Socialized Medicine

Political Philosophy
21

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.

If someone carries a contagious disease that poses an imminent and significant threat to others, that is a violation of their rights, and the government is right to quarantine them. But a distinction must be made between relatively harmless contagions and severely harmful ones. Someone carrying the common cold does not represent an objective, imminent threat against the general public. Catching a cold from someone does not constitute a violation of your rights (in most cases, it would be hard to identify the source, anyway).

Vaccinations are the responsibility of individuals, not government. If a disease breaks out, and quarantine is either impossible or improper or too late, it’s up to individuals to vaccinate themselves, as their health is their responsibility alone. The government’s role in a disease outbreak is to administer legal justice, just as it is in any circumstance.

22

If someone carries a contagious disease that poses an imminent and significant threat to others, that is a violation of their rights, and the government is right to quarantine them. But a distinction must be made between relatively harmless contagions and severely harmful ones. Someone carrying the common cold does not represent an objective, imminent threat against the general public. Catching a cold from someone does not constitute a violation of your rights (in most cases, it would be hard to identify the source, anyway).

Vaccinations are the responsibility of individuals, not government. If a disease breaks out, and quarantine is either impossible or improper or too late, it’s up to individuals to vaccinate themselves, as their health is their responsibility alone. The government’s role in a disease outbreak is to administer legal justice, just as it is in any circumstance.

I love you guys. Clear, concise and consistent statements. I can’t thank you more for helping me understand certain dynamics that have been bugging me for awhile now. I should have posted this sooner!

I have no further questions, your honor.

23

Well, you’re most welcome. :glare: I’m glad to hear that it’s helped. Hopefully, getting matters like this clarified in principles will act as a springboard for an even greater grasp of Objectivism. It sure did for me, when I was first learning it, and still does!

24

Well, you’re most welcome. :slight_smile: I’m glad to hear that it’s helped. Hopefully, getting matters like this clarified in principles will act as a springboard for an even greater grasp of Objectivism. It sure did for me, when I was first learning it, and still does!

Probably one of the greatest resources that someone linked on here was the Ayn Rand Lexicon. I realize that the more I study Objectivism the more I need to learn!

25

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.

Why isn’t there any sense in theorizing about conditions under a true capitalist system? I don’t have pangs of guilt about anything connected with Capitalism, I’m simply making the point that a truly capitalist healthcare system would be very different from what we have currently. Contrary to the claims of some, capitalism wouldn’t result in the poor dying in the streets in droves.

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.

You’re probably correct.

How is anyone going to profit serving the “low end of the market” when it comes to health care?

Entrepreneurs devise all sorts of inventive ways to serve different market segments. It’s possible that care could be provided to the poor through the greater use of nurses, nurses aides, and Physician’s Assistants to treat everything but the most serious problems. Low end providers would also be more judicious in their use of expensive testing. Our current irrational legal system forces doctors and hospitals to cover themselves against potential lawsuits by over-testing as a defensive measure. Whatever the specific market-based solutions turn out to be, we know that layers upon layers of government regulations serve to drive up the cost of providing care by mandating everything from insurance reimbursement rates to physician licensing requirements to drug testing procedures.

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.

Clearly the poor don’t get the best healthcare available. However, they do get the privilege of being cared for by the best healthcare system in the world. There are many incentives in our current system for healthcare providers to build hospitals and other care facilities that have the most up to date and most expensive technologies available. Poor people, who are essentially free-loaders on the system, benefit from these facilities and technologies even when they don’t pay for them.

Seriously though, you just have to accept that people are going to suffer without relief.

I don’t doubt that some people will suffer, but there is no system that would provide a utopian existence free of suffering for every human. The only moral means of allocating healthcare resources is through laissez faire capitalism.

26

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 wonder if you fail to realize that the freeloader argument has a little more meat to it than that. I’m not sure if you’ve ever had to budget in your life before, so i’ll try to explain. When you have limited funds, as most people in the united states do (the average income being around 30K a year), and someone gives you an option to not pay a bill, whether or not you used those services or are a moral person with a compulsion to do what you feel is right, and your family is poor, or even not so well off…what would you do?

Let’s say you need to pay rent, pay your phone and electricity bill. You have children who need to eat. Now which is more important to you as a parent- an abstract moral principle which, at times, you might feel the concrete effects of (depending on how others fund the services in question) or your children’s stomachs, safety and well-being, which you constantly see on a day to day basis?

On an unrelated point, with all of this contractual volunteerism the lot of you continue to call for, how would one providing services differentiate between those who have contracted and paid for such services, and those who have not? Let’s say, you are being raped and someone calls the police (which are paid for with tax dollars). Now once the police get there, should they ask for your name and social security number before they stop your rapist so that they can make sure you have paid for these services? Or if your house were burning down?

How are these contracts even practical? What if you elect in your contract to not pay for road services, such as the maintenence of freeways, yet continue to drive on these roads? Is that fair to the others who pay? Exactly how large of an infrastructure are you willing to attempt to create in order to make this system managable?

I’m sorry, but these ideas are simply absurdly impractical pipedreams. I agree with you that inappropriate taxing is wrong, yet at the same time..When we obtain and sustain our citizenship in a given country, we exchange certain rights for others. This is the nature of the social contract. Taxation is part of this.

27

I wonder if you fail to realize that the freeloader argument has a little more meat to it than that. I’m not sure if you’ve ever had to budget in your life before, so i’ll try to explain. When you have limited funds, as most people in the united states do (the average income being around 30K a year), and someone gives you an option to not pay a bill, whether or not you used those services or are a moral person with a compulsion to do what you feel is right, and your family is poor, or even not so well off…what would you do?

Let’s say you need to pay rent, pay your phone and electricity bill. You have children who need to eat. Now which is more important to you as a parent- an abstract moral principle which, at times, you might feel the concrete effects of (depending on how others fund the services in question) or your children’s stomachs, safety and well-being, which you constantly see on a day to day basis?

Am I correct in summarizing your position as follows? When someone has a need or is short of funds, they are free to take from others without regard to individual property rights?

On an unrelated point, with all of this contractual volunteerism the lot of you continue to call for, how would one providing services differentiate between those who have contracted and paid for such services, and those who have not? Let’s say, you are being raped and someone calls the police (which are paid for with tax dollars). Now once the police get there, should they ask for your name and social security number before they stop your rapist so that they can make sure you have paid for these services? Or if your house were burning down?

How are these contracts even practical? What if you elect in your contract to not pay for road services, such as the maintenence of freeways, yet continue to drive on these roads? Is that fair to the others who pay? Exactly how large of an infrastructure are you willing to attempt to create in order to make this system managable?

You’re mischaracterizing the Objectivist stance on government and how it should be fiinanced. There are numerous other threads that deal with this. It would be educational for you to find and read them.

I’m sorry, but these ideas are simply absurdly impractical pipedreams. I agree with you that inappropriate taxing is wrong, yet at the same time..When we obtain and sustain our citizenship in a given country, we exchange certain rights for others. This is the nature of the social contract. Taxation is part of this.

I never made the exchange you claim occured. Also, I am not part of some imaginary social contract that allows the many to steal from the few.

28

On an unrelated point, with all of this contractual volunteerism the lot of you continue to call for, how would one providing services differentiate between those who have contracted and paid for such services, and those who have not? Let’s say, you are being raped and someone calls the police (which are paid for with tax dollars). Now once the police get there, should they ask for your name and social security number before they stop your rapist so that they can make sure you have paid for these services?

Maggie, You might be confusing Objectivists with anarchists. Objectivism supports the notion of government, with police, courts and army.