any other man to fulfill that need!"

How can health care be free unless the one providing it chooses to ask for nothing in return?

Since physicians must earn their living and have to pay for whatever others produce and offer on the market they must ask to be paid at least from time to time.

galt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
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.

I work in a hospital and I can tell you that most of the people in there for costly things (spinal/cardiac/neurological issues) are there because of poor lifestyle choices or because they are old. Not only do I agree with everyone who has said that forcing people to action is wrong, but think ethically about the outcome of free, universal healthcare. If people were guaranteed healthcare, thats one less thing that unproductive people have to worry about in their quest to coast and people in general would make worse choices regarding their health simply because they could afford to. So, not only would it be wrong in principle, I guarantee there would be more wastes of money than actual good done.

One of my favorite parts of The Republic is when Plato talks about how great physicians should only practice on those who want to help themselves and are injured of circumstances beyond their control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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