Universal Healthcare for all

[SkyWriting]

What is and what should be are two different things. I am saying that it is in fact a basic duty that the state should provide for those it is responsible for based on God's Law. I am not saying that this is done currently everywhere. People shouldn't murder, but they do. States shouldn't enter into unjust wars, but they do. Everyone should be Christlike, but they aren't. There is a difference.

Jesus walked away from the crowds and he hid from people seeking healing.
What have you been reading? Jesus is only concerned for our spiritual healing.
His list of physical healings could cover a couple pages. He barely even left His hometown.

 

[Abaxvahl]

Jesus walked away from the crowds and he hid from people seeking healing.
What have you been reading? Jesus is only concerned for our spiritual healing.
His list of physical healings could cover a couple pages. He barely even left His hometown.

Jesus didn't do a lot of things so I suppose that we shouldn't do them either or be concerned with them. Moreover, none of this has anything to do with what I have been saying.

 

[SkyWriting]

Jesus didn't do a lot of things so I suppose that we shouldn't do them either or be concerned with them. Moreover, none of this has anything to do with what I have been saying.

Basic healthcare is not a human right. That is the topic.
People don't have it and God will take us at His will.
The poor will always be with us.

 

[SkyWriting]

I have no idea what your conception of a "right" is. A person who travels into the wilderness to me still has a right to not be murdered.

Yet there is no healthcare or police available. So there is no right to police protection or first aid. Not even bandaids or aspirin. People do have the right to sell health services in the wilderness if they wish.

By the way, I advocate for the reduction of the military and transfer of funding into Healthcare. I'd like to see no soldiers, just red cross. This would reduce our interference with the military for the rest of the world. We could just help clean up the countries that lay each other to waste after we pull out.

 

[Occams Barber]

If it could be done without giving up the freedoms of medical choice and not having to sacrifice other freedoms, sure. However, if countries with universal healthcare already are an indication, the government uses the healthcare to pass more laws that, at best, restrict freedom of choice for medical decisions and at worst, take away other freedoms.

As someone who lives in a country (Australia) with universal healthcare I find your comments offensive.

Please explain to me how the government "uses healthcare to pass more laws restricting freedom of choice for medical decisions or take away other freedoms". Given the choice limitations imposed by your insurance system you may find that I have more choice than you do.

OB

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Some current medications can be tens, of thousands per month, and with DNA research it may be possible to spend 100's of thousands for medication for one person. Are there any lines to draw on how much we will spend on healthcare and will we make it universal for every person in the world to spend all the resources possible we have on everyone? Even on Trump Supporters? Or Democrats? Or Muslims?

I think health care is just like anything else that is a product of someone. We pay what we can afford. I can't afford a million dollar house so I don't get a million dollar house. I can't afford a million dollar surgery so I don't get it. I don't see the problem. These things don't grow on a tree or fall from the sky so why would everyone have access to them. The history of health care, and every other product of man, is that things are expensive when they are new but the price quickly comes down so that more can afford them. But why would they be available to everyone? In order for some expensive health care treatment to be made available to someone who does not have the means to pay for it, it means someone who produced wealth must have his property taken away from him and given to someone who didn't produce it. For one man to have a right to something he did not produce, someone must lose his right to something that he did produce. That does not seem just to me. In fact, it is down right irrational. It would punish those who succeed, for succeeding and it would reward those who fail, for failing. If one is poor enough and fails consistently, then one has a mortgage on the life and work of others. But, if one works really hard, studies, learns and puts that knowledge to use creating wealth, he loses his right to it in proportion to the degree of his success, so that eventually he becomes rightless.

You speak of the resources that "we" have but it is really individuals who have the wealth. It's not "our" wealth.

The basic principle underlying your question is: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. I think it should be: from each according to his ability, to each according to his production. "We" do not have a right to someone's property simply because he has more than "we" do. This seems to be the only rational basis for society.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

My leg got banged up pretty good in an accident a couple of months ago. Decided to have it looked at because it seemed the prudent thing to do. Got sent to the ER for an ultrasound for blood clots I didn't have and they did some x-rays. Got the bills which totaled over $4,000. But since I have low premium insurance through my employer and union. I only had to cover a $50 copay. I'd like to see it be that way or similar for everyone.

who is going to provide all this service and who is going to pay for it?

 

[SkyWriting]

I think health care is just like anything else that is a product of someone. We pay what we can afford. I can't afford a million dollar house so I don't get a million dollar house. I can't afford a million dollar surgery so I don't get it. I don't see the problem. These things don't grow on a tree or fall from the sky so why would everyone have access to them. The history of health care, and every other product of man, is that things are expensive when they are new but the price quickly comes down so that more can afford them. But why would they be available to everyone? In order for some expensive health care treatment to be made available to someone who does not have the means to pay for it, it means someone who produced wealth must have his property taken away from him and given to someone who didn't produce it. For one man to have a right to something he did not produce, someone must lose his right to something that he did produce. That does not seem just to me. In fact, it is down right irrational. It would punish those who succeed, for succeeding and it would reward those who fail, for failing. If one is poor enough and fails consistently, then one has a mortgage on the life and work of others. But, if one works really hard, studies, learns and puts that knowledge to use creating wealth, he loses his right to it in proportion to the degree of his success, so that eventually he becomes rightless.

You speak of the resources that "we" have but it is really individuals who have the wealth. It's not "our" wealth.

The basic principle underlying your question is: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. I think it should be: from each according to his ability, to each according to his production. "We" do not have a right to someone's property simply because he has more than "we" do. This seems to be the only rational basis for society.

I just don't see how there can be any "rights" involved. People of no means in lands of no means.....have....no means. And no HealthCare. We can morally volunteer to serve them if we choose. But anytime we choose to help one person we are cutting off 10 others. So there is no right unless you start providing services perfectly evenly. We could have a "right" to $195 of healthcare per month for each person. But no more than that.

 

[SkyWriting]

My leg got banged up pretty good in an accident a couple of months ago. Decided to have it looked at because it seemed the prudent thing to do. Got sent to the ER for an ultrasound for blood clots I didn't have and they did some x-rays. Got the bills which totaled over $4,000. But since I have low premium insurance through my employer and union. I only had to cover a $50 copay. I'd like to see it be that way or similar for everyone.

Now every person in the US should have a "Right" to $4000 in treatment this month. That's sounds pricey. We currently have people begging in moving traffic and one day, even on the expressway. I kid you not, with universal healthcare, people will step into traffic just to become permanently disabled and get checks for life.

 

[Ceallaigh]

who is going to provide all this service and who is going to pay for it?

I don't know. I just wish those in the US had healthcare that really was affordable. It seems to work in Canada and other countries.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I just don't see how there can be any "rights" involved. People of no means in lands of no means.....have....no means. And no HealthCare. We can morally volunteer to serve them if we choose. But anytime we choose to help one person we are cutting off 10 others. So there is no right unless you start providing services perfectly evenly. We could have a "right" to $195 of healthcare per month for each person. But no more than that.

I just don't see how there can be any "rights" involved. People of no means in lands of no means.....have....no means. And no HealthCare. We can morally volunteer to serve them if we choose. But anytime we choose to help one person we are cutting off 10 others. So there is no right unless you start providing services perfectly evenly. We could have a "right" to $195 of healthcare per month for each person. But no more than that.

That's right. There can never be a right to healthcare since a right places no obligation on anyone except to not interfere. There could never be such a thing as people with no means though because man's mind is the fundamental means of producing everything. And what if all the people who want to become doctors are not enough to provide healthcare to everyone equally. That would mean some people would have to be forced to become doctors against their will. That is called slavery.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I don't know. I just wish those in the US had healthcare that really was affordable. It seems to work in Canada and other countries.

I wish that too MMXX but it's just not possible in a free society and ultimately it's not possible in a non-free society because the mind does not function under coercion. But right now every country in the world is destroying itself trying to do it and not just when it comes to healthcare. Debt just keeps going up and up and it's unsustainable because there will always be desires that we can not fulfill. I know it's hard to take but it is reality. I wish that no one would ever get sick and need healthcare. As long as we are wishing we should not stop at healthcare. How about immortality?

If you want affordable healthcare you need to do one thing. Get the government out of it. Government, properly defined, is not a charity, an insurance company, or a parent. It has one purpose: the protection of individual rights. Protection from what? Protection from the start of the use of force. But the government now initiates force itself when it takes from one man to give to another in order to try and provide equal healthcare to everyone and in doing so it stifles the very thing that is the source of healthcare innovations that could bring down the price so everyone could afford it. That thing is the human mind.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I have to say I prefer a system where everyone with the means pays an amount proportional to their means into a common pot to maintain and provide a health service that is otherwise free to use for all. That way even the lowest-paid workers and those without incomes have access to good quality health care.

Real-world experience suggests that, overall, such systems tend to be considerably cheaper for the individual than pay-as-you-go or individual-insurance based systems that limit health care to those with the means to pay.

 

[SkyWriting]

I have to say I prefer a system where everyone with the means pays an amount proportional to their means into a common pot to maintain and provide a health service that is otherwise free to use for all. That way even the lowest-paid workers and those without incomes have access to good quality health care.

Real-world experience suggests that, overall, such systems tend to be considerably cheaper for the individual than pay-as-you-go or individual-insurance based systems that limit health care to those with the means to pay.

I do have a Universal free healthcare system plan though. The government could create "Community Hospitals" of say 20 employes, tops. These would be community based and the provider for all government workers and all government paid care. They would be population based locations. None would receive a higher budget than any other clinic. Anyone wanting benefits would have to volunteer time at the clinics in some capacity. But there would be no technology that was outside their budget. So nobody would be getting artificial hearts or expensive medication.

 

[SkyWriting]

That's right. There can never be a right to healthcare since a right places no obligation on anyone except to not interfere. There could never be such a thing as people with no means though because man's mind is the fundamental means of producing everything. And what if all the people who want to become doctors are not enough to provide healthcare to everyone equally. That would mean some people would have to be forced to become doctors against their will. That is called slavery.

Society does grant people healthcare rights now. A few months ago a crane was stationed on a closed off bridge a few blocks from my house while they hoisted up one or more people who lived along the train tracks. I don't know if they were alive or not. But there were three ambulances and 5 squad cars.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Society does grant people healthcare rights now. A few months ago a crane was stationed on a closed off bridge a few blocks from my house while they hoisted up one or more people who lived along the train tracks. I don't know if they were alive or not. But there were three ambulances and 5 squad cars.

The government takes the rightful property of some men by force and gives it to others in the form of healthcare. Society doesn't own anything, individuals within society do. There is no collective pie. There's my pie and your pie and some people don't produce any pie but instead rely on the government to take some of the others' pie and give it to them. Let's call it what it is.

 

[SkyWriting]

The government takes the rightful property of some men by force and gives it to others in the form of healthcare. Society doesn't own anything, individuals within society do. There is no collective pie. There's my pie and your pie and some people don't produce any pie but instead rely on the government to take some of the others' pie and give it to them. Let's call it what it is.

We don't call it pie. It rarely tastes like pie.
You can take fruit from your apple tree and make pie and you
can sell pies or feed your family pies. No government will bother you.
The US Government owns building and land. And provides services
to the general public. Most importantly, the government regulates
commerce and government so that we keep a lot of what we own.
The purpose being that we are rewarded for our efforts.
If you ever tried to build a road, you'd know that your savings
wouldn't build much road. If you wanted to have a park, your savings
would only get you a sliver of park.

 

[partinobodycular]

Theoretically the answer is pretty simple, if you want universal healthcare, then you get it, if you don't want universal healthcare, then you don't get it. Rule number 1 is, whatever rules you apply to others, have to apply to yourself as well. So everybody gets to decide for themselves, do you want universal healthcare or not?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

We don't call it pie. It rarely tastes like pie.
You can take fruit from your apple tree and make pie and you
can sell pies or feed your family pies. No government will bother you.
The US Government owns building and land. And provides services
to the general public. Most importantly, the government regulates
commerce and government so that we keep a lot of what we own.
The purpose being that we are rewarded for our efforts.
If you ever tried to build a road, you'd know that your savings
wouldn't build much road. If you wanted to have a park, your savings
would only get you a sliver of park.

You're right that I don't build roads and parks just like I don't make shoes or cars. I don't need to own a whole road, I don't even need to own a sliver of it. It's much more efficient and practical to have others build those things and pay for what I need to use at a fair market price, just as I don't need to own a shoe factory but just pay for the shoes I need.

 

[CatsRule2020]

If those in the U.S.A. making 250,000 and over, paid their share in taxes like the rest of us, we could easily have Universal Healthcare.