A Question of Health-Care to my Brothers and Sisters

[The Cobalt Sieg]

I have this question to pose to any and all members who read this post - is the socializing of medicine truly just and right?
My view is thus - health and life are the responsibilities of the parties involved therein. I do not believe that any taxpayer should have to give even a penny to pay for any visit I make to the doctor or the hospital. Like-wise, I would be suitably enraged for any fraction of a penny I paid in taxes to be used to perform an abortion on then next generation's prom queens because of their football-playing boyfriend. (Yeah, I know. Stereotype. Simply using a common one as an example, please take no offense)
I also would be displeased to have to pay for a lung transplant for a person who has chain smoked all their life, even as everyone they knew told them not to and the dangers inherent in their lifestyles.
My question is thus - do the personal lifestyle choices of any person fall under the jurisdiction of any government, and, should any form of aid or charity be taken by force and by law from those unwilling?
ALSO, PLEASE READ THIS - I AM NOT IN ANY WAY INSINUATING THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, OR THE CONGRESS THEREIN, IS ATTEMPTING TO SOCIALIZE MEDICINE. DO NOT TURN THIS MORAL POLL INTO A POLITICAL ONE.

[Alecto]

Ok, so you give examples of what you think isn't fair about providing certain people healthcare: what about the folks who aren't smokers or drinkers or having gratuitous or unprotected sex? What about folks who have to decide whether they're going to continue to provide for their families or else get that super-expensive cancer / hiv / whatever else kind of treatment.

What about the people who aren't "at fault" for being sick?

"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". As far as I'm concerned, healthcare is covered under "life".

[Emproph]

Is the socializing of health care and medication morally and ethically just?

I chose number #2, within the context of #1

1) Yes - the welfare of all humans should be protected by all humans.

2) Yes - with certain restrictions, restraints, and understandings

As a matter of ethics, I think the welfare of all humans should be protected by those humans who are wealthiest and/or most capable of doing so.
--
I can support this about what you said:

I would be suitably enraged for any fraction of a penny I paid in taxes to be used to perform an abortion on then next generation's prom queens because of their football-playing boyfriend. …I also would be displeased to have to pay for a lung transplant for a person who has chain smoked all their life

I can understand the perspective that these lifestyle choices should be dealt with by those who brought them on themselves. But that list goes on and on and on, including complications of obesity, like diabetes and heartfailure, etc.

I have this question to pose to any and all members who read this post - is the socializing of medicine truly just and right?

My question is thus - do the personal lifestyle choices of any person fall under the jurisdiction of any government, and, should any form of aid or charity be taken by force and by law from those unwilling?

Are you against the governmental socialization of all things, if that person cannot afford it, or just when it comes to health care?

If it is just about health care, are you also against Medicare, veteran’s benefits, and the health care that members of Congress now enjoy?

Or are you against all governmental socialization, like mail delivery, garbage pick up, firefighting, police protection, etc.?

I hear no complaints coming from the right about those socialized services, which leads me to believe that the complaints about so called socialized medicine are disingenuous.

Have you considered the tangent benefits of “socialized” medicine? Fewer trips to the ER, which would benefit us all--cost wise.

The last time I ended up in the ER I was faced with a $1700 bill for a few tests in a scant several hour visit. Fortunately my HC provider paid for most of it, but I was still responsible for about $400.

I look at that part of it like I look at shoplifting, we all end up paying higher prices for the same goods.

And what about the PREVENTABLE 45 thousand deaths every year due to lack of health insurance, and the costs surrounding those deaths, as per loss of breadwinner, toll on businesses for work lost, bankruptcies, emotional toll--requiring further medical care, etc. How much of a toll do you think taxpayers have to pick up for all that?

Unfortunately that’s one monetary equation that I haven’t seen yet as far as taxpayer savings go.

Access to health care is a moral issue that is being politicized, which I consider to be immoral, given that lives and quality of life are at stake--as well as $billions of taxpayer money that is being wasted by not addressing these issues.

As Alecto said:

Originally Posted by Alecto

"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". As far as I'm concerned, healthcare is covered under "life".

When quality of life, and lives themselves are disregarded for the sake of those of us who can afford insurance, we ALL pay the difference in one way or another.

If you are making the case that all taxpayer government services (mail delivery, garbage pick up, firefighting, police, Medicare, Social Security, Veteran‘s benefits, Congressional health care, Defense funding) should be done away with (at least for those who don't deserve it), then make it. I’ll disagree with it, but at least I can respect the consistency of your position.

[Pablo Rafael]

I believe that some things are necessary for a healthy society to function. Education, protection by our military and police forces, a fair judicial system, and health care should be three of those things. These things should be free and accessible to all regardless of a person's income.

Also being a Christian, I think society as a whole has an obligation to look after its poorer members.

What health care system I would prefer is a totally private system like Germany has. There all people have insurance; no one can be denied. The government pays the premiums of the lower-income people. The government sets the prices that are charged for drugs or services.

[The Cobalt Sieg]

I thank you all for your votes and comments. I appreciate all views, even if I do not agree. To hear each person's take on an issue is an enlightening experience indeed.
To be honest, I feel I am too de-humanized to respond with the correct emotions for the situation of the poor and the destitute. While I certainly understand people's enragement at the separation and power of personal wealth, I also feel a great deal of sympathy for the upper class.
I keep in mind these three things - in most cases, the poor are poor because of their own choices. Dropping out of highschool, bad work ethics, wasted money... I understand that a great deal of our lower class is comprised of people who had no choice in their status - those who were simply unlucky enough to lose everything they had. These people I have the utmost sympathy for, but I believe they are the minority in the lower class.
As far as the upper class goes, people like to generalize and say that all rich people are vicious snobs that grew up rich and just got richer. Over privileged pigs, in short. I do not believe this is true. I believe that there are a number of people in the upper class like this, but how many more people are wealthy because they worked as hard as they could, all through their lives? How many of the upper class truly contribute to the economy by making such billions of dollars that trickle down to their employees.

This all said, Id happily mow down every mansion in the world. Such excess is absolutely despicable. But, again, who I am to judge these people? If they wish to live like this, that is their choice - and they should be left to it. Will they not pay for it eventually?

That is the crux of my argument - choices. I believe that most people are in their situations, be they health, wealth, or sin because of the choices they have made in life. I short, I hold most people accountable for their own situations. While I may feel sympathy for them, I believe it to be a fundamental wrongness to force the care of all people upon those who do not wish to care for them. It doesnt make the rich right, and it doesnt bode well in my heart. Poetic justice, though it may be, it is still a form of vindication and revenge, when all vengeance is the Lords.

I beg you all to please keep your anger in check, after reading my post. I understand I may seem a monster lacking in compassion, but I beg you to understand that my beliefs and my heart are simply... Different.
I wish you all the happiest of Thanksgivings, and I will return shortly - Saturday, most likely. Please continue to peaceably comment and leave your views.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by The Cobalt Sieg

I thank you all for your votes and comments. I appreciate all views, even if I do not agree. To hear each person's take on an issue is an enlightening experience indeed.
To be honest, I feel I am too de-humanized to respond with the correct emotions for the situation of the poor and the destitute. While I certainly understand people's enragement at the separation and power of personal wealth, I also feel a great deal of sympathy for the upper class.
I keep in mind these three things - in most cases, the poor are poor because of their own choices. Dropping out of highschool, bad work ethics, wasted money... I understand that a great deal of our lower class is comprised of people who had no choice in their status - those who were simply unlucky enough to lose everything they had. These people I have the utmost sympathy for, but I believe they are the minority in the lower class.
As far as the upper class goes, people like to generalize and say that all rich people are vicious snobs that grew up rich and just got richer. Over privileged pigs, in short. I do not believe this is true. I believe that there are a number of people in the upper class like this, but how many more people are wealthy because they worked as hard as they could, all through their lives? How many of the upper class truly contribute to the economy by making such billions of dollars that trickle down to their employees.

This all said, Id happily mow down every mansion in the world. Such excess is absolutely despicable. But, again, who I am to judge these people? If they wish to live like this, that is their choice - and they should be left to it. Will they not pay for it eventually?

That is the crux of my argument - choices. I believe that most people are in their situations, be they health, wealth, or sin because of the choices they have made in life. I short, I hold most people accountable for their own situations. While I may feel sympathy for them, I believe it to be a fundamental wrongness to force the care of all people upon those who do not wish to care for them. It doesnt make the rich right, and it doesnt bode well in my heart. Poetic justice, though it may be, it is still a form of vindication and revenge, when all vengeance is the Lords.

I beg you all to please keep your anger in check, after reading my post. I understand I may seem a monster lacking in compassion, but I beg you to understand that my beliefs and my heart are simply... Different.
I wish you all the happiest of Thanksgivings, and I will return shortly - Saturday, most likely. Please continue to peaceably comment and leave your views.

The refrain seemed appropriate...

[Pablo Rafael]

Originally Posted by The Cobalt Sieg

I keep in mind these three things - in most cases, the poor are poor because of their own choices. Dropping out of highschool, bad work ethics, wasted money... I understand that a great deal of our lower class is comprised of people who had no choice in their status - those who were simply unlucky enough to lose everything they had. These people I have the utmost sympathy for, but I believe they are the minority in the lower class.

Do you have any statistics to back up this opinion? It seems to me that most people are poor because their parents were poor. In the year 2000 blacks made 58% as much as whites and hispanics made something like 67% as much. (I don't exactly remember the latter figure.) Are blacks and hispanics more prone to bad choices?

I take my case as an example. I live in a cute little house in the mountains. I chose to live here on purpose even though the economic opportunities are dismal. How can I afford to live here with a 28 hour-per-week job? It is because my grandparents left me an inheritance that paid off my mortgage. Others do not have that opportunity. Not because they make bad choices, but because their circumstances dictate it.

Even those who have made bad choices in their lives, should we just let them die?

Are you also opposed to public schools? Would you rather the private sector totally take over education?

Following are just some random thoughts and semi-rhetorical quesrtions:

Should we eliminate taxes that go to road construction and maintenance and instead just have all roads be toll roads?

Should police protection be pay-for-service?

[The Cobalt Sieg]

As I have stated before, I am simply after people's opinions.
As far as official statistics, I wish I had some, but I cant seem to find any on Google. I apologize and must therefore admit that anything I believe or theorize is based purely on speculation.
When I say that I believe that the majority of the poor and destitute are in their current situations because they made poor choices in life, I am referring to having children when they couldnt support them, dropping out of highschool, pursuing drugs and alcohol, etc. etc.
I am not so foolish as to believe that these poor choices apply to all of the lower class, but I must attribute these factors to a wide range of the population.

As far as race is a factor, I must say I do not believe that race is any measure of a man. Only culture.
In a culture that glorifies crimes, drugs, dropping out, permiscuality, and godlessness, I must attribute a high-concentration of low economics to those pitiful upbringings. In short, it is not the race of a person that ruins them in this country, but conformity to pop-culture.

As always, I appreciate the replies. I hope your thanksgiving was wondrous.

[The Cobalt Sieg]

Originally Posted by Pablo Rafael

I take my case as an example. I live in a cute little house in the mountains. I chose to live here on purpose even though the economic opportunities are dismal. How can I afford to live here with a 28 hour-per-week job? It is because my grandparents left me an inheritance that paid off my mortgage. Others do not have that opportunity. Not because they make bad choices, but because their circumstances dictate it.

Even those who have made bad choices in their lives, should we just let them die?

Are you also opposed to public schools? Would you rather the private sector totally take over education?

Following are just some random thoughts and semi-rhetorical quesrtions:

Should we eliminate taxes that go to road construction and maintenance and instead just have all roads be toll roads?

Should police protection be pay-for-service?

I appreciate your reply.
First and foremost, concerning your own situation, I must say that if you were to lose your inheritance and be left on the streets, I would have to attribute this change of circumstance to your own choices. If the money were stolen or lost in a banking crisis, or if you lost everything in a fire, I would then see these as extenuating circumstances beyond your control.

In a situation like yours, you could enter a college (if you do not have enough for that, there are always loans and jobs somewhere to pay for them, even in these economic times) and earn a degree of some merit (I am not assuming you do not have one, simply basing this on the purpose of an example) and thereby earn a job of some menial pay that could sustain your chosen lifestyle (which, I add, sounds absolutely beautiful. -.- Mountaaaaaaiiiinnnnnsss..... *drool*).

My point being that hard-work pays off in most situations and cases. I understand this is, in certain circumstances, impossible, but I am I very hard believer in working for profit.


"Even those who have made bad choices in their lives, should we just let them die?"

As harsh as it sounds, I must say that I believe they should be left to their own devices. Reform is very very rare. If a person is not a hard worker, then they shall very rarely ever become one. A drug addict falls back to drugs most of the time, and a person without the will to support them self will rely on whatever is given to them and never get up on their own feet.

I hate to sound like a viscous person, but its nigh impossible to change a person. Take prisoners - they rarely change. A murderer usually leaves prison changed only by time - their drive to kill remains, even if their body can no longer support it. Rapists often return to rape again, and pedophiles return to their children.

In short, people tend to be themselves. Those that would leech off society and do nothing to habituate themselves and become hard-working citizens? These people are the reason socialism fails.

In a blanket system where a business tycoon earns as much as a substitute teacher, where is the will to succeed? Why work so hard, when it earns you nothing extra?

I know this doesn't apply so much to socialized medicine and health care, but its part of the fear behind socializing of any sort.

I suppose I should close the topic with this -

The socializing of health care is controversial for many reasons, but the main ones are these - whether all people should come together and help each other as one, or whether people should remain separate and fend for themselves.
I believe in all things in moderation. I do not believe that our founding fathers thought that a tax should be applied to the People of the Union to pay for doctor's bills. In fact, as much as they fought blanket taxation and government control, I must conclude that they would disagree with it.

[Victoria]

My point being that hard-work pays off in most situations and cases. I understand this is, in certain circumstances, impossible, but I am I very hard believer in working for profit.

Hard work ~doesn't~ pay in most situations, at least not to the people actually ~doing~ the hard work, that's why sweatshops are still viable. The US just has laws the protect it's citizens from being noticeably abused to certain extremes, even while the US still thrives on using them outside of it's borders.

Fisherman and Farmers work hard. Uneducated parents who bust their asses to make sure their kids have opportunities they didn't have, work hard. Single mothers who work 2 jobs to support their kids work hard.

CEO's don't work hard, they leech of of other peoples hard work and often cheat the system at every turn. They're the reason Capitalism doesn't work. There's no such thing as a self-made millionaire.

As harsh as it sounds, I must say that I believe they should be left to their own devices. Reform is very very rare. If a person is not a hard worker, then they shall very rarely ever become one. A drug addict falls back to drugs most of the time, and a person without the will to support them self will rely on whatever is given to them and never get up on their own feet.

Many, if not Most people in that position never had a chance to begin with. No one chooses to be born into a slum, or to abusive parents, etc. No one chooses to have a life where the most defining choices were made for them before birth, before they gained self-awareness, and before they had a chance to gain awareness of others and how they might fit into the world in a ~good~ way.

In short, people tend to be themselves. Those that would leech off society and do nothing to habituate themselves and become hard-working citizens?

People live what they learn, and are ~not~ the people they had the potential to be if they had been born into the right opportunities. It's not about changing the people that are already set as they are and not likely to change, it's about giving opportunities to those who are to be in the future. The people who are already broken are the ones society has already failed. Continuing to fail people to such extremes is a madness that's largely preventable.

These people are the reason socialism fails.

There has ~never~ been a working socialist system in the world for one to have proven itself a failure, so that's a non-argument in any case. That "these people" exist is such numbers is only proof that society, in general, fails.

In a blanket system where a business tycoon earns as much as a substitute teacher, where is the will to succeed? Why work so hard, when it earns you nothing extra?

I wouldn't argue against making everyone equivalent to that extent, but where is the will to succeed when you work 80 hours a week just to barely pay rent and bills while your family still lives near poverty? Where's the will to live in some circumstances like that?

The disparity is insane when there are people who truly work the hardest barely survive, while many who work the least have enough to support ~thousands~ of people, yet squander their resources on extravagances far beyond their needs and, worse, are completely unwilling to part with those extravagances even to the extent that they beg the government for handouts when their businesses start to fail rather than liquidate their personal "assets" to remedy their financial problems themselves... and are likely also the most vocally against "welfare" for the most needy.

The socializing of health care is controversial for many reasons, but the main ones are these - whether all people should come together and help each other as one, or whether people should remain separate and fend for themselves.

If people had always chosen the latter, we'd still be living in caves. There should be no controversy when it comes to basic needs. When peoples basic needs are met, they have a whole world open to them of how they can contribute to the betterment of themselves and society.

Regardless of what one believes, we're all in this together.

[Pablo Rafael]

Originally Posted by The Cobalt Sieg

In short, people tend to be themselves. Those that would leech off society and do nothing to habituate themselves and become hard-working citizens? These people are the reason socialism fails.

This makes me think of the Scandanavian nations. They are among the most socialized nations in Europe. I really don't see where their systems have failed at all. They are models of success and good government.

Do not the nations with socialized health care have better health care, cheaper health care, universal health care and lower mortality rates?

[The Cobalt Sieg]

Victoria, your message was quite the fuel for thought. I rather enjoyed the arguments and must say that I would have to do much further research and write a very long response to tackle each of your arguments in a contrary and intelligent way. Very spectacularly well done.

And to you, mister Pablo Rafael, I must also extend my gratitude and compliments. However, I have heard this argument before, mostly in reference to Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Iceland. However, these countries do not participate in the world at large and have gone through VERY trying times. Their unemployment is getting worse with every year, as well.
The health care, I must say, I cannot bring up with validity. There are people that argue that Sweden and these other countries have tremendously excellent health-care... However, there are those who make the exact opposite arguments.
I find it alarming that the people who make these arguments, both for and against, live in America and havnt even BEEN to Switzerland, or vice-versa...

As always, thank you.

[RedneckDyke]

I am a libertarian on most things but I do think we should have single payer health care. Whe people are well and healthy that is better for everyone. I also think that immigrants with no green card should get health care. There are too many epidemic diseases that people could bring in from other countries to let people go untreated and spread stuff around. These arguments don't even go into a christian or moral perpective, only a practical one.

[Matt Algren]

Originally Posted by The Cobalt Sieg

To be honest, I feel I am too de-humanized to respond with the correct emotions for the situation of the poor and the destitute.

I'm an expert hyperboligist and even I think that's a bit over the line. You're "dehumanized" because poor people will get to go to the doctor's? Seriously?

I keep in mind these three things - in most cases, the poor are poor because of their own choices. Dropping out of highschool, bad work ethics, wasted money...

For the sake of argument, let's assume you're right. The next question is this: So what?

Why should someone's bad choices earlier in life mean that they shouldn't be able to go to the doctor without bankrupting themselves? Why should anyone have to choose between medication and food? And why should being born into a relatively wealthy family mean that you get better doctors and better treatment?

The rest of your argument is just propping up and knocking down strawmen, so I'll leave it at that.

[Pablo Rafael]

This whole subject brings to mind a quote from Ebenezer Scrooge (before his redemption), "Let them die and decrease the surplus population".

[tdogg]

One of the probably benefits of socialized health care is that the focus would be more on prevention, rather than medication and treatment of symptoms. In a capitalist society, where the larger medically-oriented corporations are pharmaceutical companies, where MDs are getting kick-backs from the drug companies, and where there are no incentives for an individual to pursue a healthy lifestyle, it's about what will make the bucks. Let's face it, drugs are HUGE money makers for both the P-companies and the doctors.

If there is a government-run option, then the government would actually make more money by encouraging people to actively engage in their own health, incentives for staying healthy and getting regular routine medical exams and tests, and less money on drugs. It's a win-win situation, IMO.

So if the general population are encouraged and supported in living healthier (no matter the class of the individual), it means less money on treatments and health care in general and a healthier population in general. How could that be a negative?

I'm sort of rambling here, but I hope you get what I'm trying to say.

[tymejumper]

I have had this very discussion with a friend about healthcare. He is a very logical man and I much enjoy our debates.

To argue if something is morally or ethically just, you would have to use emotions and therefore you would not be able to logically argue this. Morals and ethics in and of itself is charged with emotion and also religious beliefs. In order to have a logical discussion on this, you would have to seperate morals and religious beliefs from the actual facts of this argument. I am not possitive in my own mind that it is entirely possible to do so.

If you are asking in my opinion if it is morally just to give health care to all, the answer would be yes. I have read that you have presented that the reason people do not have health care is because of poor choices. This is not always true.

Here, in Michigan, the unemployment rate is very very high. Those that chose to go to college and get degrees, are no longer able to find jobs. They lack jobs as they were laid off and are unable to move for a multitude of reasons. They made the right choices according to you, they went to college and saved their money, but with virtually no job market and a mortgage to pay, they have little choice about if they can afford to go back to college to hopefully get a degree that will allow them to get a job. One providing health insurance. Also there are people whom have been told they are just laid off temporarily and so expect to be called back to their present jobs, health insurance stops after you are laid off. If they actively pursue and find a job to get health insurance, they would have to find one that paid equal to the unemployment they now get or lose money and any promise of being called back to their former, and higher paying job. This seems to be stupid on their part as they want to work to get ahead, not behind and that is what yo have outlined in your posts by saying people choose to be poor and make bad choices. Those that get laid off may have to use almost all of their pay to pay bills and all their savings also. They can't afford to go out of state, to look for work, and then somehow fund moving their families and such. This alone costs thousands of dollars, better hope you have a huge slush fund to pay for this.

This is just but one argument I could present to you proving it is moral to provide health care to all. Unemployed people are paying for the poor choices of the politicians, and consumers that buy non american, and cause American workers to lose jobs to other countries.

Morally, I could also say to you that I am very offended that someone would stop health care to all because they are against someone getting an abortion because they have no choice but to get one. Now, before you say there is always a choice and open that can of worms, let's not go there!( I do not wish to discuss pro and cons of abortion, most of all religion about it or lack of religion about it) I also believe that when people dictate those type of things I feel I am free to prevent people from getting health care if they fall into this group 'insert any group, religion or type of person here' also. I will say I don't want my money to go for helathcare for 'insert any group, religion or type of person' that I would be offended and angered if my money went for these type of people. See how silly that sounds? You can not legislate morals, ask Iran, they have tried.(long live the Burka)

Saying people choose to be poor is like saying women choose to be raped as they have worn a skirt. It is untrue and biased. Some people may make poor decisions, however, this does not make them any less deserving of basic health care. Are we God and get to punish people for poor decisions. What one of us can say we have made consistantly good decisions?. Much depends on our education(which is out of their control) where we live(mostly out of our control) and oppourtunities we have or may not have,(much depends on luck). To decide who deserves what, we have to take every socio-economic variable into account and that is quite frankly almost impossible.

[dellsmaith]

I do believe that the welfare of all humans should be protected by all humans but it should also be taken care that the people who need it the most should be the first treated like those who are infected with some disease for no mistake from their part and are left to die as they don't have a penny in their pocket. Such people should be give n the first preference and the people responsible for the disease that they have got in return of their own deeds should be restricted. I mean why should I pay for the person who doesn't want to take of himself and kept on puffing cigars and cigarettes ruining his lungs.

[K-Dog]

I think everyone should have to pay for it, but should get a form allowing them to isolate certain things that their own money won't go to.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by K-Dog

I think everyone should have to pay for it, but should get a form allowing them to isolate certain things that their own money won't go to.

If everyone had a form stipulating where the money would and would not go, there would be a great many things that would go unfunded. And what happens if you are one of those people who needs a procedure you can't get and can't afford? What do you do? Die?