Universal Healthcare for all

[The happy Objectivist]

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.

How much is their fair share?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

Usually, it's called the 'social contract'; as a member of a particular society you get certain benefits in return for having certain responsibilities. Typically, the minimum responsibility is to follow the laws and pay taxes to maintain the smooth functioning of society's infrastructure and services from which you benefit - trash collection, policing, security, roads, schools, etc. Some societies include extras like health services, some don't.

One could argue that the lowest-paid jobs are often essential to a society, so a healthy workforce, even those who can't afford to pay for health services, is a benefit to society, and so-on, but that's a matter for social and political debate.

It's worth comparing the metrics for mean or mode health, wealth, well-being, and crime, violence, incarceration, etc., for societies with extended services-for-all and those without. From what I see, those with extended services do better on most of those measures than those with minimum provision. YMMV.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I've never seen this contract. I've been told about it but its terms seem to be vague and they seem to change all the time. A contract implies a choice, but as far as I can tell there isn't a choice, you are just told that you have agreed to it I guess by just being born. I don't think that anyone in their right mind should sign a contract in which the terms can be changed unilaterally. This notion of a social contract is a fiction. If I can't opt-out of it then it is not a contract. Calling it a contract is just a rationalization of theft.

One does not get things from society but from specific individuals and there is a rational mechanism to determine exactly what those things cost. It's called mutual trade to mutual benefit. I do not think life is about grabbing whatever you can get and then being an indentured servant for the rest of it. Life quite literally means productive achievement. One has an absolute right to what one produces and the right to dispose of it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I've never seen this contract. I've been told about it but its terms seem to be vague and they seem to change all the time. A contract implies a choice, but as far as I can tell there isn't a choice, you are just told that you have agreed to it I guess by just being born. I don't think that anyone in their right mind should sign a contract in which the terms can be changed unilaterally. This notion of a social contract is a fiction. If I can't opt-out of it then it is not a contract. Calling it a contract is just a rationalization of theft.

One does not get things from society but from specific individuals and there is a rational mechanism to determine exactly what those things cost. It's called mutual trade to mutual benefit. I do not think life is about grabbing whatever you can get and then being an indentured servant for the rest of it. Life quite literally means productive achievement. One has an absolute right to what one produces and the right to dispose of it.

As you probably know, it's not a contract that you sign - it's implicit; like the legal system, by living there you're assumed to accept it. But I guess if you don't like the rules of the society you're in, you can go elsewhere - if you can find somewhere to your taste and they'll let you in. That's the story of many refugees and asylum seekers.

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

I have experience with toll roads and am not a fan.
I have experience with (Paid) parks and I'm a fan, but $15 per person is a rare event. Plus no dogs.
I have experience with free parks and have run my dog with my bicycle 300 or so days in a year.
Free parks and free roads add a lot of freedom to life. Well worth the cost to society.

This is near my house.

My house is on the curved drive on the lower left.

 

[RDKirk]

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.

Heck, down here in Texas my daughter went to an ER for a severe eye ache that she thought might be an infection. They gave her an ointment and sent her home with an $11,000 bill.

But that's the way it is in Texas.

 

[RDKirk]

If it’s universal healthcare, that’s up to the people to decide (through out elected reps.). Presently, we have no say. If you take profit out of medicine and also subtract all of the administrative costs of insurance companies, eligibility, etc. that’s a TON of money that can go to those expensive meds. And a lot of those meds would drop in price, freeing up money for those that are genuinely expensive.

I've learned that there are additional billions being spent in just the billing processes alone--outside the insurance companies. Billing agencies, unseen and unrecorded, shuffle bills side-to-side among each other numerous times in the layer between the caregiver and the insurance payer...each taking their cut with each movement.

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

US Government ensures that US located companies don't employ children, pay wages, don't unfairly discriminate based on non-work related reasons, don't own the homes workers live in, and work in healthy and safe environments. All Social laws added to get you your shoes fairly.

Why wouldn't you want to own stock in your shoe company? It's the socialist thing to do.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

As you probably know, it's not a contract that you sign - it's implicit; like the legal system, by living there you're assumed to accept it. But I guess if you don't like the rules of the society you're in, you can go elsewhere - if you can find somewhere to your taste and they'll let you in. That's the story of many refugees and asylum seekers.

It's not implicit. It's completely incompatible with human nature. Rather than leave, I'd want to fix what is wrong and improve. I'd want to correct the errors of the founders. I am not willing to let America go. I think it can still be saved and it can be a shining beacon to the rest of the world. That will take nothing less than a complete moral and political revolution. There is nowhere else to go. If I could I'd leave Earth and start a new civilization founded on and dedicated to individual rights but this time with a moral code to match the brilliant political philosophy of the founders.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

US Government ensures that US located companies don't employ children, pay wages, don't unfairly discriminate based on non-work related reasons, don't own the homes workers live in, and work in healthy and safe environments. All Social laws added to get you your shoes fairly.

Why wouldn't you want to own stock in your shoe company? It's the socialist thing to do.

None of this addresses what I had written. It's not the government's job to do the things that you list, it's mine.

 

[RDKirk]

It's not implicit. It's completely incompatible with human nature. Rather than leave, I'd want to fix what is wrong and improve. I'd want to correct the errors of the founders. I am not willing to let America go. I think it can still be saved and it can be a shining beacon to the rest of the world. That will take nothing less than a complete moral and political revolution. There is nowhere else to go. If I could I'd leave Earth and start a new civilization founded on and dedicated to individual rights but this time with a moral code to match the brilliant political philosophy of the founders.

Daniel "Chappie" James, the first African-American four-star general in the history of the USAF, had this quote:

This is my country and I believe in her, and I believe in her flag, and I’ll defend her, and I’ll fight for her and serve her. If she has any ills, I’ll stand by her and hold her hand until in God’s given time, through her wisdom and her consideration for the welfare of the entire nation, things are made right again.

 

[SkyWriting]

None of this addresses what I had written. It's not the government's job to do the things that you list, it's mine.

Children are used and traded as sex slaves.
I'm afraid I must fire you as negligent in this matter.
Children are also raped by family members and friends.
Again, you have failed.

Lately people are driving into and though intersections on a red light
at high speeds. Because I have to deal with this daily, I'd have to curse your incompetence.
These are not problems in North Korea. I am firing you on all counts.
Your management of societies problems is failing.

US located companies don't employ children, pay wages, don't unfairly discriminate based on non-work related reasons, don't own the homes workers live in, and work in healthy and safe environments.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's not implicit.

I think it is - the key rules and norms may be codified in explicit laws, constitutions, & declarations, but it is generally understood that in a given society, you are expected to follow both the rules and the social norms & mores; "When in Rome..."

It's completely incompatible with human nature.

It's a product of human nature; when humans form groups they establish behavioural rules and norms; when a group holds territory, the rules and norms are applied to all within the territory.

Rather than leave, I'd want to fix what is wrong and improve. I'd want to correct the errors of the founders.

Sure, that's an option - if the political or authoritarian structure and organisation realistically allow that; alternatively, insurrection or civil war...

 

[Strathos]

Not going to happen as long as the US remains a plutocracy controlled by corporations, and as long as those corporations and the politicians they pay off can keep convincing people to vote against their own interests.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I think it is - the key rules and norms may be codified in explicit laws, constitutions, & declarations, but it is generally understood that in a given society, you are expected to follow both the rules and the social norms & mores; "When in Rome..."

It's a product of human nature; when humans form groups they establish behavioural rules and norms; when a group holds territory, the rules and norms are applied to all within the territory.

Sure, that's an option - if the political or authoritarian structure and organisation realistically allow that; alternatively, insurrection or civil war...

I do not have a problem with rules and regulations. If this social contract sanctions the initiation of force, then it is not moral and is not valid and does not have to be complied with. The answer is not to throw up one's hands and say well you can't fight city hall. The answer is to fight the immorality. Do you, Frumious, sanction the initiation of force?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Children are used and traded as sex slaves.
I'm afraid I must fire you as negligent in this matter.
Children are also raped by family members and friends.
Again, you have failed.

Lately people are driving into and though intersections on a red light
at high speeds. Because I have to deal with this daily, I'd have to curse your incompetence.
These are not problems in North Korea. I am firing you on all counts.
Your management of societies problems is failing.

I meant that it is not the governments job to provide me with roads and parks and you pulled a switcheroo on me and changed to child trafficking. That's what I meant when I said that it is not the government's job to do those things for me, it's mine. Of course, it's the government's job to protect children from sex trafficking. That is one of the legitimate functions of a government. Child trafficking involves the initiation of force, does it not?

Government is force. Government is the institution that holds a monopoly on force. The only moral use of force is in retaliation for its initiation. The founding fathers stated this explicitly in the Declaration of Independence. They said that "governments are instituted to protect these rights" speaking of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The only thing that can violate these rights is force. The purpose of government is to remove the initiation of force from society. When someone does initiate force then it is the purpose of the government to step in and stop it. It is not moral to use force against innocent men and women in order to steal from them to provide parks, roads, cell phones, health care, food, shelter, education, etc. if that means initiating force. Once you grant that to the government it's over, the rest is just a matter of time.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I have experience with toll roads and am not a fan.
I have experience with (Paid) parks and I'm a fan, but $15 per person is a rare event. Plus no dogs.
I have experience with free parks and have run my dog with my bicycle 300 or so days in a year.
Free parks and free roads add a lot of freedom to life. Well worth the cost to society.

This is near my house.

My house is on the curved drive on the lower left.

So you trade this park that you like for the principle that the initiation of force is OK. It's just such concrete bound, range of the moment thinking of the anti-conceptual mentality that has destroyed countries throughout history and is in the process of destroying my country now. When They come for religion to ban it because the majority think it's wrong and harmful, what will you say. You've abandoned the principle of individual rights. I know that you probably don't see the connection between the two and that's a trajedy. I do. The Germans didn't start out killing millons of people in concentration camps. They started with confiscating business and censoring speech which is happening right now all over the world under the guys of this virus.

 

[SkyWriting]

I meant that it is not the governments job to provide me with roads and parks and you pulled a switcheroo on me and changed to child trafficking.

OK then. What roads and what parks have you provided for anyone?
Lucky for you the technology is available to monitor your cell phone or car
and charge you for all the miles you drive. Good luck finding a couple of
people to agree with you so you can start protesting on the freeways.

We could use the Uber app and you could pay for all your drives from now on.
Every road trip could be an Uber trip and the money goes to the government.
Interesting idea.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Do you, Frumious, sanction the initiation of force?

It depends on the situation. Personally, I think force or violence should be avoided wherever possible. Sadly, not everyone agrees, and outside of explicit rules & laws, judgement on when force should or should not be used is subjective.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

I've never seen this contract. I've been told about it but its terms seem to be vague and they seem to change all the time.

Read Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "The Social Contract" which was written in 1762. In summary,

With the famous phrase, "man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains," Rousseau asserts that modern states repress the physical freedom that is our birthright, and do nothing to secure the civil freedom for the sake of which we enter into civil society. Legitimate political authority, he suggests, comes only from a social contract agreed upon by all citizens for their mutual preservation.

Rousseau calls the collective grouping of all citizens the "sovereign," and claims that it should be considered in many ways to be like an individual person. While each individual has a particular will that aims for his own best interest, the sovereign expresses the general will that aims for the common good.
​

Rousseau, along with Locke and Montesquieu, was influential in Thomas Jefferson's political writings including the Declaration of Independence.

​