One topic that interests me is the privatized/socialized medicine debate within different economical circles. I’m curious if there are any resources that deal directly with this issue that I could find online.
That or if anyone on here has an opinion regarding the pros and cons of privatized medicine would be helpful. It’s probably the one thing that keeps bugging me for some reason. Reading what some people who are for privatized medicine and how it could apply to a capitalist system, I see some good arguments. For instance:
it almost goes without saying that good health is part and parcel of leading a happy life - and the principles of being able to pursue happiness and being able to live when death is avoidable are considered inherent rights of people in the USA, if not in other western countries, no matter one’s social status, wealth or ethnicity. socialised medical care doesn’t just fail to contradict this goal it actively works towards it.
without large scale social intervention, smallpox would still be rampant, as would polio. without social health care, i could have died of appendicitis (arguably an avoidable way to die, if the appendix does not rupture) last easter because i can’t afford the operation outright. further, don’t even have to pay off a loan for the operation, so i can keep going to university and finish my degree, which gives me more power to get a better job and pay back my degree and pay taxes so that others need not die or be crippled by medical conditions they can’t individually afford to fix.
If socialized medicine was cheaper to do and allowed for higher productivity within a capitalist country wouldn’t that make it the more rational choice to pursue?
Aside from the practical consequences that socialized medicine is never cheaper and more effective than a free-market system, the moral aspect trumps everything else: socialism necessitates coercion, and coercion is the destroyer of rationality and morality.
Aside from the practical consequences that socialized medicine is never cheaper and more effective than a free-market system
Do you have any examples that I could draw from? If I’m in a debate I can’t just assert that it is so and be done with it. If you don’t want to go to the work of finding something don’t worry. If you do have any recommended readings regarding the economics of privatized health care that has been implemented and been effective, I’d appreciate it.
Do you have any examples that I could draw from? If I’m in a debate I can’t just assert that it is so and be done with it. If you don’t want to go to the work of finding something don’t worry. If you do have any recommended readings regarding the economics of privatized health care that has been implemented and been effective, I’d appreciate it.
Happy to oblige. Here is The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Right’s page on health care. But you shouldn’t limit your investigation to the economics of health care. Before you can ask, “How much will it cost to enslave doctors and patients,” you should ask, “Is it right to do so and what happens when you do?”
The problem with addressing socialized medicine in the way you currently are is that you are addressing it from a pragmatic perspective (“does it work?”). When this happens, it ultimately becomes a pissing contest where you present your evidence of it “not working” and your opponent will present his evidence of it supposedly “working” (which, of course, the definition of “working” is typically left undefined). And in the end, no one gets anywhere.
There are lots of articles online advocating socialized medicine and opposing socialized medicine, but very few of them will define “working” or “failed.” Just google “failure of socialized medicine” and you’ll get plenty of options for reading material. Some will say that it works because a few poor people were able to see a doctor at all. Others will say that it is a failure because someone died while waiting 3 months just to get an MRI just to diagnose the problem.
To address socialized medicine, you need to attack it morally: That by it’s nature it requires sticking a gun in someone’s face, thus is actually an impedance to life. This kind of argument though, with any kind of sophisticated opponent, will rather quickly be reduced to fundamentals: that of morality, the nature of rights, the nature of government, the immorality of force.
The fundamental question is this: Is it ever moral to stick a gun in someone’s face to force them to pay for another individual’s medical treatment (or welfare, or recreation, or food, or anything).
What matters is not what “works” but what’s moral.
To address socialized medicine, you need to attack it morally: That by it’s nature it requires sticking a gun in someone’s face, thus is actually an impedance to life. This kind of argument though, with any kind of sophisticated opponent, will rather quickly be reduced to fundamentals: that of morality, the nature of rights, the nature of government, the immorality of force.
The fundamental question is this: Is it ever moral to stick a gun in someone’s face to force them to pay for another individual’s medical treatment (or welfare, or recreation, or food, or anything).
What matters is not what “works” but what’s moral.
Thanks for your reply. I guess the corollary to this question regarding forcing someone to pay for another individual also relates to a nagging notion regarding the concept of protection. In a capitalist society, we would be forced to pay for police, courts and military spending in order to help protect us.
Now, considering that it is never moral to force someone to pay for another is wrong, how does that not translate into the function of a government?
In a capitalist society, we would be forced to pay for police, courts and military spending in order to help protect us.
The principle applies to all cases, even that of the government: That the initiation of force is never acceptable. What this leads to is a voluntarily funded government, whose sole purpose is the protection from rights violations.
The big answer to this will come from the essay “Government Financing in a Free Society” found in the “Virtue of Selfishness”, but a more concise answer can be found here.
Taxes, being funds taken coercively from citizens, are immoral. The only moral funding method of government is voluntary donation.
To add to this, the “freeloader argument” is often invoked against voluntary government financing: “If people had the option of not sending money to the government, no one would ever give the government a dime!” In practical terms, that is absolute nonsense. In such a situation, your choice is between a penniless government, resulting in anarchy and no protection of anyone’s rights versus a government which every citizen can count on to protect his rights. You can keep all your money and then fight off the mob the rest of your life or you can give up a little and spend your life safe and secure.
Which do you think people would choose? In addition, just think of all the trivial stuff that Americans bend over backwards to donate to. When they see the benefits of a proper, rights-protecting government, Americans would dump more money on the government than it could handle.
I’m curious if there are any resources that deal directly with this issue that I could find online.
If you’re looking for additional ammunition to debate this issue from a pragmatic angle, the Cato Institute’s web site has a number of studies and papers on the subject: http://www.cato.org/subtopic_display_new.p…=80&ra_id=6
If socialized medicine was cheaper to do and allowed for higher productivity within a capitalist country wouldn’t that make it the more rational choice to pursue?
To my understanding, Objectivism as a political philosophy does not concern itself with the general welfare of the population per se. Overall, due to the success of unbridled capitalism, overall wealth will increase and health care should be made more affordable to many more people.
The flip side to this reality is that many people will not have their health care subsidized anymore by the government, and (again, this is regrettable but necessary) many poor people or people with catastrophic diseases will have to suffer the consequences (death, sometimes lingering, painful death without pain medication). I don’t see private charity doing much than vaccinations or other basic medical care for people who can’t get insurance. What private charity would have the funds for costly cancer or HIV treatments, or organ transplants? These are hard realities of capitalism that must be accepted if mankind is to move forward at its maximum capacity. There is no sense in sugar-coating this reality by emotional exhortations that private charity will always be there in abundance. It would be nice to think this would be the case, but it is unrealistic and childish in my view.
To my understanding, Objectivism as a political philosophy does not concern itself with the general welfare of the population per se.
That’s correct. Political philosophy proceeds from ethical philosophy, and ethics deals fundamentally with man as an individual, not as members of groups (the poor, the sick, the needy, doctors, politicians, etc.). Questions relating to the “general welfare” of soceity ultimately redound to what is right for the individual man. Objectivism rejects the acceptance of conflicts between groups, as in it’s okay if few doctors/taxpayers have to sacrifice for the general welfare. It’s not okay, because morality is necessary for every man, not just those lucky enough not to be sacrificed.
There is no sense in sugar-coating this reality by emotional exhortations that private charity will always be there in abundance. It would be nice to think this would be the case, but it is unrealistic and childish in my view.
True enough. There are no societal arrangements that metaphysically guarantee every single person will get every single medical procedure that could possibly desire. That is a fantasy (and a malevolent one at that), but one which all too many collectivists think achievable.
I don’t see private charity doing much than vaccinations or other basic medical care for people who can’t get insurance. What private charity would have the funds for costly cancer or HIV treatments, or organ transplants? These are hard realities of capitalism that must be accepted if mankind is to move forward at its maximum capacity. There is no sense in sugar-coating this reality by emotional exhortations that private charity will always be there in abundance. It would be nice to think this would be the case, but it is unrealistic and childish in my view.
Many people don’t give to charity because they believe that it’s the government’s job to care for poor people and they know that a good chunk of government budgets at all levels goes to pay for welfare programs. Also, the current confiscatory tax rates do a great deal to discourage charitable giving. Under a free market system with voluntary government funding, these obstacle would be removed.
The other thing to consider is that in a truly free market system of healthcare, businesses would figure out a way to serve the low end of the market and make a profit doing it. The poor might not receive the kind of gold plated care that is currently available for people who can’t pay, but healthcare would still be available to the poor. Lawyers do pro-bono work for the indigent, I don’t see why doctors would be any different.
Many people don’t give to charity because they believe that it’s the government’s job to care for poor people and they know that a good chunk of government budgets at all levels goes to pay for welfare programs. Also, the current confiscatory tax rates do a great deal to discourage charitable giving. Under a free market system with voluntary government funding, these obstacle would be removed.
The other thing to consider is that in a truly free market system of healthcare, businesses would figure out a way to serve the low end of the market and make a profit doing it. The poor might not receive the kind of gold plated care that is currently available for people who can’t pay, but healthcare would still be available to the poor. Lawyers do pro-bono work for the indigent, I don’t see why doctors would be any different.
This is what I am talking about. I’m not sure if its pangs of guilt or genuine concern for the welfare of strangers, but there is no sense in theorizing around the hard realities of a capitalist system. Yes, charitable donations for health care will go up under Capitalism, but to believe they will go up $560 billion per year (Medicare/Medicaid budget) is unrealistic.
How is anyone going to profit serving the “low end of the market” when it comes to health care? Maybe a pharmaceutical company some good press by giving some free medicine away to kids, or something. Quality health care costs money, money for medicine, tests, surgical supplies and equipment, etc; no way around it. Also, the poor really don’t receive “gold plated health care”, at least if I understand you to mean they are getting the best health care available. Poor people in the United States in many cases can’t afford health insurance, so they don’t go to the doctor. Every time there is a free clinic around here people come in droves, camp overnight, because its the only way to get basic medical attention. Many can’t even be seen. Any problem of moderate to serious consequence cannot be meaningfully dealt with. I for one am okay with this.
Under Capitalism you just might be better off hiring extra security to keep the poor sick bastards from raiding your property :lol: Seriously though, you just have to accept that people are going to suffer without relief.
Yes, charitable donations for health care will go up under Capitalism, but to believe they will go up $560 billion per year (Medicare/Medicaid budget) is unrealistic.
Well, for one thing, they wouldn’t need $560 billion per year. Medicare/Medicaid is rife with fraud and government red tape. For example, if a patient needs a walker, Medicare/Medicaid will cover, for example, $100. If the patient can get the walker for $50 at Walmart, Medicare/Medicaid still pays $100 for that walker. Waste, waste, waste. Typical government BS!
In Ohio, if you have a prescription for antibiotics, you can go to Meijer (and, I think, Wal-Mart) now and get them for FREE. Just a cheerful public service of a pharmacy company.
The fact is that most people are healthy. The problem for most “poor” people is not that they can’t afford basic medical care but that they completely neglect cheap preventive measures. Then they clog up emergency rooms with non-emergency complaints because the hospitals are not allowed to turn them away. An amazing number of these people are also drug-seekers looking for vicodin or oxycontin.
Health care, like food, is something you have to budget for. Wasn’t there a statistic running around that like 75% of the “poor” in America have a car, television, DVD player, computer, and cell phone. Yet they can’t “afford” to take care of their teeth or spend $50 to go get a medical checkup. RIGHT.
In Ohio, if you have a prescription for antibiotics, you can go to Meijer (and, I think, Wal-Mart) now and get them for FREE. Just a cheerful public service of a pharmacy company.
The fact is that most people are healthy. The problem for most “poor” people is not that they can’t afford basic medical care but that they completely neglect cheap preventive measures. Then they clog up emergency rooms with non-emergency complaints because the hospitals are not allowed to turn them away. An amazing number of these people are also drug-seekers looking for vicodin or oxycontin.
Health care, like food, is something you have to budget for. Wasn’t there a statistic running around that like 75% of the “poor” in America have a car, television, DVD player, computer, and cell phone. Yet they can’t “afford” to take care of their teeth or spend $50 to go get a medical checkup. RIGHT.
I’m with you. Many of these poor people are neglecting their health and expecting other people to pay for it. The problem is they come from poor ignorant families and reach adulthood with unhealthy habits learned from their parents, and are likely to be poor and ignorant in turn, and the cycle keeps going. I’m not sure what you mean by most people are healthy. I guess that depends on what your definition is. If it means “free from the need for medication or ongoing medical care”, I would say there is a substantial number of people who wouldn’t qualify. I will say this for poor people: you have to be able to afford some kind of health insurance for catastrophic illness or injuries. Otherwise you are screwed. I think this is one of the leading causes of financial crisis and bankruptcy in the US. And right now it is very difficult for many people to afford a policy.
To be truthful, those generic antibiotics those stores give away are so cheap its actually more cost effective to give them away than to process the insurance paperwork in many cases. It’s not worth a pharmacist’s time to process insurance paperwork or even ring up the sale on such drugs. This is especially true for penicillin and amoxicillin. And the PR value is an added plus. Unfortunately a lot of them don’t have the effectiveness they used to either. I went through 3 different antibiotics last summer to get one that worked on my strep throat last winter.
Also, to be fair, I could go out and buy cheap durable goods like a TV, DVD player, computer, and cell phone for less than the cost of 1-2 months premiums on an average family health insurance policy right now. Taking care of your teeth and medical care get substantially more expensive as you age, and the average age is going up. A great many people are on some kind of daily medication once they get into middle age or older. All the more reason to let the free market work its magic and drive down costs.
Also, to be fair, I could go out and buy cheap durable goods like a TV, DVD player, computer, and cell phone for less than the cost of 1-2 months premiums on an average family health insurance policy right now.
This is indeed true of family plans. But it’s important to remember that it remains the individual’s responsibility to determine if they can afford children in the first place, and health costs are some of the most fundamental. An individual that can’t afford health insurance for their children probably shouldn’t have had children in the first place.
Not that I disagree with anything your saying, but I thought I’d expand on that thought a little.
To my understanding, Objectivism as a political philosophy does not concern itself with the general welfare of the population per se. Overall, due to the success of unbridled capitalism, overall wealth will increase and health care should be made more affordable to many more people.
You would think, but that doesn’t appear to be the opinion of socialists who are against privatized medicine. I don’t see why the government is any MORE efficient at providing health care than anyone else, and considering the lack of competition to provide high quality care for a good price, it is probably less efficient because there’s no ambition to make it better, no one to outdo them.
The flip side to this reality is that many people will not have their health care subsidized anymore by the government, and (again, this is regrettable but necessary) many poor people or people with catastrophic diseases will have to suffer the consequences (death, sometimes lingering, painful death without pain medication). I don’t see private charity doing much than vaccinations or other basic medical care for people who can’t get insurance. What private charity would have the funds for costly cancer or HIV treatments, or organ transplants? These are hard realities of capitalism that must be accepted if mankind is to move forward at its maximum capacity. There is no sense in sugar-coating this reality by emotional exhortations that private charity will always be there in abundance. It would be nice to think this would be the case, but it is unrealistic and childish in my view.
I agree it is a pipe-dream mentality that everyone is going to be happy and healthy in some grand utopia. I am curious though, what about outbreaks of disease? In order to contain the disease, how would we deal with such an outbreak? Would the government be in charge of quarantines? What about vaccinations to prevent an outbreak of the disease?
I’m assuming that the government, in its interest in protecting peoples rights would quarantine the infected population.
To add to this, the “freeloader argument” is often invoked against voluntary government financing: “If people had the option of not sending money to the government, no one would ever give the government a dime!” In practical terms, that is absolute nonsense. In such a situation, your choice is between a penniless government, resulting in anarchy and no protection of anyone’s rights versus a government which every citizen can count on to protect his rights. You can keep all your money and then fight off the mob the rest of your life or you can give up a little and spend your life safe and secure.
Which do you think people would choose? In addition, just think of all the trivial stuff that Americans bend over backwards to donate to. When they see the benefits of a proper, rights-protecting government, Americans would dump more money on the government than it could handle.
I do have a couple questions relating to this, but I will start it in a more appropriate thread.