For my Libertarian friends

This thread is dying, therefore I decided to keep a float by using intervention 

Sadly, I really got nothing. I just wrote a small paper for my class on Universal Healthcare. It's god awfully boring, but did cause to stumble across some interesting numbers:

The US pays more than any other industrialized country on healthcare. 13% of GDP, 2nd is Switzerland at 10.7% and the OECD average is 8%. Despite spending the most, the US health system was ranked 37th overall, and Americans use the healthcare system LESS than the OECD average, (yet we spend the most on it?)

Is Universal Healthcare such a drain? I mean talk about rampant gvmt spending...if left as is, the cost of healthcare would keep going up, eventually to 20% of GDP. Isn't that a drain?

Those are the cold hard numbers, now the liberal stuff thats no fun
That health care is a right, not a privelage...it is a basic need  that all should have access to...an estimated 18,000 unnecesary deaths occur annualy, due to lack of access....in 2007 (for example) 62% of bankruptcies were due to medical costs....how is it right that a family can go bankrupt because someone gets laid off in a recession, loses coverage and someone falls ill....yadda yadda hippie BS

Equality 7-2521 wrote: I don't see how can you can have a right to be provided with something at someone else's expense. But then again I've an Ayn Rand novel so I'm evil and selfish.

You said it, not me

I have a rager for political banter, I had to revive this thread...
And as for what you said, you see it that way...I see it as  one of those things you just can't look at like numbers and $. Sometimes maybe $ and numbers have to be eschewed for what is right. These are people after all...and let's forget about the poor.
A lot of Americans have health insurance through their employer, what if you are laid off like many were? You or a family member happen to be ill, or fall ill. You can't pay for it. Obviously they need medical attention, a family should go bankrupt due to a needed cost, that they are paying through no fault of their own?

And you went for the hippie BS I see those numbers I vomited out are not made up...I think the system is pretty f*cked as is. At the very least its not too efficient

I understand why all people should have healthcare, but understanding that it would be nice is not the issue. Yes, I believe people should eschew $ to help those in need of medical attention, but where does government derive the right to coerce people to ensure this? 

That's your conception of government. To do things that people won't? Who decides these things? What's the limit here? 

What Pat is trying to say (I believe) is that there's a difference between a "right" and "something that I think would be good for every citizen to have".

Your argument is that you believe it is to the benefit of our society that we have a single-payer national health care system.  That doesn't make health care a right.

Rights are something every human being is born with and requires nothing from anyone else.

Note that I'm not arguing for or against the health care system, I'm arguing against the (perhaps semantic) proposition that this is a right.


Edited by Padraic - July 10 2010 at 06:33

Slartibartfast wrote: Padraic wrote: What Pat is trying to say (I believe) is that there's a difference between a "right" and "something that I think would be good for every citizen to have". Your argument is that you believe it is to the benefit of our society that we have a single-payer national health care system.  That doesn't make health care a right. Rights are something every human being is born with and requires nothing from anyone else. Note that I'm not arguing for or against the health care system, I'm arguing against the (perhaps semantic) proposition that this is a right. I don't care about the semantics.

Duly noted.

So our right to health care is predicated on the level of its efficacy?

Sorry Brian, but your first sentence seems like silly speculation to me.  Your premise is that the founders recognized that health care is a right, but since at the time it consisted of "blood lettings and stuff" they neglected to recognize its importance?  Never mind the fact that pretty much the entire document was a bounding of the federal government and the amendments were restrictions on what the government was allowed to do ("Congress shall not", etc.).

Of course if you have evidence of your claim I'll happily apologize and concede.


Edited by Padraic - July 10 2010 at 08:16

Padraic wrote: So our right to health care is predicated on the level of its efficacy? Sorry Brian, but your first sentence seems like silly speculation to me.  Your premise is that the founders recognized that health care is a right, but since at the time it consisted of "blood lettings and stuff" they neglected to recognize its importance?  Never mind the fact that pretty much the entire document was a bounding of the federal government and the amendments were restrictions on what the government was allowed to do ("Congress shall not", etc.). Of course if you have evidence of your claim I'll happily apologize and concede.

Maybe I wasn't completely clear, the founders never recognized health care as a right, but it doesn't mean that in modern times we shouldn't.

thellama73 wrote: Another problem with government provided health care (besides what Equality so cogently stated) is that once the taxpayers are paying your doctor bills, you lose the right to treat your body the way you want. If someone else has to pay for your health care, they're not going to want you smoking... or drinking... or eating junk food. Oh, and you'd better make sure you get a decent amount of exercise. And who can blame them? If they're footing the bill, they're within their rights to see that their money isn't wasted. Bans on things that are "bad for you" are already starting to happen in places like San Francisco and it's only a matter of time before it spreads to the rest of the country. So before you leap to accept government handouts, make sure you think about all the strings that could be attached.

OK be it resolved that one can only get the care you can afford.  The libertarian philosophy here sounds good in theory but I don't think you've been thinking about the consequences of implementing it.

Call me naive, but I think it is possible to have a national system of health care that encourages and pushes people into better behaviors and yes the louts that don't take care of themselves should be treated, but only at your personal expense, not mine.  Where libertarianism loses me is on the principle that we are all in this together.  Selfishness only gets you and us and them so far.


Edited by Slartibartfast - July 10 2010 at 08:36

Padraic wrote: What Pat is trying to say (I believe) is that there's a difference between a "right" and "something that I think would be good for every citizen to have". Your argument is that you believe it is to the benefit of our society that we have a single-payer national health care system.  That doesn't make health care a right. Rights are something every human being is born with and requires nothing from anyone else. Note that I'm not arguing for or against the health care system, I'm arguing against the (perhaps semantic) proposition that this is a right.

If I'm being less than clear other Pat here understands me.

Slartibartfast wrote: I think that it is also worth noting that when our country was founded health care consisted of blood lettings and stuff so it would have been illogical to include such health care in the bill of rights. Of course, Jefferson said we have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but you won't find that in our constitution.

Isn't it strange that no positive right at all crept into the Constitution though? Or that the founder's talked repeatedly in correspondence about the need for negative rights?

Notice the careful phrasing even in the DoI: "pursuit of happiness." One's happiness is not guaranteed, but only the opportunity to search for it free from other's intervention.