Did anyone notice that Italy, 2nd in overall quality according to WHO, also has by far the lowest patient satisfaction rate at a mere 20%? Are the Italians a bunch of ingrates or what? Seriously, this is weird… 
I would also like to note that Singapore, which spends much less on healthcare than the US and gets similar outcomes, also has a larger percentage of healthcare spending going into the private system. I think this issue is very complicated and it doesn’t boil down to ‘nationalised healthcare will solve all our problems’.
aporia:I would also like to note that Singapore, which spends much less on healthcare than the US and gets similar outcomes, also has a larger percentage of healthcare spending going into the private system. I think this issue is very complicated and it doesn’t boil down to ‘nationalised healthcare will solve all our problems’."
K: When a system, any system is about to collapse
(ask your doctor if he/she thinks if this is true by the way,)
a small tweak in the system will not save it. Only a large
scale overall will save a collapsing system. A capitalist
medical system is about to fail, so does tweaking capitalism
help save it? An overall comprehensive plan is needed and
one that does not totally favor business like the one bush will
purpose. It must include pharmaceutical as well as every aspect
of medicine including medicare, insurance, doctors and
such issues as Workman’s comp. The only idea that is large enough
to encompass all those issues is universal health care. You can’t try
to solve one isolated issue and hope it helps everybody, it must
include every aspect or it will fail.
Kropotkin
Hello F(r)iends,
Hi Xunzian. The point is that we have a poor track record of making massively large social systems function adequately. How many people complain about welfare, unemployment, and social security? If these programs are any indication, universalized health care will be a pathetic joke which may create further set backs. You may be correct that the net gain is greater than the net loss… I am not sure because the numbers I have seen thrown around typically involve a lot of speculation. Do you have any numbers we could examine?
The litigation process in Europe is a lot more forebidding than that of the U.S. of A. It has become cultural to sue your doctor, your neighbor, your employer, and even your government. The situation will not change because we introduce more people to the mix. It is more likely the situation could worsen. You alleged that most lawsuits occur as a response to the expense; I will counter with: most lawsuits occur as a response to an opportunity. I do not think you have any numbers to back your assertion (and I admit that I do not have any numbers to back mine). If you have information which I may be missing, I would love to examine it.
I do not advocate a \"return-to-nature philosophy\". But it would be an interesting issue to discuss. 
King Regards,
-Thirst
PK: Big problems may require big changes, but many big changes throughout history have made problems much worse. We would need to make sure that a nationalised system would work in this country before implementing it. And as I pointed out, Singapore has a dominantly private system (albeit a system very different than that of the US) so I don’t think the solution has to be a comprehensive national health care system (although the government may play a significant part as it does in Singapore).
Here is an article about Singapore’s system. What I especially like is how they say it emphasizes personal responsibility for medical expenditures, while still ensuring basic care for everyone. I like this principle because when personal responsibility is taken over by the government, people don’t understand the costs of things anymore and just demand more and more benefits. This is part of the reason our government spends so much money on health care and doesn’t get very good outcomes. The government doesn’t take responsibility and the people don’t take responsibility. At least in Europe the government takes responsibility.
Thirst,
I guess that this deals with deeper, more fundamental issues. I am a raging state-ist, which is where my standpoint comes from. (Always good to announce bias from the start, or?)
Yes, people complain about these programs, but does that make them right? That’s like saying “I am against affermative action because I know many people who haven’t gotten a job because of it, and no one who has”. People are eternally seeking scapegoats, and government programs are an easy target.
Are the statistics subjective? Well, yeah. It all depends on whose source you agree with. Do you fundamentally agree that Americans are less civillized that Europeans? If yes, then I understand that gun violence is independent of gun control and that Americans will abuse a system more than Europeans.
If one believes that Europeans are AS civilized as Americans, then neither of those arguments make any sense. Any numerical values I give will entail comparing America to Europe. Possibly Asia. Though, I must ask, why do Canadians have a better health care system, as represented by infant mortality rate, average lifespan (male and female) and quality of life as a percentage GNP than Americans?
The net gain/net loss argument is the same. I believe that (in America) a more progressive welfare and healthcare system will lead to a decrease in the distance between the rich and the poor, which is good for a country (Based on the Holland/Russia model with modern Europe as reinforcement). You say that a more progressive welfare and healthcare system will lead to people taking rampant advantage of it, based on your theory of human nature.
I think that also we disagree on a variety of societal assumptions. For starters I am much more Marxists, i.e. it’s all about the Benjamins, than you are. I believe that the culture of litigation in America stems from two things: 1) Increasing disparity between rich/poor and 2) American Dream (everyone deserves to be rich if they work hard). Where does culture stem from?
You say that America has a poor track record on making large governmental systems work. I say that America has the world’s best military (a governmental system) and that the CCC did a great deal of good work. Efficiency problems? Most definately. However, if I am brewing a beer at home, I consider an 80% efficiency quite good (75% is the gold standard). In Industry a 55% efficiency is good. Bigger leads to more problems, but Industry can brew a better beer than I can . . . does that mean efficiency is good or bad or neutral? It is all a matter of perspective.
And (after a light proof-reading) what about the serial comma? We disagree on every other fundamental issue, we may as well argye about that. Let’s declare our biases, so that each of us, in our search for truth, doesn’t rely on our ASSUMPTIONS, and presents information bases on hard numbers. It’s all about rectifying terms, so let’s do that before we proceed. Is that acceptable? I have no doubt that both of us can find numbers to support our cause, so let’s make some defintions and grounds to challenge each other’s numbers before we start seeking. It will lead to better results at the end.
One fact that I think Americans often forget is that most European countries are racially and ethnically much more homogeneous than our own. Because of this unity I suspect that powerful centralized socialist governments work better for them than they would work for the US. Here, I feel the best solution remains federalistic, decentralized, and characterized by local responsibility, with the central government doing just enough redistribution and central control so that the poor can have a decent life and the states can get along. I’m afraid my fantasy will never become reality here though, not after how big the government has become…
Aporia,
A homogenous Europe may have been the case 30 years ago, but Britain and the Continent have widely disparate populations now. Immigration from Eastern countries as well as Africa and India have created splinter groups just as here in the U.S. The French just had a problem with low income minorities trying to burn down their own ghettos, and it didn’t stop till they started into the rich and priviledged areas and the government sent in the army. I think we need to look elsewhere for examples of why one system works better than another
JT
I think we should look wherever there is a significant chance of finding truth or insight.
I realize Europe has become more diverse than it was, but its diversity still pales in comparison to the US. Perhaps more importantly, the political and cultural climate of the United States is inhospitable for a socialized systems. While entitlements have grown dramatically over the past 50 years, self-reliance and personal responsibility remain strong themes in US culture. State-owned industries like a state health care system are unlikely to be welcomed, barring the great cataclysm to which PK alludes…
[quote=“aporia”]
I think we should look wherever there is a significant chance of finding truth or insight.
I realize Europe has become more diverse than it was, but its diversity still pales in comparison to the US. Perhaps more importantly, the political and cultural climate of the United States is inhospitable for a socialized systems. While entitlements have grown dramatically over the past 50 years, self-reliance and personal responsibility remain strong themes in US culture. State-owned industries like a state health care system are unlikely to be welcomed, barring the great cataclysm to which PK alludes…
K: I didn’t allude to it. An organization of doctors called
the American college of physicians said it. On their web site
their headline said and I quote “The impending collapse of primary
care medicine and its implications for the state of the nations health
care” Impending. Impending means like coming soon to a
neighborhood near you. These people make a living
understanding events and their consequences.
I would trust them on this one.
Kropotkin
I didn’t mean to say I don’t trust them. It would have been better if I had said “the great cataclysm to which PK refers”. Careless choice of words. People have been discussing this for years and the consensus keeps building that big problems are ahead. What I dispute is the idea that a nationalised system is the only way, or even an effective way, to make things better in this country. How does a nationalised system even address the problem these physicians have predicted anyway?
The link you posted doesn’t seem to work anymore. Try this one.
PK, if you trust these physicians to give you insight into the state of US healthcare, why didn’t you tell us about their proposed solution:
“The group has proposed a solution, calling on federal policymakers to approve new ways of paying doctors that would put primary care doctors in charge of organizing a patient’s care and giving patients more responsibility for monitoring their own health and scheduling regular visits.”
That seems a far cry from nationalised healthcare.
Hi Peter.
Far from being conservative, you’ll find my defense of the rights of individuals to live freely, according to their own values, unfettered by the whims of the majority, to be downright radical and uncompromising.
I don’t care at all about money. I care about my ability to do what I wish to do with the ends of my creative means.
But it is a choice. This is not “bull shit.†It’s a choice people make everyday. Most of the times it involves people who are between jobs, between employer-financed health insurance, rolling the dice that nothing catastrophic happens before they find work again. Others self-insure. Others simply choose to not pay insurance premiums, spending their money on other things. (Some people appreciate choice. I would never dare presume to call such people, or the choices they make, “stupid”).
Well this certainly seems like a problem. Maybe you could explain how our “health care system†will “collapse†and show me how, precisely, it will cost “billions upon billions†to fix.
And here, JT, in a nutshell is the fundamental difference.
I’m not clear as to why it is felt that civilization needs “supported.”
Let’s try leaving civilization alone. My guess is that it’ll do just fine.
Peter Kropotkin: “Now you may wish to continue to hide your head in the sand and deny anything is wrong. It is standard operating procedure for conservatives.”
J: Far from being conservative, you’ll find my defense of the rights of individuals to live freely, according to their own values, unfettered by the whims of the majority, to be downright radical and uncompromising.
K: I am old enough to spot a conservative without trying to hard.
It is rugged individualism all over again. Another in the big Lie
of the conservatives.
K:Now a bogus argument has been presented that health care is a choice and people willingly choose not to take health care. Bull shit. No one is that stupid"
J: But it is a choice. This is not “bull shit.†It’s a choice people make everyday. Most of the times it involves people who are between jobs, between employer-financed health insurance, rolling the dice that nothing catastrophic happens before they find work again. Others self-insure. Others simply choose to not pay insurance premiums, spending their money on other things. (Some people appreciate choice. I would never dare presume to call such people, or the choices they make, “stupid”).
K: Do you have insurance? Do you have to make the choice
(again this is not a choice) between food and health care?
I am right now in the middle of some medical issues, without being
covered with medical insurance we would be driven into bankruptcy.
Have you ever had medical issues? It is brave of someone to
claim to follow the rights of individual person when you don’t have
to make those hard choices that people make every single day.
K:If the health care system collapses, it will cost billions upon
billions to fix and risk the health of every single American citizen"
J: “Well this certainly seems like a problem. Maybe you could explain how our “health care system†will “collapse†and show me how, precisely, it will cost “billions upon billions†to fix.”
J: The collage of physicians points out one area, which is primary care
physicians are no longer there or soon will be retiring.
Simply math shows us one of the problems. I think a third of all
primary care physicians are over 55 and they won’t go on
too much longer. Those boomers doctors are a large block
of physicians actually practicing as boomers are a huge
chunk of the population right now. The next generation after us
do not have the numbers of the boomers. There will simply
not be as many doctors coming up as the boomers who will
leave the medical field. As the boomers age, we will have greater
and greater medical needs, which must be met. Those fewer
primary care doctors will be unable to handle the large number
of retired boomers. Now that is one part of the equation, the second
part is doctors, who are in part bailing out of medicine, due
to the squeeze of medicare and private insurers who jerk them
around and their reimbursement policy for doctors is a joke.
It is getting harder and harder for doctors to get insurers
to pay up for legitimate medical needs. My own case is I have
a Workman’s comp case. I haven’t worked since Oct. I have surgery
in 2 weeks. Very few doctors do Workman’s comp cases
anymore because they get jerk around and forced to deal with
such massive red tape, they just won’t do it any more. It took
weeks for my doctor to even get my insurer to approve seeing
a neurosurgeon. It took my neurosurgeon and my workmen
comp doctor a week of calling every day and bothering
the insurers to get the surgery approved. Now take this experience
and multiply it by the millions, and in a short time, you get
a system that will fail to function. it will get overwhelmed by
the sheer number of baby boomers who have physical issues,
mind you I am only 46, at the tail end of the boomers.
We must create a infrastructure that can support millions
of boomers and that will cost billions of dollars. If we wait
for the failing of the medical system, that will cost billions more
for the simple reason, it must be done quickly and anything that
must be done quickly always cost more.
The reason it needs to be universal health care is first of all, it
spreads the cost of medicine over a larger population which
means each persons share will be cheaper. Secondly, those
45 million people who are uninsured still cost you and me money,
they are the ones whose only medical care comes
from emergency rooms and that cost more when they do that.
By universal health care we can reduce the overall cost.
It is a fact that preventive medicine, is cheaper then waiting to
fix a problem, I.E, the car analogy. To fix a car with a spark plug
is cheaper then having it break down and then getting a mechanic
and/or rebuilding a distributor cap for example. Yes, I am not a
mechanic. Anyway Universal health care will at least deal with
part of the problem. As far as the number of doctors goes,
Universal health care will reduce the number of cases a doctor
see’s because preventive medicine helps improve a patients
health and they need to see a doctor less. Thus helping on
that front. It save you money and it improves your health.
Keeps the health system from getting too overcloged.
It is a win/win in my book.
Kropotkin
And I’m almost as old (45). There’s nothing rugged or non-rugged about the concept of individual rights nor anything particularly conservative or liberal. One either believes individuals should not be enslaved to the state, or one believes they should be.
Everything is cyclical. This is a normal part of a free economy. Fortunately, there exists no better mechanism to correct the normal fluctuations of a free market than the laws of supply and demand, freely operating without the constraints of a heavy-handed government.
Health care is expensive. Like any valuable resource it is necessarily characterized by a certain level of scarcity. Like any valuable resource, it simply cannot be made available to everybody at the same price at the same level of quality. This is basic economics. Very basic.
Leaving that aside for the moment, and even assuming a scarce resource can be made universally available and still be of high-quality, there is another factor to consider that unfortunately never gets considered in these discussions and this is the factor I have tried to argue here. It is beyond me that conversations of this sort take place entirely based on the “practical†or “functional†concerns of an issue without addressing the moral concerns. As though morality is neither practical nor functional.
Yes this is Social Sciences, but this is a philosophy site. I am still looking for an argument that taking one person’s earnings and giving it to another is moral. Is high-quality health care something everybody should have? Well, it would certainly be nice, wouldn’t it? Is that an objective, absolute value? Or is that a subjective value? I need an argument for the former, or I need an argument that justifies confiscation of one person’s property based on somebody else’s subjective values.
K: I am old enough to spot a conservative without trying to hard. It is rugged individualism all over again. Another in the big Lie of the conservatives.
J: And I’m almost as old (45). There’s nothing rugged or non-rugged about the concept of individual rights nor anything particularly conservative or liberal. One either believes individuals should not be enslaved to the state, or one believes they should be.
K: as an former anarchist, I once believe as you did.
I was wrong. It is not being enslaved to the state.
Biased words again. It is about something you someday
will learn. We cannot go it alone. We must have help at
every step of the way, from childhood to death.
Personally, I am a big fan of individual rights, but
I don’t see how the concern for individual rights conflict
with the the basic rights we all take for granted. The right
to survive, the right for food and the right to have good health,
as well as schooling, housing, and a dam fine 56 inch big screen
TV. Ok, that my right, but hay, one can dream.
K:The next generation after us do not have the numbers of the boomers. There will simply not be as many doctors coming up as the boomers who will leave the medical field. As the boomers age, we will have greater and greater medical needs, which must be met. Those fewer primary care doctors will be unable to handle the large number of retired boomers."
J: Everything is cyclical. This is a normal part of a free economy. Fortunately, there exists no better mechanism to correct the normal fluctuations of a free market than the laws of supply and demand, freely operating without the constraints of a heavy-handed government.
K: Ah, extreme capitalism. A system which has never succeeded nor
even last for very long. We don’t have a complete free enterprise
system and a dam good thing too. Under your free enterprise
system, medical cost will skyrocket. only the very, very rich will
have decent medical care or any kind of care. We will have a nation
of sick people who can’t get medical care. It will be a very sad place,
but that is the capitalist way. Create misery for people but
you will succeed in putting money first.
J: Health care is expensive. Like any valuable resource it is necessarily characterized by a certain level of scarcity. Like any valuable resource, it simply cannot be made available to everybody at the same price
at the same level of quality. This is basic economics. Very basic.
K: You have just created the argument for universal health care.
It doesn’t become a valuable commodity, when everyone has it.
It becomes less expensive when the cost is spread to everyone.
And that is what we are talking about, spreading the cost of
health care, so everyone can afford it including those 45 million
people who we are paying for whether you want to or not.
We add that money into the pool and it helps bring about
cheaper cost.
J: Leaving that aside for the moment, and even assuming a scarce resource can be made universally available and still be of high-quality, there is another factor to consider that unfortunately never gets considered in these discussions and this is the factor I have tried to argue here. It is beyond me that conversations of this sort take place entirely based on the “practical†or “functional†concerns of an issue without addressing the moral concerns. As though morality is neither practical nor functional.
K: And ignoring the moral concern of millions dying from no or
inadequate medical care. Where is your vaunted morality then?
You argue from a moral standpoint and yet miss the greater morals,
of people lives. It is a practical/functional matter. The whole can
only exist if the part of the whole is well. You want a greater/better
society, then you must take care of the parts. The individuals who
make up a society. Morality does not exist in some vacuum.
It is about people.
J:Yes this is Social Sciences, but this is a philosophy site. I am still looking for an argument that taking one person’s earnings and giving it to another is moral. Is high-quality health care something everybody should have? Well, it would certainly be nice, wouldn’t it? Is that an objective, absolute value? Or is that a subjective value? I need an argument for the former, or I need an argument that justifies confiscation of one person’s property based on somebody Else’s subjective values."
K: It is a philosophy site, but philosophy at its heart is about
people. And any discussion about people is subjective.
There is not a single objective philosophical argument in
the universe. you still talk about the morality of money and
ignore people living. Where is the morality about that?
Kropotkin
Yes, there is a problem with health care in this country. In the last few years more than 60 hospitals closed there doors. Why? Because they are legally forced to care for illegal immigrants, and most of their patients were illegal. Also, the AMA has published articles detailing the problems of disease that illegals bring into our land causing US citizens to become ill and sometimes die from TB, Hepatitis A and C; leprosy in now on the rise, at least 7,000 cases back east. Currently, there are about 11 million illegals bankrupting our health system, and much more.
Hillary Clinton tried the Universal Health Care route and miserably failed. Why? To create this, each person would have to pay at least $500.00 a month for health care. For a family of four, this would be $2,000.00 a month and few, who need Universal Health Care, can afford this. My other half’s health insurance went up to $650.00 a month as he turned 55. The company does contribute, but it is a small company and only chips in $150.00 a month.
Solutions??? Lower prescription drug costs, lower physicians fees, lower hospital fees. Do you really believe this will work?
But I am not an anarchist. I grant there is a need for a limited government, limited in its duty to protect the rights of individuals from other individuals, other states, and from the government itself.
I agree Peter. But can you see the difference between helping one’s fellow man voluntarily, and being forced against one’s will to help one’s fellow man? This is the difference. And this is my point.
This is instructive to me as I am beginning to see what I’m really up against here. Peter, from where do these “rights†come? What is the argument that “good health†is a right? What kind of a right? An inherent, God-given, natural right? Everybody has a natural right to housing? Ask yourself if each of these comes at somebody else’s expense, and then you’ll see that the only “right†that can possibly exist is a government-imposed “right†that can only come by force and coercion.
This I concede. And it hasn’t lasted very long for one reason, best voiced by the street mobs in post-World War II Italy. “Say what you will about Mussolini, but at least the trains ran on time.†Yes, better for the trains to run on time then individual liberty, eh? Believe me, I am well aware I am in a tiny, tiny minority. Your side is winning.
Capitalism is no more, or less, than an economic system based on the concept of allowing individuals to live as they themselves see fit.
It’s valuable in that it is expensive. Everybody having it won’t make it less expensive, won’t make it less valuable. It’ll still be expensive. It’s just that you’ll be able to afford it because you’re going to hold up somebody else for it.
I can think of one possible objective philosophical argument and that is that the way people ought to live their own lives is a highly subjective matter. I am asking that people be allowed to do so, be allowed to live their own lives, according to their own individual values. For the record, my values are such that I would love to help people out with their health care needs. But I cannot find an argument that justifies my forcing of others, against their will, to live according to my subjective values. Where, I wonder, would one get that kind of arrogance?
aspacia:
Yes, there is a problem with health care in this country. In the last few years more than 60 hospitals closed there doors. Why? Because they are legally forced to care for illegal immigrants, and most of their patients were illegal. Also, the AMA has published articles detailing the problems of disease that illegals bring into our land causing US citizens to become ill and sometimes die from TB, Hepatitis A and C; leprosy in now on the rise, at least 7,000 cases back east. Currently, there are about 11 million illegals bankrupting our health system, and much more.
K: Illegals play a role, but not a major one. I would say it is fairly low
on the scale of problems with the health care system.
A: Hillary Clinton tried the Universal Health Care route and miserably failed. Why? To create this, each person would have to pay at least $500.00 a month for health care. For a family of four, this would be $2,000.00 a month and few, who need Universal Health Care, can afford this. My other half’s health insurance went up to $650.00 a month as he turned 55. The company does contribute, but it is a small company and only chips in $150.00 a month.
K: The program failed because it cut into profits of the Hmo
and paramedicals industry. I work for the county and let
me tell you I wish my rate was as low as $500 for a family
and the county picks up a large percentage of the total cost
of health insurance. We have a range of plans and none of them
is as cheap as 500 month.
A: Solutions??? Lower prescription drug costs, lower physicians fees, lower hospital fees. Do you really believe this will work?
K: I believe a overall comprehensive plan will work, but it can’t favor
big business as the GOP will suggest. For the reasons I have suggested,
It should include universal health care.
Kropotkin
Peter Kropotkin:as an former anarchist, I once believe as you did.
J: But I am not an anarchist. I grant there is a need for a limited government, limited in its duty to protect the rights of individuals from other individuals, other states, and from the government itself.
K: And that is wonderful. The 19th century is that way.
Enjoy your stay.
K: “We cannot go it alone. We must have help at every step of the way, from childhood to death.”
J: I agree Peter.
K: now all we are discussing is in the details.
J: But can you see the difference between helping one’s fellow man voluntarily, and being forced against one’s will to help one’s fellow man? This is the difference. And this is my point.
K: You are also free to make a choice of moving into the alaskan
forest and never having another thing to do with society ever again.
If you exist in society, you must work with the rules.
We are forced to do many things against our wills.
I pay taxes, I almost got drafted and friends of mine did
wind up in the draft. At every point in our lives, we are
forced to do things. Try keeping a job, where you refused to
do the things they ask you to. You are fighting a childish losing
battle. Adults understand you spend your life doing things you don’t
want to do. Like it or not, you must. I suggest you learn to live with
it.
K: the right for food and the right to have good health, as well as schooling, housing…"
J: This is instructive to me as I am beginning to see what I’m really up against here. Peter, from where do these “rights†come? What is the argument that “good health†is a right? What kind of a right? An inherent, God-given, natural right? Everybody has a natural right to housing? Ask yourself if each of these comes at somebody Else’s expense, and then you’ll see that the only “right†that can possibly exist is a government-imposed “right†that can only come by force and coercion.
K: These rights come from people over the years.
I think you could and probably should write history in terms
of people expanding the reach of rights. In the days of old,
kings were the only ones with rights, then nobles got some rights,
and in the age of democracies, those rights enjoyed by kings and
nobles have gone to the people. They have expanded rights from
kings to the people. Now I don’t believe in “God” so I won’t give
to one that doesn’t exist. Yes, by existing people have certain rights,
The right to survive is key, but other rights exist because people
exist. Now these rights don’t come at the expense of someone else,
because they also have the right to exist and so on. But there is not
a free lunch. You must contribute if you can and by increasing the
base of people contributing, you decrease the overall cost to each
person. If you have 5 people contributing to get to 100 bucks, it will
cost $20 a person, if you have 10 people, it will cost 10 bucks, and
if you get 100 people it will only cost $1. That is in everyone best
interest.
K:Ah, extreme capitalism. A system which has never succeeded nor even last for very long.:
J: This I concede. And it hasn’t lasted very long for one reason, best voiced by the street mobs in post-World War II Italy. “Say what you will about Mussolini, but at least the trains ran on time.†Yes, better for the trains to run on time then individual liberty, eh? Believe me, I am well aware I am in a tiny, tiny minority. Your side is winning.
K: Trains running on time don’t impress me much.
A pure capitalism system will not and cannot work.
K: "that is the capitalist way. Create misery for people but you will succeed in putting money first. "
J: Capitalism is no more, or less, than an economic system based on the concept of allowing individuals to live as they themselves see fit.
K: UMMM, hate to break it to you, but no. Capitalism is just
as coercive as any other system. The coercive part is just
shifted. Capitalism allow monopolies and in a monopoly, one does
not have choice. Also the coercive nature of capitalism exist for the worker, who does not have a choice. Recall your days in America
from 1870 to 1920, where workers worked for pennies and worked
60 hours a week 6 days a week, often children and often they
were maimed on the job with no medical to try to get better.
You were left to starve to death. That is the ugliest type of
coercion.
K: spread the cost of health care and you reduce the cost.
J: It’s valuable in that it is expensive. Everybody having it won’t make it less expensive, won’t make it less valuable. It’ll still be expensive. It’s just that you’ll be able to afford it because you’re going to hold up somebody else for it.
K: again with the biased words. If everybody has it, it becomes
less expensive. If the cost is shared {SHARED} then it becomes
less expensive. If you want the benefits of society, you must
pay. that is how this works.
K:It is a philosophy site, but philosophy at its heart is about people. And any discussion about people is subjective. There is not a single objective philosophical argument in the universe. you still talk about the morality of money and ignore people living. Where is the morality about that?"
J: I can think of one possible objective philosophical argument and that is that the way people ought to live their own lives is a highly subjective matter. I am asking that people be allowed to do so, be allowed to live their own lives, according to their own individual values. For the record, my values are such that I would love to help people out with their health care needs. But I cannot find an argument that justifies my forcing of others, against their will, to live according to my subjective values. Where, I wonder, would one get that kind of arrogance?
K: and again the biased words. You theory is great… in theory.
But in the real world, you kinda take the good with the bad.
You cannot live your own life with your own values totally.
You must compromise to get some of what you want.
For example, If I was gay, I am unable to marry. that is wrong.
but for now, that is the way it is. I don’t like it and I fight it every day,
but I must deal with it. My wife is almost to the point of where I am
about gay marriage. Ok, under your theory, any attempt to allow
gay marriage or even marriage between blacks and white would
not be allowed because it is forcing my will on people who
are against my subjective values. Under your theory,
nothing is really possible because every single action is
forcing somebody to do something they don’t want.
Everything is subjective. You have to draw the line somewhere.
I draw the line where I do, because it allows the greatest
amount of freedom for the greatest number of people.
You may draw the line elsewhere, but that would be just
as subjective.
Kropotkin