90% of all health care cost in US due to preventable illnesses

[dogtowner]

I believe we've come full circle at this point.

Taxation is not the same as being beset by street thugs. It is a way of paying collectively for that which is a collective benefit. While taxation without representation may be immoral, a representative government with the power of taxation is a necessary evil if we are to have a civilized society.

That is, in a nutshell, the difference in philosophy we have been arguing.

perhaps add constitutionally acceptable spending ?

 

[Dr.Who]

So, we seem to be faced with a choice of "forced wealth redistribution" through requiring everyone to have health insurance, or the same through forcing the rest of us to pay for those who choose to be uninsured.

It is not at all necessary for us to be forced to pay for those who choose to be uninsured. There are many mechanism by which their care could be paid for without the moneys being coerced from others.

Or, we could simply allow the uninsured to live with the consequences of their choice, but, so far, society doesn't seem willing to do so.

yes and no. Yes to some sort of consequence but no to just letting them die. The fact that they might have to request charity would be a consequence for many. As would whatever requirments were set up to participate in that funding.

As long as people without insurance are allowed to stick the care provider with the bill, which we all know means sticking the rest of us with it, then there is no difference between requiring everyone with a car to have auto insurance and requiring everyone with a body to have health insurance.

Even if the best choice were to just let people without insurance stick the care provider with the bill (not exactly even accurate to start with that premise because a lot of people without insurance would be able to pay cash either up front or over time) that would not mean that it is the same as forcing people to pay. Suppose that hospital A has 5% of its patients who don't pay and hospital B has 0% who don't pay. Anyone else who goes to hospital B will not be forced to pay for their care. Even within hospital A there may be ways for people to go to that hospital and yet not be forced to pay for the care that said hospital got stuck with.

 

[Dr.Who]

That is the only moral solution.
t illegal for Rob to refuse letting us violate his rights. Through some form of mental-moral gymnastics, because it was done by a collective, you suddenly consider the action to be moral, or at the very least you ignore the fact that it is immoral.

I believe that you clarified this later but right now it looks like you are stating that it is moral to let people die in the streets.

 

[Dr.Who]

​

False dilemma fallacy: a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. The options may be a position that is between the two extremes (such as when there are shades of grey) or may be a completely different alternative.​

Your premise is that there are just two options: A, people are refused treatment or B, we force others to pay for their treatment.

It's already been pointed out that free clinics exist, doctors do pro bono work and there are charitable funds that exist to address the issue as well. All of those are voluntary exchanges and do not require the use of force to reach the desired outcome - i.e. people who can't afford it still get medical assistance.

If you feel it's immoral to deny people medical treatment because they can't afford it, you are free to voluntarily contribute money to whatever clinics or charities exist to cover the costs. However, you do not have the Right to violate the rights of someone else by forcing them to contribute to a cause that you believe is moral.


Cheaper for whom? Here's a "real world" example from my life: My full time job offers HCI, it's a group policy for all the company's full time employees. My employer covered 30% of the cost leaving me with a monthly premium of $180, that policy was costing roughly $255 a month. With the exact same HDHC policy but as an individual, rather than part of the group, and from the exact same insurance company, my monthly premiums are $96 a month.

The extra money I was paying on the group plan was to subsidize the HC coverage of people who were older and in poorer health than myself. The healthy people in the group pay more than they have to in order for the less healthy people of the group to pay less than what they should.

Broken window fallacy – an argument which disregards lost opportunity costs associated with destroying property of others, or other ways of externalizing costs onto others.​

So when you say it's "cheaper" to have everyone in the same pool, that only benefits the people of poorer health and that benefit comes at the expense of those who are in better health. The cost of providing HC to any specific individual doesn't actually change, so you haven't actually reduced the cost of providing HC to anyone. Collectivization doesn't reduce the cost of a single band-aid, much less reduce the cost of purchasing or operating an MRI machine. All you've done is spread out the individual costs among the entire group - making it cheaper for some but more expensive for everyone else.

You are arguing that it is not cheaper to use collective processes, such as insurance.

You are right, but not only is it not cheaper it is more expensive. On average insurance companies take 4% profit ( and that is after overhead). so it costs MORE to use collective means.

The cheapest form is for each person to pay cash for their own care and to make doctors compete for their business. Insurance is useful but not as a means to pay (that is the mistake too many make.) insurance is useful as a hedge against the need for unforseen and catastrophic service that would be too high to pay for. Rarely is that what insurance is today but it needs to be. And obamacare makes inexpesive insurance that only covers the unforeseen and catastrophic even harder to get not easier.

 

[Dr.Who]

Sometimes, the end does justify t he means. When ideology clashes with reality, then reality must prevail.
?

I agree that there are times when the ends justify the means. For example when a moral end can be bought with a moral means. But there are many times in which the ends do not justify the means. An immoral end never justifies a moral means and of course an immoral end never justifies an immoral means. And what is relevant here is that a moral end also does not justify an immoral means. Once you accept any of these wrong uses of ends justifying the means then anything can be justified.

When both the ends and the means are moral no perceived reality should be allowed to comprimise that. In fact I think that when both the ends and the means are moral it will coincide with reality.

 

[Dr.Who]

If it is immoral to collect taxes in order to pay the cost of maintaining a fire house, is the same true of police protection? If someone is breaking into your house, should the cops check to see if you've paid your police bill before coming to arrest the bad guys?

Or is that somehow different?

Or, here's another broad question: Is it ever moral, in your estimation, to collect taxes and pay for anything at all collectively?

TAxes are evil we should never forget that. They are what we call a necessary evil and therefore should be exercised only with th emost stringent safeguards.

 

[Dr.Who]

I believe we've come full circle at this point.

Taxation is not the same as being beset by street thugs. It is a way of paying collectively for that which is a collective benefit. While taxation without representation may be immoral, a representative government with the power of taxation is a necessary evil if we are to have a civilized society.

That is, in a nutshell, the difference in philosophy we have been arguing.

AS you say - it is evil. We can't just fall back on the power of taxation willy nilly. we must must must only use taxation when very very stringent safeguards have been followed. there should be criteria for when taxes can be levied and how.

Right now the fed does not have enough safeguards. But one safeguard is that the fed cannot use one persons tax dollars for the good of just one person or one group of persons. Paying for one persons health care does not meet this constitutional safeguard.

 

[Cruella]

TAxes are evil we should never forget that. They are what we call a necessary evil and therefore should be exercised only with th emost stringent safeguards.

Expect a new one that's being bantered around. A wealth tax. You have to pay a tax on the value of non productive assets like the value of homes, cars, cash, gold, jewelry etc.

 

[PLC1]

You are arguing that it is not cheaper to use collective processes, such as insurance.

You are right, but not only is it not cheaper it is more expensive. On average insurance companies take 4% profit ( and that is after overhead). so it costs MORE to use collective means.

The cheapest form is for each person to pay cash for their own care and to make doctors compete for their business. Insurance is useful but not as a means to pay (that is the mistake too many make.) insurance is useful as a hedge against the need for unforseen and catastrophic service that would be too high to pay for. Rarely is that what insurance is today but it needs to be. And obamacare makes inexpesive insurance that only covers the unforeseen and catastrophic even harder to get not easier.

That's precisely what is needed: Insurance against unforeseen and catastrophic costs, with the patient paying for ordinary care. Such a system would be orders of magnitude less expensive than what we have now. It would even be less expensive than what most of the rest of the world has. We could really have the best health care system in the world, as some say we have, instead of just the most expensive. Insurance that is really insurance, and not a pre paid health care plan, should apply to everyone equally. If anyone wants a pre paid plan, let them pay for it themselves, and not expect the employer or the government to pick up the tab.

As it is now, the patient who pays and has no insurance pays triple what an insurance company or government program will pay. It's that billing structure more than anything else that makes health care insurance so critical.

 

[PLC1]

AS you say - it is evil. We can't just fall back on the power of taxation willy nilly. we must must must only use taxation when very very stringent safeguards have been followed. there should be criteria for when taxes can be levied and how.

Right now the fed does not have enough safeguards. But one safeguard is that the fed cannot use one persons tax dollars for the good of just one person or one group of persons. Paying for one persons health care does not meet this constitutional safeguard.

Indeed, the fed does not have enough safeguards. The growth of government has continued unabated for quite some time now. Spending doesn't even slow down when not enough revenues are collected, the feds just borrow or print more money.

 

[GenSeneca]

I believe we've come full circle at this point.

No, you're just continuing to avoid the issue of morality.

Taxation is not the same as being beset by street thugs.

What's the moral difference? Both resort to the threat, or use, of force to extract a value from an individual. How is forcibly taking money out of your wallet any morally different when done by a "collective", through taxation, than when done by a single individual through coercion?

It is a way of paying collectively for that which is a collective benefit.

Forcing me to pay for your HC, retirement, or home renovation is not a "collective benefit", it's a "benefit" to one specific individual at the expense of other individuals - it is a redistribution of wealth - a very specific concept that you're continuing to avoid addressing by constantly equating it with "collective" benefits. I'm pointing out that apples and bananas are two very different types of fruit, you're trying to claim that they aren't different at all because they're both fruit.

While taxation without representation may be immoral, a representative government with the power of taxation is a necessary evil if we are to have a civilized society.

In order for a society to actually be civilized, it must ban the initiation of the use of force from human relationships. That would be the moral thing to do, and until a society is moral, it cannot be considered civilized.

That is, in a nutshell, the difference in philosophy we have been arguing.

Are you finally admitting that your views are ideological?

 

[GenSeneca]

I believe that you clarified this later but right now it looks like you are stating that it is moral to let people die in the streets.

I'm saying it is immoral to force others to cover the cost of treating that person. If you, as an individual, believe helping that person is the "moral" thing to do, then nothing should stop you from donating your own time, energy, and money to offering assistance. Just as it would be immoral to ban you, as an individual, from helping that person, it is equally immoral to force others to help.

 

[GenSeneca]

I agree that there are times when the ends justify the means.

PLC was not arguing in favor of using a moral means to achieve a moral end, he very specifically was justifying the use of immoral means to reach an end he considers moral, i.e. forced redistribution of wealth (means) for the purpose of achieving any "benefit" (end) he considers moral.

 

[GenSeneca]

perhaps add constitutionally acceptable spending ?

That ship has already sailed... SCOTUS no longer recognizes any constitutional limitations on taxation or spending. It's a free for all, just get enough street thugs together and vote yourself whatever "benefit" you want at your neighbors expense.

 

[dogtowner]

That ship has already sailed... SCOTUS no longer recognizes any constitutional limitations on taxation or spending. It's a free for all, just get enough street thugs together and vote yourself whatever "benefit" you want at your neighbors expense.

sad but true. a political force ws not the plan but the method of selection wsa damaged by the change to how senators were selected. lots of bad ripples on that one.