Health Care

[FeatherFall]

What do you say to someone who says the Declaration of Independence doesn't give you any rights.

I'd say I agree with them. Rights are derived from our nature as beings whose survival depends on our minds being free from the actions of others, not from legal documents.

How do you argue the moral grounds of property rights and individual rights with a person like this?

Make sure that you understand property rights are an extension of the freedom to act to pursue life. Human life requires value-oriented action, and if you cannot decide how to use or dispose of the values you create, those values have no meaning to you - you do not, in such a circumstance, have the right to pursue your own life.

It is best to focus on principles instead of concrete examples. If you're going to use a concrete, explain the moral significance. Take lower healthcare costs, for example. State run healthcare CAN, in fact, keep costs down, but maybe this is a BAD thing. Low costs in state medical systems are secured through the monsterous practice of healthcare rationing - Gov't bureaucrats deciding which procedures are available, who lives and who dies. If costly procedures are not allowed past a certain age, GDP is shifted away from healthcare. That's sound money management - how benevolent!

-Edited for spelling

Edited May 5, 2009 by FeatherFall

[K-Mac]

Broken record warning...this is still the best intellectual ammo around when arguing about health care.

[dadmonson]

I just read that thread Rocky Racoon and my best advice would be to leave those keyboard jockeys alone. Instead of arguing with them you should learn more about Objectivism and Health Care. Here is a good article by Thomas Sowell on health care, http://www.creators.com/opinion/thomas-sow...-realities.html

[cliveandrews]

We do not have high quality medical care in the U.S. We may have better medical care than other countries, but that is a relative statement - our health care is still quite poor by objective standards. The drug companies have used the government to distort medical knowledge and create an intellectual environemt which is favorable to their interests and which suppresses competing products and treatment philosophies. Things are so fucked up that it's not even safe to go to the doctor anymore.

Edited May 9, 2009 by cliveandrews

[softwareNerd]

We do not have high quality medical care in the U.S. We may have better medical care than other countries, but that is a relative statement - our health care is still quite poor by objective standards.

I think you're wrong there. Healthcare for the typical middle-class working person is excellent in the U.S.

The drug companies have used the government to distort medical knowledge and create an intellectual environemt which is favorable to their interests and which suppresses competing products and treatment philosophies. Things are so fucked up that it's not even safe to go to the doctor anymore.

Not sure what you are talking about! The FDA, perhaps? But "unsafe to go to a doctor"? Hyperbole, but even as hyperbole, I have no idea what you're talking about. My family and I have seen various doctors, and been in various hospitals over the years. I've not noticed any dangers. My only shock the first time at a U.S. hospital was that it looked more like a good quality hotel.

[cliveandrews]

I think you're wrong there. Healthcare for the typical middle-class working person is excellent in the U.S.

Not sure what you are talking about! The FDA, perhaps? But "unsafe to go to a doctor"? Hyperbole, but even as hyperbole, I have no idea what you're talking about. My family and I have seen various doctors, and been in various hospitals over the years. I've not noticed any dangers. My only shock the first time at a U.S. hospital was that it looked more like a good quality hotel.

The medical community is afflicted with a long list of extremely serious ideological problems which have cumulatively caused the quality of healthcare to deteriorate to the degree that doctors are now one of the leading causes of death in the U.S., with several hundred thousand people dying every year as a result of medical treatment. Doctors are handing drugs out like candy to pallate the symptoms of abusive lifestyle patterns while giving lip service to the paramount importance of diet and exercise, and most of them are just as fat and unhealthy as their patients anyway. Drug companies are lying about both the benefits and the dangers of their products. Psychiatrists are inventing one mental disorder after another and the rest of the medical community tolerates this utter pseudoscience. There is a trend toward anti-intellectuaism in general, argument from authority dominates medical dialogue, and many doctors are glarignly deficient in some of the most basic areas of physiological knowledge. If you have a musculosketal problem, especially a foot problem, you are more likely to be harmed than helped by the average doctor. Walk into any doctor's office and the fucking place is typically a walk-in billboard for drug companies with pens, clipboards, stationery, posters, cups, models, etc. all provided by drug companies, and it does very much influence their prescribing habits. The FDA is utterly corrupt, now advocates primarily for industry, and data manipulation is standard proceedure. Academic medicine is a sick joke where conflicts of interest are so rampant that any academic research can be called into question simply by virtue of the fact that almost all reserachers are also paid "advisors" to drug companies. They put mercury in our mouths, fluroride in our water, plastic wedges in our shoes, 900 kinds of prescription crack in our kids' brains, then insist that it's all safe with literally nothing in the way of convincing proof, then turn around and attack fish oil and glucosamine supplements for not having gone through 5 year FDA clinical trials. The whole medical establishment is fucked up to the core and you can never appreciate how serious the problems are until you've been harmed by them.

Edited May 10, 2009 by cliveandrews

[K-Mac]

We do not have high quality medical care in the U.S. We may have better medical care than other countries, but that is a relative statement - our health care is still quite poor by objective standards. The drug companies have used the government to distort medical knowledge and create an intellectual environemt which is favorable to their interests and which suppresses competing products and treatment philosophies. Things are so fucked up that it's not even safe to go to the doctor anymore.

This is so ridiculous and out there that it barely warrants a response other than

I am under an allergist care for my nasal allergies. I have taken allergy pills that don't do much for me, now I take one that does. I couldn't breathe before, now I can.

When my leg was broke, I went to an orthopedic, had surgery and have since recovered. I can walk without a limp and have had no issues. I couldn't walk before, now I can.

So why is it not safe for me to go to the doctor? Are you suggesting it would be better for me to never walk again and not breathe through my nose?

Furthermore, I say that most, if not all, of the problems in the medical community are caused by government intervention and frivolous lawsuits, by people that expect it to be free of cost and free of error.

Edited May 11, 2009 by K-Mac

[gags]

Obama's health care "reform" plan is shaping up as another big government fiasco. The private insurers, hospitals and drug companies are scared to death of what Obama has the ability to push through Congress so they are pledging to hold down costs in an effort to somehow mitigate the damage of this "reform" plan.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama-lauds-...set=&ccode=

I heard someone comment the other day that national health care is a true political game-changer because once it happens, elections are primarily about benefit levels as opposed to the legitimate functions of government (i.e. rights protection). The party that pledges to hand out the most goodies is the one that gets its candidates elected. Obama's health care plan is making me sick.

[fleeting]

There are so many issues not addressed in arguments against some form of public funds being put toward a national health care programme that proponents of a privatized proponent just doesnt take into account.

I live in Canada, not a perfect system by any stretch of the means, but I'd much prefer to pay an extra few dollars a year in tax dollars to know I will never go bankrupt from health crises, thus allowing me to get back to work and continue to be a contributing producer.

I have a surgery planned for later this month, I have two pre-op appointments, a day surgery, and I won't be out of pocket on top of what I pay in taxes, which is not that much more than individuals who live in California or New York pay. Plus, in economic times like today, no one in Canada is losing a step, having to find an insurer - regardless of pre-existing condition(s).

Plus, I actually feel somewhat good to know that our individuals here in Canada do have access to world class health care, even if they can't afford it. There are many individuals who would never receive proper treatment, therapy, etc., without the nationalized programme.

Again, no system is perfect, but, for those that will protest what I say, I happen to also believe that access to health care is a right, in the current light for some of the following reasons:

1. Tax dollars pay for hospital infrastructure, in a completely privatized system those without enough dollars couldn't even get in to see a doctor, i suppose.

2. Tax dollars are used to educate doctors, etc. that work in the hospitals

3. Tax dollars pay for research that result in better treatment, equipment and therapy

4. Without proper health care provided to some individuals, the safety of some of the community would be in question (pandemics, mental health, etc)

5. Although points 1- 4 are not moral issues, from a moral perspective, I lie more on the side of valuing life as a whole. In the system now, in the US or other privatized system, it will always be more expensive to treat someone once a disease appears, rather than to have preemptive and ongoing care.

Go ahead, rip apart my points....

I'm pretty new to objectivism; but such a position as yours seems absolutely counter to what objectivism is. The items you list above can be used to justify intrusion and confiscation of individual property on a multitude of levels. For example you say Tax dollars are used to educate doctors; but one can also say that since tax dollars are used to educate school children in Canada; those children's earnings as adults can be taxed at 80% heck even 99% to ensure that their neighbors have free healthcare, heating oil, food, clothing, cars, the list goes on. This response is getting much longer than I intended, but you get the drift. whew.

[softwareNerd]

I'm pretty new to objectivism; but such a position as yours seems absolutely counter to what objectivism is.

Yes, of course you're right. As far as I remember, Watson regularly argues against Objectivist positions.

It is common for the argument to be framed the way he did it: "I ... feel ... good to know that our individuals... have access to world class health care".

But, actually he means he feels good about using force to take money from people, to provide that healthcare to others. it's a common view, held by folks on the left and right, but no, its not Objectivism.

[Kaiwai Gardiner]

The socialists have been shouting for quite a while now that the health care system needs reform. I know that socialized medicine is not the answer. However, I have no rebuttal when it comes to their cries for reform. The problem is I don't know squat about health care. What is wrong with the current system? What caused it?

Healthcare vouchers + Allow insurance to be sold across state lines, then allow the freemarket to work from there.

[gags]

There are a lot of market-based "reforms" that could be implemented. Unfortunately, it seems that the party in power is intent on giving us "reform" that ultimately leads to a single-payer system. The Republicans are so clueless they can't even bring themselves to offer a free market alternative that is seen as viable or that gets any publicity.

[prosperity]

There are so many issues not addressed in arguments against some form of public funds being put toward a national health care programme that proponents of a privatized proponent just doesnt take into account.

I live in Canada, not a perfect system by any stretch of the means, but I'd much prefer to pay an extra few dollars a year in tax dollars to know I will never go bankrupt from health crises, thus allowing me to get back to work and continue to be a contributing producer.

I have a surgery planned for later this month, I have two pre-op appointments, a day surgery, and I won't be out of pocket on top of what I pay in taxes, which is not that much more than individuals who live in California or New York pay. Plus, in economic times like today, no one in Canada is losing a step, having to find an insurer - regardless of pre-existing condition(s).

Plus, I actually feel somewhat good to know that our individuals here in Canada do have access to world class health care, even if they can't afford it. There are many individuals who would never receive proper treatment, therapy, etc., without the nationalized programme.

Again, no system is perfect, but, for those that will protest what I say, I happen to also believe that access to health care is a right, in the current light for some of the following reasons:

1. Tax dollars pay for hospital infrastructure, in a completely privatized system those without enough dollars couldn't even get in to see a doctor, i suppose.

2. Tax dollars are used to educate doctors, etc. that work in the hospitals

3. Tax dollars pay for research that result in better treatment, equipment and therapy

4. Without proper health care provided to some individuals, the safety of some of the community would be in question (pandemics, mental health, etc)

5. Although points 1- 4 are not moral issues, from a moral perspective, I lie more on the side of valuing life as a whole. In the system now, in the US or other privatized system, it will always be more expensive to treat someone once a disease appears, rather than to have preemptive and ongoing care.

Go ahead, rip apart my points....

You pay 40% of your tax dollars into a black hole called "health care" in Canada that doesn't offer the same quality of care as a free market system. Even the U.S. offers, all other things being equal, faster wait times (or maybe that's lower wait times).

Your "facts" as they are, aren't really facts at all. They're simply wrong - factually. You'd pay no where near what you do in taxes and thus for health care under a free market system. A close example would be 1920s America. Of course, it's not a perfect example as there is a discrepancy in technology between then and now, but like I said, all other things being equal, your health care would be cheaper under the free market (or something closer to it that what you have). AND, your care would be better.

[gags]

You'd pay no where near what you do in taxes and thus for health care under a free market system. A close example would be 1920s America. Of course, it's not a perfect example as there is a discrepancy in technology between then and now, but like I said, all other things being equal, your health care would be cheaper under the free market (or something closer to it that what you have). AND, your care would be better.

So true. I'm constantly amazed at the faith people place in government's ability to deliver goods and services when there is very little evidence that the government can run anything efficiently. If you want to see how well bureaucrats manage a healthcare program, you don't need to look beyond Medicare. Medicare is headed toward insolvency even faster than Social Security.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090512-718085.html

That's what we have to look forward to under government healthcare.

[K-Mac]

Interesting report on the myths surrounding US health care.

[Grames]

This is so ridiculous and out there that it barely warrants a response other than

I am under an allergist care for my nasal allergies. I have taken allergy pills that don't do much for me, now I take one that does. I couldn't breathe before, now I can.

It is not ridiculous, you underestimate the effect the FDA has in distorting the medical market. I used to have allergies but now I don't. I do not take drugs and have not had an anti-allergy therapy for over six years now. I found an old therapy that was not invented in the U.S., is not patentable and has no company willing to fund the hugely expensive FDA mandated clinical trials to verify human safety, despite decades of experience with this therapy in other countries without a single incident. There was a small window of time when some American doctors where trying to organize a study by using their own patients, which is when I got involved.

Enzyme potentiated desensitization is safe, effective treatment for autoimmune disorders which will never be available in America until the FDA is destroyed.

[K-Mac]

I'm not arguing for the FDA and I'm not saying doctors have all the answers, but to say that going to the doctor is not safe is a stretch.

I'm glad you found something to cure your allergies. I'm glad I found someone to put my leg back together.

[Kaiwai Gardiner]

It is not ridiculous, you underestimate the effect the FDA has in distorting the medical market. I used to have allergies but now I don't. I do not take drugs and have not had an anti-allergy therapy for over six years now. I found an old therapy that was not invented in the U.S., is not patentable and has no company willing to fund the hugely expensive FDA mandated clinical trials to verify human safety, despite decades of experience with this therapy in other countries without a single incident. There was a small window of time when some American doctors where trying to organize a study by using their own patients, which is when I got involved.

Enzyme potentiated desensitization is safe, effective treatment for autoimmune disorders which will never be available in America until the FDA is destroyed.

FDA can also be used by large businesses to block competitors from getting their product into the market - or to give false 'healthy' ticks on things because sufficient money is passed under the table.

[themadkat]

I'm not arguing for the FDA and I'm not saying doctors have all the answers, but to say that going to the doctor is not safe is a stretch.

I'm glad you found something to cure your allergies. I'm glad I found someone to put my leg back together.

You may be fortunate to have a good doctor, which is fantastic. I have had both good doctors and bad doctors. Generally speaking I would say that the American medical system is pretty good at treating infectious diseases, serious injuries, and emergency life-threatening conditions. It is piss-poor when it comes to chronic illnesses and chronic physical injuries that are slow to heal (unless you get yourself a good physical therapist with a background in rehabilitating athletes), and bad with natural life transitions such as aging and pregnancy, again unless there is a mega-emergency-problem.

[softwareNerd]

... American medical system is pretty good at treating infectious diseases, serious injuries, and emergency life-threatening conditions. It is piss-poor when it comes to chronic illnesses and chronic physical injuries that are slow to heal (unless you get yourself a good physical therapist with a background in rehabilitating athletes), and bad with natural life transitions such as aging and pregnancy, again unless there is a mega-emergency-problem.

I'm not sure I understand the negative here. To what other system are you comparing it, when you say it is bad in those particular areas?

My family has had experience with pregnancy, slipped disc, and two people with chronic asthma. So, we're a little example that covers the areas you mention; but, I cannot think what other country would handle these any better than what we've experienced.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

I'm not sure I understand the negative here. To what other system are you comparing it, when you say it is bad in those particular areas?

Possibly he is comparing it to their performance with infectious diseases, and not to the medical system in other countries, which will have the same dynamic, doing relatively well with infectious diseases compared to these chronic conditions.

It's not really a ding against our system to note that it is better at some things than it is at others. The Louis Pasteur of autoimmune disorders (for instance) has not turned up.

[themadkat]

Possibly he is comparing it to their performance with infectious diseases, and not to the medical system in other countries, which will have the same dynamic, doing relatively well with infectious diseases compared to these chronic conditions.

It's not really a ding against our system to note that it is better at some things than it is at others. The Louis Pasteur of autoimmune disorders (for instance) has not turned up.

Yes, this.