If universal healthcare is not the answer

[brian0918]

If universal healthcare is not the answer, and insurance companies are, what of the uninsurable - those with cancer and incurable diseases who are incapable of paying the thousands-of-dollars-per-pill necessary to continue their existence? Do they just die? Or is some other part of the system broken? Or, is there some other alternative? Thanks!

[Maarten]

If universal healthcare is not the answer, and insurance companies are, what of the uninsurable - those with cancer and incurable diseases who are incapable of paying the thousands-of-dollars-per-pill necessary to continue their existence? Do they just die? Or is some other part of the system broken? Or, is there some other alternative? Thanks!

Why didn't they get insurance before they got sick?

Edited February 2, 2008 by Maarten

[RationalBiker]

Or is some other part of the system broken?

Someone who gets a terminal disease and / or who cannot afford health care is not an indication that any "system" is broken. It may be an indication of a great many other things though. I'm aware of no system that should ensure someone's life apart from those in which they contract with voluntarily or someone else contracts with for them (voluntary) as a proxy. Should they find themselves (or put themselves) in such a pickle, they may have to rely on the voluntary benevolence of others.

[DavidOdden]

People with incurable diseases just die. Even people without incurable diseases die. The problem is that the law does not require people to take responsibility for their actions, and often in medical matters prohibits people from having to face reality. Thus a criminally irresponsible person can ignore her doctor's advice, suffer a consequence, then sue the doctor for the consequence and be awarded millions of dollars, to be paid by the insurance company. The doctor must now perform massively expensive tests for routine matters, because it's mandated by law. The doctor also has little choice in the matter of treating patients and requiring them to pay for services. All of these costs must be paid by someone, namely the honest patient.

Apart from the problem of government intrusion, there is the inconvenient fact that people in their natural, primitive state do tend to die fairly young, and it's only thanks to serious medical intervention that people life as long as they do these days. These surgeries, prosthetics and pills all cost an awful lot. It is insane to think that the huge advances in medicine over the past 30 years are free and just lying around on the ground to be picked up.

Medical insurance is comparable to a savings account. Many people are completely irresponsible about what is important in their life, so they whine "Boo hoo, I can't afford {medical insurance, car insurance, house insurance, the mortgage, the electric bill....} somebody has to help me." And yet they can manage some nice clothes, a cell phone, dinner out two or three times a week, a trip to the Carribean. Medical insurance is, basically, your life. It is not optional, you can never afford to skip it because you're feeling healthy and lucky.

[John McVey]

If universal healthcare is not the answer, and insurance companies are, what of the uninsurable - those with cancer and incurable diseases who are incapable of paying the thousands-of-dollars-per-pill necessary to continue their existence? Do they just die? Or is some other part of the system broken? Or, is there some other alternative? Thanks!

Not the answer to what, exactly? What is the actual nature of the problem that you fear needs addressing should health care be laissez-faire as it should be like everything else in the economy?

The complaints about people (even honest ones) being unable to pay the bills for what they would like to have are just another variant of the complaints about any form of inequality. There is always a level of health care that even the well-heeled cannot afford - it is always a matter of how much can people afford and what priorities they set for what levels they desire compared to other things they can or cannot afford. There is no excuse for the implicit assertion that health care is somehow "different" and hence exempt from the same analysis as any other set of tradable goods that some can afford and others cannot: if you can afford the level you think appropriate then good for you, while if not then it's your responsibility and nobody else's to address it. There is no morality and no justice in what is being insinuated by the complaint, there is neither morality in egalitarianism nor justice in any part of a system that seeks to correct inequalities as a key motivation.

Leaving aside David's good observations on economic and lifestyle realities, consider what you are asking about. These complaints are tantamount to saying that one person's bad luck constitutes a claim on others, followed by the assertion that the system is broken because it fails to deliver on these claims - particularly when technological progress widens the potential for inequality through making available new and expensive treatments that never before existed. Even if you've done all the right things, yet still end up being unable to afford medical care, you have no right to demand that others foot the bill and no right to condemn those who wont voluntarily contribute. That in practice this scenario is highly unlikely, that under freedom there would be plenty of charity to go around for those few genuine cases, that as time passes freedom constantly opens up more possibilities for the same earning capacity, and that people should have made reasonable preparations and so shouldn't be absolved from their responsibilities, are all beside the point.

It could conceivably be possible - by some rare confluence of factors - that someone can fall through the gaps despite no fault of their own, but even were this to happen it is not in any way a problem for a laissez-faire health care system and not anyone's obligation to prevent or solve it. What happens as a result? Yes, they die before others do on average, simple as that. What moral conclusion do you draw from this, and why?

JJM

[Miles White]

If universal healthcare is not the answer, and insurance companies are, what of the uninsurable - those with cancer and incurable diseases who are incapable of paying the thousands-of-dollars-per-pill necessary to continue their existence? Do they just die? Or is some other part of the system broken? Or, is there some other alternative? Thanks!

How about a better question to ask, "What about all the people in countries with socialized medicine being forced to wait years in queues in order to maybe get medicine that they must pay outrageous taxes for."

Not only is it voluntary to stick with private medicine, but you'll be guaranteed service when you want it and you'll be guaranteed real service from good doctors as opposed to just union doctors who are given government payed for vacations when ever they want. The private sector, when given the space to, will always give the best service at the most competitive price. In a pure capitalist economy were people are allowed to keep all of the money that they earn to themselves, people would have more money to spend on medical care and the private hospitals would compete with one another to see which one gives the best service with the lowest price. Private hospitals are mainly so expensive today because of inflation, and subsidies that take away all the competitive motivation of the businesses.

[brian0918]

Why didn't they get insurance before they got sick?

How is the baby born with AIDS and an addiction to crack, left on the steps outside a hospital, supposed to sign up for insurance?

[RationalBiker]

How is the baby born with AIDS and an addiction to crack, left on the steps outside a hospital, supposed to sign up for insurance?

It isn't. You personally should take responsibility for that baby. You, and other folks similarly inclined who wish to contribute voluntarily to a fund for crack babies left on hospital doorsteps. There are plenty of folks out there who would be more than willing to voluntarily assist you in that endeavor. They can also come up with lot of creative ways to raise or solicit funds in a free market system to help take care of that crack baby.

[KendallJ]

How is the baby born with AIDS and an addiction to crack, left on the steps outside a hospital, supposed to sign up for insurance?

How is a fantastic hypothetical supposed to suffice as a justification for everyone else?

[Ifat Glassman]

If universal healthcare is not the answer, and insurance companies are, what of the uninsurable - those with cancer and incurable diseases who are incapable of paying the thousands-of-dollars-per-pill necessary to continue their existence? Do they just die? Or is some other part of the system broken? Or, is there some other alternative? Thanks!

Same problem again in your formulation of question as in your previous thread (About Dagny Taggart and makeup). "What is the answer?" As if this problem is of the whole society. As if the problem of a single man is somehow automatically made the problem of all other men. Why? Why do you assume so?

People can be dragged into an argument with you. Perhaps eventually you would still think that under their system the sick will die in higher rates than under the current system. And perhaps it is also true. So what? Does that justify stealing and forcing the capable?

[Capitalism Forever]

People with incurable diseases just die.

No! I demand that the government cure all incurable diseases!! And after it has done that, I also demand that it resurrect everyone that has already died! (Oh, and it's also about time that the government began reducing carbon emissions and doing something about overpopulation!)

Who says leftists don't believe in God? They just call it "government."

Many people are completely irresponsible about what is important in their life, so they whine "Boo hoo, I can't afford {medical insurance, car insurance, house insurance, the mortgage, the electric bill....} somebody has to help me." And yet they can manage some nice clothes, a cell phone, dinner out two or three times a week, a trip to the Carribean.

Not to mention cigarettes and booze.

[brian0918]

How is a fantastic hypothetical supposed to suffice as a justification for everyone else?

I was simply responding to the question, "Why didn't they get insurance before they got sick?" This question seemed ridiculous to me because it is possible for people to be uninsurable from birth.

[softwareNerd]

Firstly, there is nothing about insurance as such that says children cannot be insured just because they are unborn or even not quite planned yet. However, this is a tactical issue, because there will always be people who do not buy insurance for themselves or for their kids, and who cannot afford to pay.

Health care means time and resources. So there are only two solutions you can offer such people: you and people you convince to act like you, can volunteer to give them the time and resources or the money equivalent; or, you and people you convince can force others to give time and resources. Or, you can try a mix of the two approaches.

Objectivism rules out the use of force in a situation like this. So, the Objectivist answer is that such people will rely on charity of friends, family and organizations.

Edited February 3, 2008 by softwareNerd

[brian0918]

Firstly, there is nothing about insurance as such that says children cannot be insured just because they are unborn or even not quite planned yet. However, this is a tactical issue, because there will always be people who do not buy insurance for themselves or for their kids, and who cannot afford to pay.

Health care means time and resources. So there are only two solutions you can offer such people: you and people you convince to act like you, can volunteer to give them the time and resources or the money equivalent; or, you and people you convince can force others to give time and resources. Or, you can try a mix of the two approaches.

Objectivism rules out the use of force in a situation like this. So, the Objectivist answer is that such people will rely on charity of friends, family and organizations.

I am not sure how many friends one would need to be able to pay for a month's worth of cancer medication that can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Is it more that the cost of treatment is inflated and needs to go down, or that those people need to die?

[softwareNerd]

Of course nobody "needs to die". On the other hand, every time someone invents some new treatment or some new device, everybody does get the right to have it for free. Just because someone invents an MRI machine that can be useful in saving lives, does not give others the right to point a gun to the heads of random strangers and force them to pay for MRI machines.

In essence, if you cannot afford treatment and nobody is willing to help you, then you do not have the right to force others to do so. If this means you die, then you die; it does not mean you "need" to die. Like other value (food, clothes, etc.) health-care is produced through human production; if one cannot produce one cannot consume. Charity becomes the only moral alternative.

This is not an issue, because an average-income person can always afford average health-care. The individual variations in costs is handled by "sharing" such cost via insurance.

Like education , health-care has traditionally been an area that has attracted a lot of charity, and probably always will. Therefore, most average people will usually be able to afford health-care that is a little higher than their incomes would normally allow.

Of course treatment costs are high in the U.S., because of the government-encouraged "insurance" bureaucracy. However, I don't think this is a significant factor in this type of case: the really high cost situations.

Edited February 3, 2008 by softwareNerd

[D'kian]

Does anyone know the percentages of people who die because they go untreated under 1) universal health care systems like Canada's or Britain's and 2) semi-free systems like America's?

Mexico has a mixed system. I'd say a majority of the population depends on various government agencies (way too many to number), while the rest attend private doctors and facilities. I know of people mannaging to receive private care when government hospitals couldn't or wouldn't take care of them. But I cannot put a number on that. I also know of people bribing government doctors, or using pull (theirs or someone else's) to get attention at government facilities. But again I cannot put a number on it.

[princefigs]

the whole idea of having these voluntary funds for specific things is ridiculous. It would have to be a far different world than the one we live in. If we completely took the government out of the picture and strictly relied on ppl to volunteer their money into specific funds....we would be in serious trouble. America itself would cease to exist.

I agree that we need some change, but this volunteer idea is ridiculous on the highest order

[DavidOdden]

the whole idea of having these voluntary funds for specific things is ridiculous.

I take it you don't agree with Objectivism and the idea that a man has the right to the product of his mind, free from coersion.

[agrippa1]

the whole idea of having these voluntary funds for specific things is ridiculous. It would have to be a far different world than the one we live in. If we completely took the government out of the picture and strictly relied on ppl to volunteer their money into specific funds....we would be in serious trouble. America itself would cease to exist.

I agree that we need some change, but this volunteer idea is ridiculous on the highest order

Is this opinion based upon how you think you would respond to voluntary systems, or how you think others would respond?

If the former: are you saying that you are incapable of making rational/moral decisions on how you spend the rewards of your life efforts?

If the latter: are you asserting that you are better and more moral than the vast majority of the population?

[Tenure]

Does anyone know the percentages of people who die because they go untreated under 1) universal health care systems like Canada's or Britain's and 2) semi-free systems like America's?

I know my Grandma was one of those percentages, as I've said before, my brother nearly became another one of them recently, and that I don't want to be another one of them - that's enough to turn me against State Health-Care.

[Adjutor]

the whole idea of having these voluntary funds for specific things is ridiculous. It would have to be a far different world than the one we live in. If we completely took the government out of the picture and strictly relied on ppl to volunteer their money into specific funds....we would be in serious trouble. America itself would cease to exist.

I agree that we need some change, but this volunteer idea is ridiculous on the highest order

I take it you didn't read the NY Times article that described how last year Americans donated close to $500 billion dollars to charity. Imagine how much larger that figure would be if we weren't over-taxed. Imagine how much further that money would go if it weren't devalued due to the socialist monstrosity we have created. Americans are some of the most generous people in the world precisely because we are wealthy. We may be a lot of things, but we are still human beings. We are incredibly generous, and to deny that because of your factually bereft opinions is pure stupidity.

Edited April 1, 2008 by Adjutor

[Grant]

I take it you didn't read the NY Times article that described how last year Americans donated close to $500 billion dollars to charity. Imagine how much larger that figure would be if we weren't over-taxed. Imagine how much further that money would go if it weren't devalued due to the socialist monstrosity we have created. Americans are some of the most generous people in the world precisely because we are wealthy. We may be a lot of things, but we are still human beings. We are incredibly generous, and to deny that because of your factually bereft opinions is pure stupidity.

Exactly right.

I have lived in an African country rife with poverty my entire life. I have travelled to first-world countries like the US and Australia.

We see so much despair here on a daily basis that the level of benevelonce you sense is no where near to what I felt in those two countries.

You almost get used to it, to the point where you lose a great deal of compassion. Seeing a poor woman begging on the side of the road with her small sad-eyed child will draw little attention from most locals.

If a country is largely wealthy and you witness far less poverty, you're far more likely to be benevolent and to give to those in need.

To compound the problem, our over-extended government promises to take care of the sickly and poor. They obviously do a shoddy job at it, but their promises to accomplish the unaccomplishable largely leaves the wealthier population to be less charitable as "it is the government's responsibility".

Work out which system can produce the greatest wealth within a society. Once you've found that system (and I'm certain through proper understanding you'll come to the conclusion that the answer is Capitalism), that is where your sights should be set.