Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Health Care

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nearly all politicians, Republicans and Democrats, agree that not enough people have health insurance. The Democrats want to fully socialize the health care system; the Republicans want to keep it semi-socialized and provide tax incentives and the like to employers to "encourage" them to provide health insurance. They are assuming that health care is a right. The most simple rebuttal is that it is not a right, but a privilege limited to people able to pay for it.

Really, the biggest problem with the health care system is that it is not free. The government provides health insurance for a variety of groups (just look at the mess that is Medicare/Medicaid!) and screws with basic market mechanisms like competition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a shameless plug, for more information on health care please feel free to visit the website for Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine.

In addition to the longer article that Steve already linked to, there are also a couple of short articles that I like to recommend, including:

"Health Care Is Not A Right" by Leonard Peikoff

"The Right Vision of Health Care" by Yaron Brook

There are also regular updates and commentary (at least 3-4 times/week) at the FIRM blog.

Brian Schwartz runs a good health care blog at PatientPower.

Richard Ralston also has good information at Americans for Free Choice in Medicine (AFCM).

Hope this helps!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
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?

This is the most succinct explanation I've seen so far of why the system is so screwed up today:

Because a person's health, or lack of it, lies increasingly within his own control, many, if not most health risks, are actually uninsurable. "Insurance" against risks whose likelihood an individual can systematically influence falls within that person's own responsibility.

All insurance, moreover, involves the pooling of individual risks. It implies that insurers pay more to some and less to others. But no one knows in advance, and with certainty, who the "winners" and "losers" will be. "Winners" and "losers" are distributed randomly, and the resulting income redistribution is unsystematic. If "winners" or "losers" could be systematically predicted, "losers" would not want to pool their risk with "winners," but with other "losers," because this would lower their insurance costs. I would not want to pool my personal accident risks with those of professional football players, for instance, but exclusively with those of people in circumstances similar to my own, at lower costs.

Because of legal restrictions on the health insurers' right of refusal--to exclude any individual risk as uninsurable--the present health-insurance system is only partly concerned with insurance. The industry cannot discriminate freely among different groups' risks.

As a result, health insurers cover a multitude of uninnsurable risks, alongside, and pooled with, genuine insurance risks. They do not discriminate among various groups of people which pose significantly different insurance risks. The industry thus runs a system of income redistribution--benefiting irresponsible actors and high-risk groups at the expense of responsible individuals and low risk groups. Accordingly the industry's prices are high and ballooning. - Source: http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=279

This also addresses some pretty good myths that are often regurgitated by lefties:

http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/docLib/...p_Ten_Myths.pdf

Edited by prosperity
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

Check out this story:

The state is trying to shut down a New York City doctor's ambitious plan to treat uninsured patients for around $1,000 a year. Dr. John Muney (pictured above) offers his patients everything from mammograms to mole removal at his AMG Medical Group clinics, which operate in all five boroughs. His patients agree to pay $79 a month for a year in return for unlimited office visits with a $10 co-pay.

"I'm trying to help uninsured people here," he said.

But his plan landed him in the crosshairs of the state Insurance Department, which ordered him to drop his fixed-rate plan - which it claims is equivalent to an insurance policy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

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....

Edited by watson
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it my (or anyone else's) responsibility to pay for your health care?

Health care is NOT a right. You have a right to pursue happiness, not a right to force me to provide it to you.

You need to read this and this.

In a laissez faire capitalist society, people and businesses would be more prosperous, health care would be affordable and accessible, and insurance could be tailor made for each client. In addition, charities would receive the funds they need to help the few who are genuinely in need and family members and friends could afford to help their family members or friends in genuine need.

Humans are creative and necessity is the mother of invention. I have no doubt, that when left to themselves, free men would be quite capable of coming up with solutions to their problems. We don't need a nanny government to take care of us. It never has and they never will.

And finally, if Canadian health care is so great, why are your government officials coming here for care?

Stronach, diagnosed in the spring with a type of breast cancer that required a mastectomy and breast reconstruction, went to California in June at her Toronto doctor's suggestion, a spokesperson confirmed.

A mastectomy and reconstruction is unusual or difficult to get in Canada?!

Speed was not the issue, MacEachern said – it was more to do with the type of surgery she and her doctor agreed was best for her, and where it was best performed. The type of cancer Stronach had is called DCIS, ductal carcinoma in situ, one of the more treatable forms.

If it's one of the more treatable forms, why can't it be taken care of in Canada? You mean in that whole country up there, no doctors could treat this for her or perform those routine procedures?!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is it my (or anyone else's) responsibility to pay for your health care?

Health care is NOT a right. You have a right to pursue happiness, not a right to force me to provide it to you.

You need to read this and this.

In a laissez faire capitalist society, people and businesses would be more prosperous, health care would be affordable and accessible, and insurance could be tailor made for each client. In addition, charities would receive the funds they need to help the few who are genuinely in need and family members and friends could afford to help their family members or friends in genuine need.

Humans are creative and necessity is the mother of invention. I have no doubt, that when left to themselves, free men would be quite capable of coming up with solutions to their problems. We don't need a nanny government to take care of us. It never has and they never will.

And finally, if Canadian health care is so great, why are your government officials coming here for care?

A mastectomy and reconstruction is unusual or difficult to get in Canada?!

If it's one of the more treatable forms, why can't it be taken care of in Canada? You mean in that whole country up there, no doctors could treat this for her or perform those routine procedures?!

Stronach had a choice to go to the US. Just as in the US insurance companies will refuse to pay for some procedures, tests, etc. And I hardly see Stronach as a government official. She went into politics on a whim from a billionaire lifestyle. She was in politics for about two years.

Insurance in the private sector does use the premiums used from the collective (clients) to pay for the pool of individuals who do use the health care system. I'm sure your argument would be that there is a "choice" whether or not to purchase health care insurance, not "forced" by the government at gun point to pony up. It is not your "responsibility" to pay for my health care, but it is definitely in your best interest to understand that a healthy society is a more productive society, economically, intellectually, etc. Part of the problem is the cost of emergency care. It will always be cheaper to have ongoing care than emergency care. Treating heart disease throughout someone's life will always be cheaper than an emergency by-pass operation.

I would like to hear from objectivist individuals who have been bankrupt by health care expenses, even if they had chosen a health insurance policy they thought covered them. The cost of health insurance policies, deductibles, co-pays, etc., in the US for a family probably negates much of the tax differential between individuals in the two countries.

I guess noone can force anyone to treat a sick individual, but i do believe that it is a right, in the north american society, to have access to someone (doctor or otherwise) that has been trained using tax dollars to treat a taxpayer.

What happens when the "few" who need economic help for health care are not so few that it exhausts the funds put into such pools of financial resources? The economies of scale work just fine. What happens when individuals with Swine flu/SARS don't seek medical attention because they can't afford to go to their doctor, ER, thus putting the entire population of a community at risk for infection?

Don't get me wrong, I think there is a good balance of a canadian system and some other system, where there is some onus put on the individual to foot the bill for some of their health care choices, to limit the costs by making people in a country like canada think before using or abusing the system.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess noone can force anyone to treat a sick individual, but i do believe that it is a right, in the north american society, to have access to someone (doctor or otherwise) that has been trained using tax dollars to treat a taxpayer.

If no one can force anyone to treat a sick individual, how do you propose the government secure your right to health care?

What other personal responsibilities of yours do you think I should be forced to pay for? Car insurance? After all, in today's society, especially in N. America, one practically needs a car to survive. How about home/renters insurance? After all, doesn't everyone have the right to a home?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what people are missing here is that watson is predicating his alleged right on the fact that government money was used to train the doctor. He is figuring if government paid for the training then "society" owns the doctor.

Never mind the fact that government interference is what has made it almost impossible to do anything without the government being involved; you took the money [because you had no choice], you are now a slave.

*sigh*

Link to post
Share on other sites
Never mind the fact that government interference is what has made it almost impossible to do anything without the government being involved; you took the money [because you had no choice], you are now a slave.

Yes, and to emphasize your point, the situation is even more absurd. The government, acting like a mob boss, forces you to give them money at the point of a gun, and then when you try to get it back by using some of it to become a Doctor, they say: "And now you owe us".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, and to emphasize your point, the situation is even more absurd. The government, acting like a mob boss, forces you to give them money at the point of a gun, and then when you try to get it back by using some of it to become a Doctor, they say: "And now you owe us".

The people who live on welfare "owe us" but do they pay us back, NO.

Edited by dadmonson
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

This argument can be used to support the same type of solution to much more practical problems than health care, do you support those efforts also? I'm sure there are more people in need of food and clothing than health care, so don't you think that the government should forcibly tax you and everyone else to support those needs? How about college, a home, heating oil, a higher paying job, a car to get to work, dental care, eye care? What you are saying is that, in principle, there is no reason why the government (meaning tax payers) shouldn't provide these to the needy also, right?

Essentially, you think that the Soviet Union had a better idea than the US, is that right? Perhaps they were just flawed in their execution of that idea, yes?

I happen to also believe that access to health care is a right,

If health care is a right, then Doctors are slaves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can accept that taxation is force is immoral when you agree on the fact that the initiation of force is immoral. Objectivists do state that a government is need for protection and to perform Retaliatory Force. Ok, seems logical. So we could state that social health care is immoral.

But that leaves the question if it would "work", as for example here in the field of medical and health supplies (privatized).

First what do I mean with "work"?

IMO there are two ways to see this.

a) high quality health care

B) high quantity health care

The biggest part of the population in a laissez faire capitalism would earn just a tiny percentage of what the people at the top make, that would lead to a "multiple-class" health care system. In other words very good health care for the rich, likely much better than in a mixed system, while most of the population would have a "medicore" health care.

I'm not sure if this "mediocre" would be better than what we see now in the western world, but it could be so.

But that would also lead to a state where the poor and very poor simply could not get any health care. For them an illness that would be no problem for the richer people, will lead to death (in the worst case).

The same is probably true for people with bad genes (IE lots of cancer cases in the family), too much previous illnesses or any other indication that they have a higher risk of getting sick, even if they had a "normal" income.

It would simply not make sense for insurance companies to sell these groups insurance.

So it could work in a) but fail in B).

In a worst case scenario one could think about social unrests because of such a situation or danger for society because of the spread of viruses / bacteria among the poor.

In such a case it might be reasonable to spend a part of the government budged (not taxes) for a minimum health care for the very poor, because doing nothing could costs more in the end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your logic has one fatal flaw (probably more, but I'm just focusing on one). You are making the mistake of equating getting healthcare with getting insurance. In a free system the average (and even the below average) person would easily be able to afford routine procedures and care without insurance playing any role, which is as it should be. The solution is to have insurance packages with less coverage, not more. As more and more people pay for medical procedures a la carte like one would buy any other service, supply and demand will equal out and prices will drop drastically. The true purpose of health insurance is to cover catastrophic injury, and a fairly bare-bones insurance package would be dirt cheap in a free society. Therefore you would not have to worry about going bankrupt from being run over by a bus.

Also, a free system would eliminate the so-called "gold plating" of medical care, another reason it is so expensive. Imagine if the next time you had an infection, you could just go to CVS, get diagnosed by a nurse or some other comparable medical technician, and pick up your antibiotic on the spot. A doctor wouldn't even have to factor into the equation. Competition from alternative healthcare sources as I have just described would force doctors to lower their prices to market levels.

It is true that people with more money will be able to afford more and/or better care, but how is that different from anything else in the market? In a free system even extremely poor people would be able to afford the most basic care and drugs.

I can accept that taxation is force is immoral when you agree on the fact that the initiation of force is immoral. Objectivists do state that a government is need for protection and to perform Retaliatory Force. Ok, seems logical. So we could state that social health care is immoral.

But that leaves the question if it would "work", as for example here in the field of medical and health supplies (privatized).

First what do I mean with "work"?

IMO there are two ways to see this.

a) high quality health care

B) high quantity health care

The biggest part of the population in a laissez faire capitalism would earn just a tiny percentage of what the people at the top make, that would lead to a "multiple-class" health care system. In other words very good health care for the rich, likely much better than in a mixed system, while most of the population would have a "medicore" health care.

I'm not sure if this "mediocre" would be better than what we see now in the western world, but it could be so.

But that would also lead to a state where the poor and very poor simply could not get any health care. For them an illness that would be no problem for the richer people, will lead to death (in the worst case).

The same is probably true for people with bad genes (IE lots of cancer cases in the family), too much previous illnesses or any other indication that they have a higher risk of getting sick, even if they had a "normal" income.

It would simply not make sense for insurance companies to sell these groups insurance.

So it could work in a) but fail in B).

In a worst case scenario one could think about social unrests because of such a situation or danger for society because of the spread of viruses / bacteria among the poor.

In such a case it might be reasonable to spend a part of the government budged (not taxes) for a minimum health care for the very poor, because doing nothing could costs more in the end.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The biggest part of the population in a laissez faire capitalism would earn just a tiny percentage of what the people at the top make, that would lead to a "multiple-class" health care system. In other words very good health care for the rich, likely much better than in a mixed system, while most of the population would have a "medicore" health care.

In Mexico there are private hospitals and doctors, along with a mish-mash of local, state and federal health care systems. I know a fair deal about both. So:

1) Private hospitals come on many levles. there are some who aim for middle class customers, others for low-income customers (surprised?), charitable hospitals that charge little or nothing. There are none that cater only to the rich, but there are some in the better parts of town who have fancier rooms for richer customers.

2) A fancier room is about all a richer hospital patient gets that other people wouldn't. The hospitals I know, and I know several, don't ahve more doctors or nurses on call for such patients, nor are the abs, imaging equipment or ORs reserved for the rich (they get apportioned in the order doctors request them, or on the medical urgency of the patient).

3) The people who run the government hospitals and clinics by and large, when they can afford to, buy health insurance for themselves adn their families, even though they have free access to government health services. What does that tell you?

4) This is anecdotal, but very instructive. One time my boss had a meeting at a government medical center, a complex of five hospitals taking up an entire city block. Next to this center there's a general government hospital taking up another city block. Behind these two there's yet a third government hospital specializing in pediatrics. My boss' driver fell ill and was rushed all the way accros town to his government appointed clinic. Imagine that, during a minor emergency, when there are eight hospitals right accross the street with well over a hundred doctors all told. But that'w how the system works in government health care. To be admitted or treated at a hospital you need to be refferred by your local clinic (there are some government hospitals that will take in emergency patients, but only a few and only if they qualify).

5) Most of the population relies on government hospitals or charitabel institutions. Sharities have very little luck setting up hospitals and clinics for the poor, because prospective donors assume the government takes care of such things.

6) The level of care at government facilties isn't bad, but it's limited. Ergo the exclussion of even mergency patients without referals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to hear from [O]objectivist individuals who have been bankrupt by health care expenses, even if they had chosen a health insurance policy they thought covered them.

You're talking to her! I did include the expenses from my broken leg in my bankruptcy when I got divorced. I had $5,000 in out of pocket expenses (that I knew I would have because I read my policy when I voluntarily signed up for it. Reading, shopping around, knowing what you're getting into...imagine that!) If I weren't losing more than half my income to taxation, I would've had the $5,000 for my out of pocket expenses, including enough to pay off everything else, thus I could've avoided bankruptcy...by a long shot!

If 50 states and the feds weren't regulating insurance companies and if doctors weren't being sued by so many frivolous idiots, the costs of health care would be significantly lower and as I stated before, in a laissez faire capitalist society, most of us could afford it. Those who couldn't, could afford to be taken care of by charities or family/friends.

The cost of health insurance policies, deductibles, co-pays, etc., in the US for a family probably negates much of the tax differential between individuals in the two countries.

Even if it does, so what? I don't want the government stealing my income and spending it for me. I know how to best spend my own income. I can take care of myself if left alone to do so, can't you?

In addition, the Canadian health care system will go bankrupt. It's just a matter of time. (I bet it's running in the red already, whether they admit it or not!)

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been having a really long and intense debate with a bunch of people at the philosophy section of a music message board. Most of the posters are obviously liberal and no matter what I say they always retaliate with some thing like my info is wrong or the declaration of independence gives you no rights.

Here's the portion of the debate. My comments are in blue and hers are in red. I would really appreciate feed back to let me know if I'm going about this debate in the right way. If any of you care to read the entire thread I will post the link. It would be really great to see some objectivsits come over to the philosophy board and even out the liberal bullshit factor.

Tea bag parties are fail (health care debate inside)

While we have high quality of care, we have inflated costs. The high quality comes from the free market, the high costs come from pooled tax funded services.

I provided you statistics which show that in countries where the government pays for health care that the costs are far lower (sometimes half of what we spend by a ratio per person/GDP), so clearly this is just bullshit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan Thomas View Post

Why not let the same economic forces that have improved quality and lowered costs in almost every other industry from cars to computers flourish in health care?

Because people purchase those goods based on their desire to own them, and based on whether or not they can afford them. In the case of health care, it's generally far too expensive for the free market to apply.

Why don't you make the connection between government-provided health care and the Department of Motor Vehicles or the way government handled the devastation from Hurricane Katrina. As necessary as health may be, so is food and so is clothing and so is a home. Would you want to eat government made food? Live in public housing? Wear government issued clothes?

Actually, last few times I've been to the DMV, it's been a breeze. There have been times where it's been a nightmare, but I can say the same about going into Wal-Mart. Besides, the DMV is something that private businesses clearly could not cover, so the analogy doesn't apply.

The governmental reaction to Hurricane Katrina happened because we elect entirely incompetent people into office, not that government is inherently unable to handle those situations. Had it been Clinton, or even George Bush's father, I honestly think the federal government would have reacted far quicker.

Why is it that almost without exception, wherever government intervenes to solve a major social problem despite good intentions the given process becomes enormously more complicated and much more expensive for society as a whole?

Again, I gave you examples of health care coverage in every single industrialized country being cheaper than in the United States, so you don't get to claim this. Do you really think it's more complicated to get authorization for a medical procedure in the United States than in Germany? Try petitioning a turned down claim by an insurance company. It's utter hell.

You obviously don't know where health care comes from.You're talking about business coverage and the premiums are that high because they cover so many people. Company coverage doesn't even cover half of where the current coverage comes from and that is government programs like medicare.

From the Wikipedia entry on U.S. Health Care:

Around 84.7% of citizens have some form of health insurance; either through their employer or the employer of their spouse or parent (59.3%), purchased individually (8.9%), or provided by government programs (27.8%; there is some overlap in these figures)."

(I know Wikipedia isn't a great source, but it references a U.S. Census Bureau report, and I checked the numbers and found them to be accurate)

It would be nice if you stop making stuff up.

I agree that health care prices are out of control but government funded health care is not the answer. Government is the reason prices are so inflated!

See above. Plus, the reason why prices are so inflated is that health insurance companies are an unnecessary middle man who's purpose is to make a profit. Health insurance companies are the definition of waste. You pay them money to be in the business of turning down claims except where they're legally obligated to (and honestly, they've spent of lot of that profit on getting the laws changed so that they can legally turn down more claims).

Quote:

Individuals also do pay for their own health care.

Yes, I said that. But it's less than 10% of the population.

And the company health care is still coming from individual pay checks. If you have health care through your work you are paying for it with a percentage of your check.

I KNOW THAT! I'VE BEEN SAYING THAT. But the difference is that the health insurance isn't being paid for by individuals, even if the money is being taken individually. The abettors of who purchases the heath insurance is ultimately the company, not the individual.

But here's the kicker. This whole time you've been arguing that the idea of having a percentage of your paycheck being taken away from you is criminal. Now you're perfectly fine with it.

Hi There, Am Pam is offline Add to Hi There, Am Pam's Reputation Report Post

No kidding the supply and demand doesn't work if there isn't a supply for the demand, which is why places like Somalia can't afford health care. But we in the US have the supply and the Demand.

I guarantee you that the supply would be in Somalia if people in Somalia could afford it. You're not grasping that the problem is that supply & demand functions on people being able to afford it, and even in the United States, plenty of people can't afford it.

Where does the government get the money to pay for it? Again it comes from individuals.

And isn't that where business get the money from? So ultimately you have a problem with government health care because it comes from the individual, but you think employee coverage is a-ok because it comes from the individual.

In a free market If individuals cannot afford health care there would be no health care industry. If individuals couldn't afford insurance there wouldn't be an insurance industry. The market would have to meet it's supply with its demand.

There are people who can't afford health care. There's a difference between some people able to support an industry & everyone being able to support an industry. There's an industry built around selling Fabergé eggs, doesn't mean everyone can afford them.

Why do you think tens of thousands of foreigners come to the US for medical treatment every year? They're seeking advanced and sophisticated procedures that are simply unavailable or rationed in their home countries. Socialized medicine may seem to work from an outsiders perspective but it has a price and consequence and that consequence is the quality of health care.

Tens of thousands really isn't a whole lot. Besides, I'm sure tens of thousands of people go to India for medical treatment as well. India is on par in terms of medical technology and innovation as the United States, and their health care is entirely government paid for.

The advancement in treatment largely comes from Universities, which get their money from either private donors or the government. So as far as medical advancement, we get both free market & governmental solutions, so it's win-win.

We are not currently nor ever have been in a completely free market system so how can you compare the current US health care system to that of a free market system?

Because it would be impossible to have a health care industry that was free market the way buying an iPod is.

Sure free health care sounds great, it's a utopian promise but health care isn't free. A government ran health care system is an enormous mistake and like your Germany example is backed up by myths.

For example in August 2008, the British medical journal Lancet Oncology found that America is much better at treating cancer than Europe or Canada. Americans have a better survival rate for 13 of the 16 most common cancers. Among men, an American has nearly a 20-percent better chance of living for five years after being diagnosed with cancer than their European counterpart. American women stand a 7.2 percent better chance of living for five years after a cancer diagnosis than their European counterparts.

Well, I looked up this report, and it's not really as supportive of U.S. health care as you're making it out to be. Check out this article on the report

The highest survival rates were found in the U.S. for breast and prostate cancer, in Japan for colon and rectal cancers in men, and in France for colon and rectal cancers in women, Coleman's team reports.

In Canada and Australia, survival was also high for most cancers.

The kicker here is that it mentions that survival rates in the United States varies widely state by state. There was also a racial gap in survival rates.

The conclusion of the article? These variations largely have to do with when the cancer was detected. It points more to the efficacy of cancer detection programs, rather than cancer treatment levels.

And really, cancer research is heavily pushed in the United States, somewhat because some of the best medical schools in the United States. Not to take anything away from other countries, but there's a number of excellent Universities (John Hopkins, Harvard, NYU, etc...). This doesn't have to do with the free market so much as funding from both private sources (such as wealthy alumni) and the government. In this case, it's win-win.

This was in regards to a comment saying that "sometimes you have to violate freedom" locking someone up in jail might be seen as violating somebodies freedom.

Yes we have defined this issue. Nobody should be forced to violate someone's freedom. You are not free to violate another man's right to his life.

Yes, but we punish this by taking away a person's freedom. At some level, you're forced to take away freedom. Really, my only point is that you can't say that universal health care is immoral because it takes away people's freedom to pay for it how they want. Before you said, "The point being you can't immorally violate somebodies freedom and rights because it is a means to an end.", which is counter to the idea that your freedom is taken away from you if you violate another person's freedom. That is a means to an end.

The declaration of independence does not give you the right to take another's life. If you do so, there are clearly defined consequences in our justice system and you are subject to those consequences should you violate them.

Not again. Did you miss the whole part about how the Declaration of Independence doesn't give you any rights? I explained this to you and you seemed to miss it completely.

Exactly people should pay for the small portion of government that is set up to protect the rights of the people. I've said that from the beginning. I have no moral issue paying for a military, a police force and a court system. The government should not be there to collect money from its citizens and then redistribute it to somebody else so they can have what they want free of charge and without effort. When the government is taking money from one and redistributing it to others, it is playing sides and benefiting one group far more than another and that is not equal representation. You honestly think the government isn't out of fucking control with it's frivolous spending? How could you even think that the government today is anything like what the founding fathers had in mind. How can you even argue that the government is not taxing without representation?

Your argument before was that it was immoral to decide for others how their money should be spent. Ok, fine, but you're also saying that you're perfectly fine with taxes being collected to pay for the military, police, and other structures. So which is it? Either you think all money collected & spent by the government is immoral because it's deciding for people how their money will be spent, or that the government deciding how money is spent isn't immoral (obviously, if the money is spent on immoral actions like puppy kicking machines, but that has to do with the action, not the money).

Military spending quite often takes money and redistributes it to somebody else. There are plenty of private companies which manufacture planes/boats/tanks/trucks for military use. I don't grasp why you're perfectly fine with this type of redistribution, but not when it's something like health care.

Really though, the most important thing here is that you're ranting about freedom, what the founding fathers intended, and the basis of our system of government... and you have absolutely no understanding of what any of that is.

Even after I corrected you about the Declaration of Independence, you still refer to it as giving you certain rights. While there have been certain court cases which have referenced the Declaration of Independence, it's not really a legal document. You have Constitutional rights, you have rights that guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, but you don't have any Declaration of Independence rights.

It's a common mistake because the document is so revered in our society (and originally, it wasn't considered to have nearly the importance as it does to us now, there were other, similar documents more important, or just as important to the independence of the Colonies to the British government). But the difference here is that you're trying to lecture the rest of us about freedom and what our system of government allows our government to do, while not having a clue as to how our government is set up.

Seriously, the idea that the Declaration of Independence gives you certain rights is evidence that you don't understand even the basics of our government, and especially not what the founding fathers intended. It's clear that you're regurgitating lines you've heard from other people without knowing the basis for their argument. I've heard the arguments you're using before from other people, but usually they refer to our legal system correctly.

I get mistakes, I get a misunderstanding of a subject. On this forum, people have corrected me on my assumptions of issues that I didn't understand. But when a person continues to make the same mistake about a simple understanding of a subject, it shows a disregard for really wanting to understand the issue.

(Yes, I get that there is a window of arguing for the idea that the Declaration of Independence has some legal context, but that's a very small margin, and doesn't fit the context of refer to the Declaration of Independence as guaranteeing rights.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Equivocating between people paying for health care through their employer (which is voluntary) and through taxation is just sad. It's obvious she doesn't get the meaning of individual rights...

That's really what you have to go back to all the time. If you turn it into a utilitarian equation with what is cheaper and more effective or whatever, it's pretty much a lost cause. The only way to oppose these people is by going back to the moral issue, not arguing the specifics of their arguments (that are so complex that it's pretty much impossible to prove to them that it is because of factor A instead of :thumbsup:.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Equivocating between people paying for health care through their employer (which is voluntary) and through taxation is just sad. It's obvious she doesn't get the meaning of individual rights...

That's really what you have to go back to all the time. If you turn it into a utilitarian equation with what is cheaper and more effective or whatever, it's pretty much a lost cause. The only way to oppose these people is by going back to the moral issue, not arguing the specifics of their arguments (that are so complex that it's pretty much impossible to prove to them that it is because of factor A instead of :thumbsup:.

What do you say to someone who says the Declaration of Independence doesn't give you any rights. How do you argue the moral grounds of property rights and individual rights with a person like this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...