Jonas Salk and the polio vaccine

[KendallJ]

Well done, Mixon.

I'll 2nd that. Rand always seems to explain it pretty clearly.

[Zip]

Thirded.

[shadesofgrey]

I finished reading Rand's essays on collectivized ethics and government financing in a free society. I now understand the reasoning and see how my plan violates Objectivist ethics. Governments may not use coercion by law (force) to collect taxes though it would be permitted to charge for services (giving value for value) or accept money from those who give voluntarily out of self interest. A government's only responsibility is to protect them from foreign invasion, criminals, and provide a court system. It is not the responsibilty of government to provide any material needs of its citizens (infant or adult) or protect them from nature. Accordingly, the needs of any person or group cannot be legally or ethically turned into a first mortgage on the lives of others. It would be unethical to deprive any individual of property by force, even to save his own life.

I agree with this in principle. However, as we all know, this isn't exactly how things are run today (hence the existence of welfare, subsidized health care, etc). Under the CURRENT arrangements (where certain productive individuals are taxed to provide services to other non-productive individuals), would NOT vaccinating infants end up being more costly financially in the long run than providing the funding up front to vaccinate them? I'm thinking in terms of long-term disability and the inability of those individuals to be productive, thus contributing further to the drain on the producers' resources.

Either model will cost the producers, but would one be cheaper than the other?

[JeffS]

I agree with this in principle. However, as we all know, this isn't exactly how things are run today (hence the existence of welfare, subsidized health care, etc). Under the CURRENT arrangements (where certain productive individuals are taxed to provide services to other non-productive individuals), would NOT vaccinating infants end up being more costly financially in the long run than providing the funding up front to vaccinate them? I'm thinking in terms of long-term disability and the inability of those individuals to be productive, thus contributing further to the drain on the producers' resources.

Either model will cost the producers, but would one be cheaper than the other?

I'm confused why it would cost the producers? How do disabled and non-productive individuals drain producers' resources?

[offtotheright]

I'm confused why it would cost the producers? How do disabled and non-productive individuals drain producers' resources?

This is shadesofgrey writing on offtotheright's computer. Apparently logging out is just too difficult

Anyway, in the previous post I discuss how the producers are affected in the CURRENT setup. Part of your tax dollars go to subsidized government healthcare for certain individuals and part of it goes to social security, welfare, etc. So the money that you (the producer) earn, goes partially to those who did not earn it.

So my question was since the producer will be paying anyway, would it be cheaper for them to pay for the vaccine up front or to pay for the people disabled by polio later. Incidentally, for example, in the state of Pennsylvania, all newborn babies are innoculated with the hepatitis B vaccine upon birth unless the parents choose otherwise against medical advice. That cost is borne by the taxpayer. So is it cheaper to pay for a vaccine at birth, or pay to support the effects of the disease later? Either way, under the current laws, we're paying.

[Zip]

So to paraphrase... is it preferable to let the robber steal $5.00 now or $10.00 later.

[shadesofgrey]

So to paraphrase... is it preferable to let the robber steal $5.00 now or $10.00 later.

In a way. It's basically a question of whether you think it'd be $5.00 now vs $10.00 now or $5.00 later vs. $10.00 later. I work in healthcare and long term care costs being what they are, I tend to think that it'd be $5 now vs. $10 later.

[Zip]

In a way. It's basically a question of whether you think it'd be $5.00 now vs $10.00 now or $5.00 later vs. $10.00 later. I work in healthcare and long term care costs being what they are, I tend to think that it'd be $5 now vs. $10 later.

But you understand the illegitimacy of the whole premise correct? It's not the money it's the force behind the "request".

[shadesofgrey]

But you understand the illegitimacy of the whole premise correct? It's not the money it's the force behind the "request".

Oh yes, definitely. You're still being robbed.

[JeffS]

Anyway, in the previous post I discuss how the producers are affected in the CURRENT setup. Part of your tax dollars go to subsidized government healthcare for certain individuals and part of it goes to social security, welfare, etc. So the money that you (the producer) earn, goes partially to those who did not earn it.

Ah, I see. You're looking at it in terms of: "The government steals from producers now anyway, why not just steal from them sooner?"

I was looking at it in terms of: "The government shouldn't steal."

[KendallJ]

Either model will cost the producers, but would one be cheaper than the other?

Fighting it on this basis is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Getting regulation more efficient and cost effective is giving the sanction of the victim. It is not an intermediate step. It masks the problem even more.

[shadesofgrey]

Ah, I see. You're looking at it in terms of: "The government steals from producers now anyway, why not just steal from them sooner?"

I was looking at it in terms of: "The government shouldn't steal."

Exactly. It's that whole difference of what is and what should be.

[shadesofgrey]

Fighting it on this basis is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Getting regulation more efficient and cost effective is giving the sanction of the victim. It is not an intermediate step. It masks the problem even more.

Good analogy.