Notice the argot being used socialized medicine…
I think you completely overstate the issue and are attempting to use diversion in your argument. You equate the value of life and the theft of material goods in your statement but that over simplifies things.
Disingenious! You have to remember that the quixotic “free-market” only works if there are consumers. However, the costs for certain medical procedures are rather expensive such as angioplasty. Most people cannot afford that even in a first-world nation. I think it is unethical to allow “market forces” to dictate who could afford those procedures. Remember insurance companies have quotas for denying coverage.
Want to join me?Again, your arguments steer away from the real topic and are more sensationalism that factual. No, insurance does not provide for the infirm, but you are making the false implication that the government does not. The government does provide for neediest members of society, but you imply that the system must apply to ALL members when there is no reason for that to be so.
Please do not be so limiting to your understanding of socialized medicine. It is also a system that forces you to pay for procedures that the government rations for the sake of efficiency which, by default, lowers the level of care. If the goal is to make medicine more affordable then duplicating technology such as having CT scan equipment at multiple hospitals in the same region will be eliminated (as has been done in nations where single payer systems are in place). This causes longer wait times, slower treatment response, and yes, somewhat lower costs.
And I think it is unethical to destroy personal property rights. Taking from those that are able and willing to overachieve and giving to those who cannot or will not has not ever in history created a society with a higher standard of living or better medical care. Why do you think today is any different?
That is essentially correct.
Charity is great, but if it is possible that government redistribution can eliminate suffering more efficiently it should be preferred over the virtue of charity. As a utilitarian, I care more about consequences than conduct and virtues. I will ask: what good is charity if it does not effectively eliminate suffering? But charity that eliminates suffering is valuable, although charity itself is not inherently valuable. This post isn’t an argument against charity as organizations such as OXFAM effectively spend their money and thus reduces waste in their budget.
How can a government work more efficiently than a charity? That does not even seem possible. But to suggest that it should be preferred is simply a subjective statement and has no basis in actual fact. I also question why anyone would believe it should be preferred? If you take the morality of charity out of the concept then you end up with situations like they had in the USSR and we see in China today were conformity and compliance comes at the end of the gun. I had the pleasure of traveling in the former Soviet Bloc nations during the 1970’s and saw first hand the fear of the people under the rule of socialism. I saw the lowering of the standards, the lack of quality, motivation and work ethic that comes with socialism. It is far from ideal, in fact it is a nightmare.
Never argued for Soviet or red style communism. I think a more European approach (emulating Scandinavia) would be idea. They have a free-market economy too.
Regardless of what you believe, there is no question that nations like Norway and Sweden are slowly creeping TOWARD true Marxist socialism.
What you value is your opinion. However much of what you write, you phase as if we should take it as fact. In fact most of what you write is not fact. If I pick it apart from time to time it is only because your statements are so bold as to warrant being questioned, rather than being agreed with blindly.
I only mentioned “eliminating suffering” as I believe that should be the ultimate goal of humanity. I do not think it is possible to eliminate suffering, yet, because technology is many orders of magnitude to short for such a goal.
It is an empirical question whether governments or charity is more efficacious in reducing suffering. However, I will agree that I made no attempt to support the notion that governments are more effective than charity. I qualified my statements with “if” as a subordinating clause… I never declared that government programs are efficacious in that fashion in that post.
So socialized medicine in the US will not do what it has done in other countries?
Yes, that is correct. You understand what I am saying.So socialized medicine in the US will not do what it has done in other countries?
There won’t be long waiting lists to get treatment – so long that a significant number of patients die untreated?
There won’t be doctors fleeing the United States as they flee Canada and other bright, shining lights of socialized medicine?
Advances in medicine won’t be held back because they’re “too expensive?”
We’re going to be different from all the other countries with socialized medicine?
That’s rather interesting, living in Detroit, we see entire clincs that cater to Canadians who cannot get the proper care they need in time in Canada.
Why do you think that government will make hospitals better at customer service and care? They have done a splendid job with driver licences, charity and compassion at the welfare office, and our schools are splendid examples of educational excellence in our most desparate locales. The more distressed the population (and in the greatest need of human compassion), the worst the delivery of service.
Why is it the government’s obligation to be the only health care payer option?
If the government is capable of running the largest single component of our economy, why wouldn’t we trust them to run it all?
You think that our hospitals are cold and unloving, wait until they have been run by the government for 15 years. We will want to go to the vet for surgeries.
But you think that you have the wisdom to see what nobody else does except people who are expressing heartfelt values. I think that 10+% of our economy needs to be governed by more than our wishful thinking.
All of us need to be concerned about the needs of the poor. However, it is up to the prudential judgment of the flock to determine if it is with nationalized health care, the current system, or something else.
I agree we have it wrong. However, the solution begins with less government involvement, less percentage of the population looking to government provision of medical coverage, and less government regulation.
I disagree. I think it will be ultimately a bigger burden our our children than the current unfunded liabilities associated with Medicare and Social Security.
This is good. However, just so you know, people who are just as sincerely trying to exercise their prudential judgment in conformance with the Church will reach different conclusions. I hit you hard Steve because your tone was “I have it figured out. National Heath Care is the answer.” And then you implied that the rest of us have been sold a bill of goods and are either insensitive to those w/ substandard health care options or have been duped. Read what you said below. It sure isn’t charitable, it sure is presumtious and it isn’t respectful. Only my mother spoke to me with “listen carefully” and she hasn’t done it since she started treating me like an adult.
Orion:
No problem. I was hard for a reason. Your tone was quite sure you were right in a way that to disagree meant the person wasn’t as well grounded as you. I wanted to make the point in a way that you’d be more open to the other side (Mine!
) or at least understanding that this is an issue that good people of good will can disagree w/o implication that the other side is selfish or doesn’t care about the poor. I know you are a good person w/ a good heart. I hope I didn’t slap ya too hard. Just wanted your attention my good man.