A Hospital Bill Example: Ruptured Appendix Removal

[Omni]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Bloody bimmer-drivin', mercedes-buyin', audi-maintainin', 5-bedroom house ownin', expensive-hobby doin', fancy sport-playin', yacht-sailin', half-sweater vest wearin' doctors! How dare they!

 

[RadioCure]

Whether health care is A RIGHT is not really relevant to the discussion. Obviously we all lose if people are getting sick and dying with no recourse.

Why have police and fire departments if we have no right to life? That's something I don't understand. Those things cost money. If we don't care who lives and who dies, why bother? Why provide a public defender in a trial if a person is that unimportant, and we have no right to a civil existence?

Maybe we SHOULD transition to a system where everyone pays cash for every service they use, and taxes only go to support our military endeavors and whatever else is deemed necessary for the basic functioning of the country. When people get old, they either keep working to pay for their living costs, or they die. No more federal student aid. No more grants, Stafford loans or Grad PLUS loans. No more in-state college tuition. You get a nice big bill when the firefighters come to put out a fire (which, of course, will cause people to try to put out fires themselves, delaying the fated call until it's too late to save anything...), or when the police arrive after a bump in the night. If someone was murdered or raped, well, hopefully you have a lot of money to pay for the investigation and the prosecutors. After all, there's no cost to society if thieves, murderers, and rapists run free, any more than there's a cost to society when people are injured and killed by diseases they couldn't pay to treat. If it happens down the line, well, we can pretend it doesn't happen!

Everyone has access to the emergency room. Of course, you still get billed, so it's not as if it's free (nor would it be free if we were all TAXED for it...) They just have to treat you. Then you'll start receiving the bills you can't pay, making it impossible for you to participate in the economy in any other way. Essentially, you're unemployed, because you have no purchasing power and all your money is spoken for. Or maybe you're just too sick to work, period, and then you really are unemployed. If you don't understand that foreclosures, repossessions, and less money flowing into local businesses hurts the economy, I don't know what to say to you. Visit Michigan?

Or maybe you'll just die, and cost everyone money anyway - from your unfulfilled car loan, your mortgage, your unpaid student loans, your children now left in the public system. Your job will have to train someone new.

This is amazingly ignorant of anyone's points. Nobody ever said that life had no value or that a person has no right to life. All anyone has said is that nobody has a right to anyone else's services - anyone else's life, that is.

As for fire, police, etc. read my post above on this page and reply if you have any problems.

 

[RadioCure]

I love all the liberals in this thread saying "If you're not liberal like me, you can't be a good doctor."

These are the same ones who, after realizing they don't have any counterpoints to FutureCTDoc, resort to ad hominem attacks on his background, age, and socioeconomic status.

If you have an argument, advance it. If your experiences have revealed some sort of truth that can be useful to the discussion, I'm sure we would love to hear it. Otherwise, keep quiet so the people who actually have a point can have an adult conversation.

 

[RadioCure]

No firefighters?

WHY the police and judiciary? What is the difference, in your mind, between someone dying because the police refused to show up and someone dying because the hospital refused to admit them? Between someone dying because they couldn't receive chemo, and dying because 911 brushed off their call? I'm curious what the differences here are. Why do we have a right to be protected from criminals, because our lives are sacred when it comes to crime, but not a right to be treated for diseases? (No one ever fell victim to and helped increase the impact of any epidemics because they weren't treated for disease, right? I mean, HIV isn't THAT serious...no mothers were transmitting it to their babies or anything...)
Why should we allow public defenders? Certainly many defendants in criminal trials are there because of extreme stupidity and poor decisions, the very thing you think we should allow people to die for.

You don't have a right to be protected from criminals. If I called up the police right now and said I don't feel safe, they might come (but probably not unless I gave them good reason), check out the situation, and then leave. They are not a service for my protection and they are not my personal bodyguards; they are a service to uphold the law. If there is to be any government at all, the laws must be upheld. That's a reality of government. A judicial system, including the right to an attorney, ensures to the best of our ability that the law is carried out fairly.

If you can't understand how this is different from healthcare, I can't help you.

 

[morning]

If you are to have anything but anarchy, a justice system (including a police force) is necessary to enforce laws and uphold the government. This is also why it's reasonable to provide defendants with an attorney. The police force is not something that you have the "right" to whenever it pleases you. You can't call up the police and have them be your personal bodyguard, for example. Police make themselves present when a crime has been committed or there is reasonable suspicion that a crime may be committed.

You don't have a right to be protected from criminals. If I called up the police right now and said I don't feel safe, they might come (but probably not unless I gave them good reason), check out the situation, and then leave. They are not a service for my protection and they are not my personal bodyguards; they are a service to uphold the law. If there is to be any government at all, the laws must be upheld. That's a reality of government. A judicial system, including the right to an attorney, ensures to the best of our ability that the law is carried out fairly.

If you can't understand how this is different from healthcare, I can't help you.

But WHY do we have those laws? You're stopping at the most superficial layer of this argument. "We have policemen to uphold the laws. We have the laws because the laws are necessary." That doesn't even begin to skim the surface of this argument and would hold no water in even the most basic philosophy class.

The police pursue criminals and the judiciary tries them. WHY is it important to stop criminals who pose a threat to the bodily integrity of the citizenry, but NOT important to ensure their bodily integrity in other ways?

Is it not disruptive to the country to have people die of preventable or treatable diseases? Is public health not as stabilizing to a country as a strong police force and judiciary?

 

[FlowRate]

Bloody bimmer-drivin', mercedes-buyin', audi-maintainin', 5-bedroom house ownin', expensive-hobby doin', fancy sport-playin', yacht-sailin', half-sweater vest wearin' doctors! How dare they!

I'm not sure which side you are mocking, but I hate how all of the above has become demonized in this country (mostly for political gain by the people who still do all of the above).

Whether health care is A RIGHT is not really relevant to the discussion. Obviously we all lose if people are getting sick and dying with no recourse.

Why have police and fire departments if we have no right to life? That's something I don't understand. Those things cost money. If we don't care who lives and who dies, why bother? Why provide a public defender in a trial if a person is that unimportant, and we have no right to a civil existence?

Maybe we SHOULD transition to a system where everyone pays cash for every service they use, and taxes only go to support our military endeavors and whatever else is deemed necessary for the basic functioning of the country. When people get old, they either keep working to pay for their living costs, or they die. No more federal student aid. No more grants, Stafford loans or Grad PLUS loans. No more in-state college tuition. You get a nice big bill when the firefighters come to put out a fire (which, of course, will cause people to try to put out fires themselves, delaying the fated call until it's too late to save anything...), or when the police arrive after a bump in the night. If someone was murdered or raped, well, hopefully you have a lot of money to pay for the investigation and the prosecutors. After all, there's no cost to society if thieves, murderers, and rapists run free, any more than there's a cost to society when people are injured and killed by diseases they couldn't pay to treat. If it happens down the line, well, we can pretend it doesn't happen!

Everyone has access to the emergency room. Of course, you still get billed, so it's not as if it's free (nor would it be free if we were all TAXED for it...) They just have to treat you. Then you'll start receiving the bills you can't pay, making it impossible for you to participate in the economy in any other way. Essentially, you're unemployed, because you have no purchasing power and all your money is spoken for. Or maybe you're just too sick to work, period, and then you really are unemployed. If you don't understand that foreclosures, repossessions, and less money flowing into local businesses hurts the economy, I don't know what to say to you. Visit Michigan?

Or maybe you'll just die, and cost everyone money anyway - from your unfulfilled car loan, your mortgage, your unpaid student loans, your children now left in the public system. Your job will have to train someone new.

 

[chman]

I love all the liberals in this thread saying "If you're not liberal like me, you can't be a good doctor."

These are the same ones who, after realizing they don't have any counterpoints to FutureCTDoc, resort to ad hominem attacks on his background, age, and socioeconomic status.

If you have an argument, advance it. If your experiences have revealed some sort of truth that can be useful to the discussion, I'm sure we would love to hear it. Otherwise, keep quiet so the people who actually have a point can have an adult conversation.

I think bringing up the fact that he has no real world experience for providing for a sick child, let alone himself, is a fair argument. Criticizing people for "hand outs" of life saving medical care while one is receiving hand outs from their parents is a bit hypocritical.

 

[surftheiop]

Are there really no well read anarchocapitalists on this forum?

From a moral/logical standpoint they can lay waste to the entire concept of government and its pretty fun to watch people squirm in the face of their arguments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

 

[FutureCTDoc]

I think bringing up the fact that he has no real world experience for providing for a sick child, let alone himself, is a fair argument. Criticizing people for "hand outs" of life saving medical care while one is receiving hand outs from their parents is a bit hypocritical.

But this is voluntary, there's no gun to my parents' temples. They could cut me off tomorrow. However any involuntary transfer of assets, work etc. is wrong.

 

[FlowRate]

Are there really no well read anarchocapitalists on this forum?

From a moral/logical standpoint they can lay waste to the entire concept of government and its pretty fun to watch people squirm in the face of their arguments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

I'm actually quite well versed on the topic, but I don't "believe" that it'll work as well as theorized.

 

[Janieve]

I'm actually quite well versed on the topic, but I don't "believe" that it'll work as well as theorized.

So, like communism, threesomes, new workout routines, and that plan you made for your whole college career freshman year:

Good in theory - crap in practice.

 

[morning]

Are there really no well read anarchocapitalists on this forum?

From a moral/logical standpoint they can lay waste to the entire concept of government and its pretty fun to watch people squirm in the face of their arguments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

How would this work in terms of physician compensation?

 

[FutureCTDoc]

How would this work in terms of physician compensation?

It would be set with patients on an individual basis.

 

[FlowRate]

So, like communism, threesomes, new workout routines, and that plan you made for your whole college career freshman year:

Good in theory - crap in practice.

yes, no, kinda, not really;

sorta

😛

 

[FutureCTDoc]

So, like communism, threesomes, new workout routines, and that plan you made for your whole college career freshman year:

Good in theory - crap in practice.

Yes, without a judiciary, police and enumerated rights it fails quickly. I like the theory but I'm pragmatic and hence paleoconservative/libertarian/objectivist.

 

[morning]

It would be set with patients on an individual basis.

That would work in outpatient, but I cannot see it working for acute care.

It would also probably LOWER compensation if everyone was bargaining down and taking the lowest bidder.

Who would probably be an NP anyway.

 

[chman]

But this is voluntary, there's no gun to my parents' temples. They could cut me off tomorrow. However any involuntary transfer of assets, work etc. is wrong.

So what do you propose then? In order for society to function there is going to need to be "involuntary transfer" in one form or an other.

Regardless, that was only one small part of the point. The main part, was that it is easy to say the things you have said without ever having been in those situations. I know you never think you will be in a compromising financial situation like all those losers that have been laid off and whatnot, and maybe you won't. But my guess is that if you did have a life threatening condition without the means for medical care you would not just say; "well, looks like I'm gonna die without care, but I don't think Iim gonna get any because I don't have the money to pay for it. That isn't "true" capitalism, and I would be a lazy bum receiving a hand out." Tell me honestly, how would you feel, or what would you do in that situation?

 

[surftheiop]

How would this work in terms of physician compensation?

Well presumably in an anarchocapitalist (AC) world, people would still buy stuff similar to health insurance. Then these companies could make deals with health care providers (be they shamans, RN's, DC's, MD's, DO's - presumably getting coverage from the local shaman would be cheaper)

(The currency would of course not be centralized by governments, but instead through the banks that are deemed most reputable by society)

 

[FutureCTDoc]

So what do you propose then? In order for society to function there is going to need to be "involuntary transfer" in one form or an other.

Regardless, that was only one small part of the point. The main part, was that it is easy to say the things you have said without ever having been in those situations. I know you never think you will be in a compromising financial situation like all those losers that have been laid off and whatnot, and maybe you won't. But my guess is that if you did have a life threatening condition without the means for medical care you would not just say; "well, looks like I'm gonna die without care, but I don't think Iim gonna get any because I don't have the money to pay for it. That isn't "true" capitalism, and I would be a lazy bum receiving a hand out." Tell me honestly, how would you feel, or what would you do in that situation?

Honestly it doesn't matter if I have or haven't been in those situations as to whether I'm right or wrong. You've yet to point out a logical fallacy. You bring up an irrelevant point. This isn't about me, this is about a policy decision.

 

[FlowRate]

So what do you propose then? In order for society to function there is going to need to be "involuntary transfer" in one form or an other.

Almost all libertarians, especially anarchocapitalists, would disagree with that assertion... jus' sayin.

 

[chman]

Well presumably in an anarchocapitalist (AC) world, people would still buy stuff similar to health insurance. Then these companies could make deals with health care providers (be they shamans, RN's, DC's, MD's, DO's - presumably getting coverage from the local shaman would be cheaper)

(The currency would of course not be centralized by governments, but instead through the banks that are deemed most reputable by society)

I'm sorry, but are you guys that advocate this kind of thing completely oblivious to not only this financial crisis, but the great depression as well? What happens if there is no regulation is that certain banks, power companies, etc., end up getting a monopoly and all the choice is gone. You guys seem to forget how greedy people are at the core, and the lengths people will go to get rich. There is nothing wrong with getting rich, but I think we have all seen the down side to letting the banks go wild. I know, I know, there is no fraud authorized in this system. BS, is what i say. As long is big money is floating around there will be someone to pay off.

"True capitalism" (which I don't think has ever really been done), relies way too much on the goodness of people. Unfortunately, people just aren't that good.

 

[surftheiop]

just say; "well, looks like I'm gonna die without care, but I don't think Iim gonna get any because I don't have the money to pay for it. That isn't "true" capitalism, and I would be a lazy bum receiving a hand out." Tell me honestly, how would you feel, or what would you do in that situation?

Charity is definitely an important aspect of "true capitalism", people gain a huge amount of utility from helping those in need. Essentially the transaction being made is that someone is giving someone else money/services in exchange for receiving an emotional high.

 

[chman]

Honestly it doesn't matter if I have or haven't been in those situations as to whether I'm right or wrong. You've yet to point out a logical fallacy. You bring up an irrelevant point. This isn't about me, this is about a policy decision.

Oh, it's about you. It's about you, me, my sister, mother, etc. It is really very basic. I believe that there are some basic human decencies that should be afforded, and could easily be afforded if we could allocate money correctly (as appose to fighting pointless wars for example). You can avoid the question if you want, and I hope you never have to deal with it for real, but ignoring it will not make it less so for the millions who experience it.

 

[surftheiop]

You guys seem to forget how greedy people are at the core, and the lengths people will go to get rich.

So its better to hand authority to a select few of these greedy individuals (government) than to allow each human to make voluntary transactions with whomever they please?

 

[chman]

Charity is definitely an important aspect of "true capitalism", people gain a huge amount of utility from helping those in need. Essentially the transaction being made is that someone is giving someone else money/services in exchange for receiving an emotional high.

Yes, I realize this is the case in the dream world of "true capitalism." As I said in my earlier post, I don't believe people are that good, or that this will work. If it did, people would all be helping each other now, and they are not.

 

[FutureCTDoc]

I'm sorry, but are you guys that advocate this kind of thing completely oblivious to not only this financial crisis, but the great depression as well? What happens if there is no regulation is that certain banks, power companies, etc., end up getting a monopoly and all the choice is gone. You guys seem to forget how greedy people are at the core, and the lengths people will go to get rich. There is nothing wrong with getting rich, but I think we have all seen the down side to letting the banks go wild. I know, I know, there is no fraud authorized in this system. BS, is what i say. As long is big money is floating around there will be someone to pay off.

"True capitalism" (which I don't think has ever really been done), relies way too much on the goodness of people. Unfortunately, people just aren't that good.

Greed is for the lack of a better word, good. Almost all inovations come from people wanting to make a buck. The internet connection you utilize is based of greed the ISP wants to make a buck. You're computer was made by a greedy manufacturer. The country you know was built by greedy industrialists like Carnegie, Frick and Rockefeller. You should appreciate greed

 

[chman]

So its better to hand authority to a select few of these greedy individuals (government) than to allow each human to make voluntary transactions with whomever they please?

No, believe it or not I probably dislike the government bureaucracy as much as you in many cases. I just don't think your answer will work.

 

[jrou111]

It would be set with patients on an individual basis.

You mean kind of like it was before the mid-1960's? Before the government got involved in price regulation through medicare, patients worked with doctors directly on compensation. Some paid more, some paid less, some paid none.

Everytime this topic gets brought up I mention the book "Compulsory Medical Care and the Welfare State" http://mises.org/books/compulsory_medical_care_palyi.pdf

It's only 156 pages but really explains what has been going on historically.

 

[RadioCure]

But WHY do we have those laws? You're stopping at the most superficial layer of this argument. "We have policemen to uphold the laws. We have the laws because the laws are necessary." That doesn't even begin to skim the surface of this argument and would hold no water in even the most basic philosophy class.

The police pursue criminals and the judiciary tries them. WHY is it important to stop criminals who pose a threat to the bodily integrity of the citizenry, but NOT important to ensure their bodily integrity in other ways?

Is it not disruptive to the country to have people die of preventable or treatable diseases? Is public health not as stabilizing to a country as a strong police force and judiciary?

A necessary aspect of having a government in a society is to protect citizens from one another. This is the nature of "crime" as we commonly define it - a human doing harm to another. This is an aspect of government that cannot be done away with, as I think you would agree.

Another potential (but not necessary) aspect of government is to protect people from themselves. Our society would surely be a lot more stable and healthy if we banned all unhealthy foods, banned smoking, mandated 30 minutes of exercise a day, banned gambling, banned contact sports, banned sexual contact with more than one partner per lifetime. WHY is it important to stop criminals who pose a threat to the bodily integrity of the citizenry, but NOT important to ensure their bodily integrity in other ways? Is it not disruptive to the country to have people die of preventable or treatable diseases? Is public health not as stabilizing to a country as a strong police force and judiciary?

We both know the answer in this case.

Are you willing to accept that in the case of government protecting our well-being from any possible angle, there are times when it is unjust, illogical, unsustainable, and uncalled for?

Yes, I did not address socialized medicine, and I didn't for a reason. The point is that it has to be taken on its own merits, it's own consequences, and its own realities. You don't just get to make a broad claim that the government should do whatever it can to promote bodily integrity and chalk it up as a win.

 

[chman]

Greed is for the lack of a better word, good. Almost all inovations come from people wanting to make a buck. The internet connection you utilize is based of greed the ISP wants to make a buck. You're computer was made by a greedy manufacturer. The country you know was built by greedy industrialists like Carnegie, Frick and Rockefeller. You should appreciate greed

Nice Wall Street line ((the movie).

I never have denied that the essence of wanting to make a profit,and said it is a bad thing. However, I don't think that business morals can run the country. In fact, they already do, and it ain't working.

 

[surftheiop]

Yes, I realize this is the case in the dream world of "true capitalism." As I said in my earlier post, I don't believe people are that good, or that this will work. If it did, people would all be helping each other now, and they are not.

O RLY?

40 U.S. Billionaires Pledge Half Of Wealth To Charity
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128983170&ps=cprs


Additionally, if people didn't have like 40% of their income taxed away then there would certainly be more given to charity.

 

[FutureCTDoc]

Oh, it's about you. It's about you, me, my sister, mother, etc. It is really very basic. I believe that there are some basic human decencies that should be afforded, and could easily be afforded if we could allocate money correctly (as appose to fighting pointless wars for example). You can avoid the question if you want, and I hope you never have to deal with it for real, but ignoring it will not make it less so for the millions who experience it.

I oppose both wars and believe in a policy of neutrality like the Swiss. Where do you cut off "basic decencies"? Healthcare is not a right. If I choose to provide charity care, it's my decision. Not the patients. Your believing that this is a "basic decency" doesn't make it so. What if you felt that a car was a basic decency, could someone walk into a dealership and drive out without paying for it? The answer as we both know is no. No more should a patient take care and expect to avoid paying, than they should do it with a car.

 

[surftheiop]

You mean kind of like it was before the mid-1960's? Before the government got involved in price regulation through medicare, patients worked with doctors directly on compensation. Some paid more, some paid less, some paid none.

Everytime this topic gets brought up I mention the book "Compulsory Medical Care and the Welfare State" http://mises.org/books/compulsory_medical_care_palyi.pdf

It's only 156 pages but really explains what has been going on historically.

The ACists are finally coming out of the woodwork!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises

 

[FutureCTDoc]

You mean kind of like it was before the mid-1960's? Before the government got involved in price regulation through medicare, patients worked with doctors directly on compensation. Some paid more, some paid less, some paid none.

Everytime this topic gets brought up I mention the book "Compulsory Medical Care and the Welfare State" http://mises.org/books/compulsory_medical_care_palyi.pdf

It's only 156 pages but really explains what has been going on historically.

Yes, the end to discriminatory pricing has hurt poorer individuals and the creation of a welfare state has truly crippled them. My father provides charity care, I will likely provide it as well. However if you place the gun to either of our temples and tell us "Cover the indigents" the response will be blank you.

 

[chman]

I oppose both wars and believe in a policy of neutrality like the Swiss. Where do you cut off "basic decencies"? Healthcare is not a right. If I choose to provide charity care, it's my decision. Not the patients. Your believing that this is a "basic decency" doesn't make it so. What if you felt that a car was a basic decency, could someone walk into a dealership and drive out without paying for it? The answer as we both know is no. No more should a patient take care and expect to avoid paying, than they should do it with a car.

And your saying it is not a basic decency does not make it not make it so. It is a fundamental disagreement in philosophy. You believe that human life should be equated with cars, gas, and whatever other unnecessary luxuries. I don't, and think it is a basic human necessity, and yes a right.

 

[chman]

O RLY?

40 U.S. Billionaires Pledge Half Of Wealth To Charity
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128983170&ps=cprs


Additionally, if people didn't have like 40% of their income taxed away then there would certainly be more given to charity.

Yes, a few very rich people give a lot to charity, and I commend them for it. However, I am not convinced that this would solve our humanitarian needs if social programs were not in place.

 

[surftheiop]

And your saying it is not a basic decency does not make it not make it so. It is a fundamental disagreement in philosophy. You believe that human life should be equated with cars, gas, and whatever other unnecessary luxuries. I don't, and think it is a basic human necessity, and yes a right.

So whats your thought on the difference between positive rights and negative rights?

From Wiki

To state the difference more formally: some party 'A' has a negative right to x against another party 'B' if and only if 'B' is prohibited from acting upon 'A' in some way regarding x; and likewise, 'A' has a positive right to x against 'B' if and only if 'B' is obliged to act upon 'A' in some way regarding x.

For example, if 'A' has a negative right to life against 'B', then 'B' is required to refrain from killing 'A'; while if 'A' has a positive right to life against 'B', then 'B' is required to act as necessary to preserve the life of 'A'.

 

[FutureCTDoc]

And your saying it is not a basic decency does not make it not make it so. It is a fundamental disagreement in philosophy. You believe that human life should be equated with cars, gas, and whatever other unnecessary luxuries. I don't, and think it is a basic human necessity, and yes a right.

Please tell me how healthcare is a right, it's not in the constitution nor in the bill of rights. It isn't a right under natural law. Can you come up with some justification for this or involuntary transfers in general?

 

[FutureCTDoc]

Yes, a few very rich people give a lot to charity, and I commend them for it. However, I am not convinced that this would solve our humanitarian needs if social programs were not in place.

Social programs serve to enslave people to the welfare state. Ever heard of the cycle of poverty? Tell me how you can justify involuntary transfer?

 

[chman]

So whats your thought on the difference between positive rights and negative rights?

From Wiki

To state the difference more formally: some party 'A' has a negative right to x against another party 'B' if and only if 'B' is prohibited from acting upon 'A' in some way regarding x; and likewise, 'A' has a positive right to x against 'B' if and only if 'B' is obliged to act upon 'A' in some way regarding x.

For example, if 'A' has a negative right to life against 'B', then 'B' is required to refrain from killing 'A'; while if 'A' has a positive right to life against 'B', then 'B' is required to act as necessary to preserve the life of 'A'.

I have read a little about this, but certainly not enough to give you a solid answer.

Please tell me how healthcare is a right, it's not in the constitution nor in the bill of rights. It isn't a right under natural law. Can you come up with some justification for this or involuntary transfers in general?

Again, unlike you I believe that some involuntary transfer is necessary in order for society to function properly. You and I will not see eye to eye on that, and that is ok.

We all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I would argue that health care is a basic necessity of the first.

 

[morning]

Please tell me how healthcare is a right, it's not in the constitution nor in the bill of rights. It isn't a right under natural law. Can you come up with some justification for this or involuntary transfers in general?

I personally feel that lack of healthcare is destabilizing to society and leaves it worse off than this much-hated "involuntary transfer" does. I would feel the same way about lack of public education, too. Whether these things are a "right" or not has little bearing on whether they help keep our civilization humming along.

 

[jrou111]

The ACists are finally coming out of the woodwork!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises

Someone's got to tell them Keynesian economic theory doesn't work 😛

 

[chman]

Social programs serve to enslave people to the welfare state. Ever heard of the cycle of poverty? Tell me how you can justify involuntary transfer?

Yes, I have heard of the poverty cycle. I live in a really poor neighborhood and see stuff on a daily basis that is not pretty, one of which is no access to medical care. I think that the problems of the lower class are a little more complicated then "social program enslavement." Again, for the last time, I believe that some basic taxes are necessary in order for society to function. You don't, and that is a disagreement we will most likely not agree upon.

 

[FutureCTDoc]

I have read a little about this, but certainly not enough to give you a solid answer.



Again, unlike you I believe that some involuntary transfer is necessary in order for society to function properly. You and I will not see eye to eye on that, and that is ok.

We all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I would argue that health care is a basic necessity of the first.

So let me ask you this you and I are shipwrecked. There is a raft that can only accomodate one, is it right for me to pull you out, because if I'm left in the water I'll die? That's an involuntary transfer. If I earn money, can you take it at gunpoint? No, that's theft. What the government is doing is the same, except the threat is jail rather than a gun. The right to life refers to not being killed without having committed a capital crime and being convicted by a jury of your peers, not to healthcare.

 

[justaregularmed]

I don't know why we even argue Healthcare reform is just a smokescreen for wholesale government control to help establish the new world utopia. The fact we are arguing shows that the smoke screen is working and they are winning. Thats whats LOL.

 

[chman]

So let me ask you this you and I are shipwrecked. There is a raft that can only accomodate one, is it right for me to pull you out, because if I'm left in the water I'll die? That's an involuntary transfer. If I earn money, can you take it at gunpoint? No, that's theft. What the government is doing is the same, except the threat is jail rather than a gun. The right to life refers to not being killed without having committed a capital crime and being convicted by a jury of your peers, not to healthcare.

I don't really feel like playing the analogy game. The situation we are discussing is more complicated than that. You see it as a black and white; one drowns and one doesn't. I think there is a way to for both to survive.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of is in the declaration, not the bill of rights. At anyrate, our forefathers could not have seen this debate coming because medical care back then did more harm than good. There is certainly nothing that says we can't provide medical care.

 

[FutureCTDoc]

I don't really feel like playing the analogy game. The situation we are discussing is more complicated than that. You see it as a black and white; one drowns and one doesn't. I think there is a way to for both to survive.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of is in the declaration, not the bill of rights. It is nowhere near the amendment about fair trails and whatnot, which, as you know, is in the constitution. At anyrate, our forefathers could not have seen this debate coming because medical care back then did more harm than good. There is certainly nothing that says we can't provide medical care.

Why, this is an involuntary transfer taken to its natural conclusion. You see the principle is flawed. Taking something that belongs to someone else is wrong. It's theft. However, if the government does it, it's taxation. The issue is taking medical care with no intention to pay is theft as well. You attempt to avoid the issue saying that involuntary transfers are necessary and that an arbitrary thing can become a right. What else should become rights? The internet? It wasn't around when the founding fathers were.

 

[chman]

Why, this is an involuntary transfer taken to its natural conclusion. You see the principle is flawed. Taking something that belongs to someone else is wrong. It's theft. However, if the government does it, it's taxation. The issue is taking medical care with no intention to pay is theft as well. You attempt to avoid the issue saying that involuntary transfers are necessary and that an arbitrary thing can become a right. What else should become rights? The internet? It wasn't around when the founding fathers were.

Our forefathers said nothing about taxation being theft. They simply said taxation without representation was wrong. They knew that taxation was necessary in order for society to function, otherwise they would have abolished taxes altogether. You can go ahead and keep equating people dying with the internet, cars, fuel, and whatever else. The bottom line is we disagree, and probably won't ever.

 

[justaregularmed]

It really boils down to egalitarianism and whatever philosophy you might subscribe to and the goal of its Utopia. This is what you all are bickering about after all. I think the most disgusting part about the whole situation is that instead of raising the poor to a higher standard the current practice is just to bring the rich down. And I use the term "Rich" loosely because nobody touches the ultra rich, the rich I speak of are the upper end of the working class.

 

[chman]

One thing I will say is that if we lived in a truly free society the people would vote on such matters.