In truth, I am interested in arguments for and against Universal Health Care. I have not made up my mind on the issue. So here's what I'm going to do: I am going to make a decent attempt at building a case in favor of Universal Health Care, and I want you to 1. create or cite arguments that undermine or rebut the components of my case in favor of Universal Health Care or 2. post about how much you agree with it. Other related musings are welcome, too; everyone can play!
Status: False.
The reality is that Sweden is a living example of superior healthcare services, and it happens to be socialized with respect to health care. Look at the facts, and compare various facets of Swedish health care to those of US health care:
-Wikipedia (current article)
Still skeptical about how bad things really are in America? Read what CNN has to report about it.
Still skeptical about how much our current system is costing us compared to what we could save by socializing healthcare? Read this Libertarian's argument for socializing healthcare in today's America.
Still think competitive market forces always produce the best traits via the most efficient route? Then reflect on what competition has done to the pharmaceutical industry.
Free market forces are important in America, and I'm no Commie. But the reality is that while some things are best done at the individual level, and others at the state level, there remain others still, that may best be run by the federal government. For example: a centralized military, coinage, etc.
But think about how silly our jurisdictional categories are! What is a federal government? What is a "nation"? In ancient Greece we saw city-states, which were like sovereign nations the size of a city. Before the union of the states of America, each state functioned like its own nation. But then look at the UK - it functions very much like a cohesive nation, yet it is not. It is four nations (kingdoms?), united under a constitutional monarchy. But as you research the powers assigned to various levels of jurisdiction, you find that it is much more complicated than what I have described here. Is the EU a nation? 'Clearly not', we want to say, yet it regulates currency and to a certain degree transportation (military?), and there are other powers united under the EU, as well. What "is" the United Nations?
It seems to me that what a "nation" is, is arbitrarily determined by the papers and wills of the people constituting it. There is no God-given prescription for the powers that ought to be assigned to individuals, states (whatever those are...), "nations", international unions, etc. So what do people mean when they talk about how thus and such is "not the federal government's responsibility"? Perhaps they mean that the United States constitution reserves thus and such a power for the states. If this is the case, then so what? We can amend that bad boy! We shouldn't be after the answer to the question "what would the founding fathers do?".
What we should be after is the answer to questions like, "at what level of governmental jurisdiction can we get thus and such done most efficiently, with the best results, in the way that protects the most individual rights possible?".
And when it comes to healthcare in today's America, I here contend that the federal government seems the most fit to accomplish the ends that we all want. For example, Universal Health Care could,
1. Increase Competitiveness of American Businesses
The thought of having to shoulder the cost of employee healthcare motivates businesses to outsource their workforces to other countries. Paring down the overhead of businesses helps contribute to leaner business models, which will result in businesses competing more and more on the quality of their products and their prices. This will help companies to compete with each other inside the US, as well as with those outside the US that already do not have to shoulder the added overhead that employee healthcare brings.
2. Increase Health of American Workers and Citizens
When people are left uncovered by healthcare, they get sick. Sick people spread germs and thereby infringe on the health of others. Healthy people are more fit to get jobs and contribute to our economy. Whether we like it or not, our health is symbiotic. Let's democratically agree to take care of everybody and thereby protect ourselves. Let's enable ourselves to get preventative care, and thereby stay healthy more often, keeping ourselves in school and at work more often.
3. Balance the Use of Healthcare
Knowing I can get healthcare at any time might help me to relax and go in when I need to (and only when I need to). This would be better than never going to the doctor in order to avoid co-payments, or going all the time to try and get my money's worth from an expensive plan, or from a nice plan that my company pays for, which I know I will only have temporarily.
4. Keep Track of Medical History Records Across the Board
A nationwide healthcare system would allow us to centralize the database of medical records, cutting the volume of paperwork involved in changing doctors or getting help from specialists. Not to mention the fact that this would help us keep track of such information in the first place, so that doctors can have access to important information about you wherever you become sick or injured, or whether you go to a specialist you don't normally visit.
5. Mitigate Fraud
Centralizing our resources, including the database of medical records, could simplify a lot of processes and enable fraudulent cases to be systemically flagged immediately. People we agree ought not be part of the system, such as individuals present in our country by means forbidden by our laws, could be easily flagged when they turn up in emergency rooms. The level of care we give such individuals, and the protocol guiding how we handle such situations, could be topics of discussion.
6. Decrease Costs
Peoples who have decided to socialize their healthcare systems have wound up saving money because of the ability to cut overheads, centralize resources, provide preventative care, and... I could easily go on.
7. Increase the Freedom of Doctor's Treatment Plans
Insurance companies, being motivated by profit, impose severe restrictions on treatment plans. Giving doctors the freedom to be flexible with patient treatment plans would ignite innovation, motivate preventative measures, and increase the overall health of the country.
8. Mitigate the Various Ill Effects of Profit-Driven Medical Practices
The most profitable practices are not always the best ones. The free market has made it more profitable to create new, questionable drugs than to make continued use of trusted, generic drugs. Profit-hungry pharmaceutical companies bribe doctors to push their drugs rather than the best drugs for the job. Flashy marketing obfuscates drug-related information before it reaches the public eye, contributing to image-influenced decision-making, rather than information-driven decision-making.
Drug patent laws often mean that the best drugs are too expensive for the people who could benefit the most from them. Socializing health care would encourage medical professionals and researchers to share information in the name of social progress, rather than guard the findings of their research in order to profit from them.
The lobbying power of the insurance companies would be eradicated, freeing our politicians from the yoke of the obligations foisted on them by huge, profit-driven voting blocks. These same voters would naturally reorganize themselves into the categories that other citizens naturally fit into.
The giant bureaucracies housed by the insurance companies would be eradicated, reducing the number of workers whose jobs are spent administrating rather than generating.
I could easily go on.
9. Increase the Vocational Freedom of Individuals & Motivate Entrepreneurism
Socializing health care would contribute to the freedom of individuals to pursue careers they are passionate about, rather than those that happen to provide health care. For example, rather than feeling strapped for health care and therefore motivated to take a job as an employee at somewhere like Starbucks, individuals would be that much more motivated to start businesses of their own or pursue those jobs that don't always provide health care, increasing vocational freedom and entrepreneurism. This will be especially true for those with chronically, or terminally, ill family members. Such individuals will be free from feeling driven to find the job with the best health care.
10. Improve Responses to Regional Outbreaks, Natural Disasters, Rare Illnesses, and New Illnesses
Socialized health care would provide an ideal platform for coordinating the skills of various medical professionals with the medical needs of entire communities impacted by regional outbreaks or disasters. Those with rare diseases could be much more readily paired with the professionals whose specialty is well-suited to the problem. Medical information could be broadcast or spread by other means to those areas for which it is most relevant at a given time. Medical mentors and coaches could be utilized to promote general health practices and mitigate harmful ones. The livelihood of medical professionals wouldn't be tied to a specific set of patients, or to a geographic region, giving them the freedom to go where their skill is needed most.
• Socializing healthcare doesn't mean that the private sector is forbidden to attempt to produce superior plans (think of private schools).
Universal Health Care could be done poorly. And depending on who gets elected and what follows, that may end up happening in America. But, it doesn't have to be that way, and Sweden is living proof of that fact. Democratic forces could hold politicians accountable, and we could all rally with talented leaders, who could devise and implement a plan that works.
We have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, so let's agree to use this resource to accomplish something beautiful.
See also:
• John R. Battista, M.D. and Justine McCabe, Ph.D. "The Case for Universal Health Care"
• Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, "Hidden Costs, Value Lost"
How Can I Build a Case For Universal Health Care, When the Very Concept Eviscerates the Notion of a Free Market?
Claim: Eliminating competition in the arena of healthcare will result in a decline in quality, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and other desirable traits.Status: False.
The reality is that Sweden is a living example of superior healthcare services, and it happens to be socialized with respect to health care. Look at the facts, and compare various facets of Swedish health care to those of US health care:
-Wikipedia (current article)
Still skeptical about how bad things really are in America? Read what CNN has to report about it.
Still skeptical about how much our current system is costing us compared to what we could save by socializing healthcare? Read this Libertarian's argument for socializing healthcare in today's America.
Still think competitive market forces always produce the best traits via the most efficient route? Then reflect on what competition has done to the pharmaceutical industry.
Free market forces are important in America, and I'm no Commie. But the reality is that while some things are best done at the individual level, and others at the state level, there remain others still, that may best be run by the federal government. For example: a centralized military, coinage, etc.
But think about how silly our jurisdictional categories are! What is a federal government? What is a "nation"? In ancient Greece we saw city-states, which were like sovereign nations the size of a city. Before the union of the states of America, each state functioned like its own nation. But then look at the UK - it functions very much like a cohesive nation, yet it is not. It is four nations (kingdoms?), united under a constitutional monarchy. But as you research the powers assigned to various levels of jurisdiction, you find that it is much more complicated than what I have described here. Is the EU a nation? 'Clearly not', we want to say, yet it regulates currency and to a certain degree transportation (military?), and there are other powers united under the EU, as well. What "is" the United Nations?
It seems to me that what a "nation" is, is arbitrarily determined by the papers and wills of the people constituting it. There is no God-given prescription for the powers that ought to be assigned to individuals, states (whatever those are...), "nations", international unions, etc. So what do people mean when they talk about how thus and such is "not the federal government's responsibility"? Perhaps they mean that the United States constitution reserves thus and such a power for the states. If this is the case, then so what? We can amend that bad boy! We shouldn't be after the answer to the question "what would the founding fathers do?".
What we should be after is the answer to questions like, "at what level of governmental jurisdiction can we get thus and such done most efficiently, with the best results, in the way that protects the most individual rights possible?".
And when it comes to healthcare in today's America, I here contend that the federal government seems the most fit to accomplish the ends that we all want. For example, Universal Health Care could,
1. Increase Competitiveness of American Businesses
The thought of having to shoulder the cost of employee healthcare motivates businesses to outsource their workforces to other countries. Paring down the overhead of businesses helps contribute to leaner business models, which will result in businesses competing more and more on the quality of their products and their prices. This will help companies to compete with each other inside the US, as well as with those outside the US that already do not have to shoulder the added overhead that employee healthcare brings.
2. Increase Health of American Workers and Citizens
When people are left uncovered by healthcare, they get sick. Sick people spread germs and thereby infringe on the health of others. Healthy people are more fit to get jobs and contribute to our economy. Whether we like it or not, our health is symbiotic. Let's democratically agree to take care of everybody and thereby protect ourselves. Let's enable ourselves to get preventative care, and thereby stay healthy more often, keeping ourselves in school and at work more often.
3. Balance the Use of Healthcare
Knowing I can get healthcare at any time might help me to relax and go in when I need to (and only when I need to). This would be better than never going to the doctor in order to avoid co-payments, or going all the time to try and get my money's worth from an expensive plan, or from a nice plan that my company pays for, which I know I will only have temporarily.
4. Keep Track of Medical History Records Across the Board
A nationwide healthcare system would allow us to centralize the database of medical records, cutting the volume of paperwork involved in changing doctors or getting help from specialists. Not to mention the fact that this would help us keep track of such information in the first place, so that doctors can have access to important information about you wherever you become sick or injured, or whether you go to a specialist you don't normally visit.
5. Mitigate Fraud
Centralizing our resources, including the database of medical records, could simplify a lot of processes and enable fraudulent cases to be systemically flagged immediately. People we agree ought not be part of the system, such as individuals present in our country by means forbidden by our laws, could be easily flagged when they turn up in emergency rooms. The level of care we give such individuals, and the protocol guiding how we handle such situations, could be topics of discussion.
6. Decrease Costs
Peoples who have decided to socialize their healthcare systems have wound up saving money because of the ability to cut overheads, centralize resources, provide preventative care, and... I could easily go on.
7. Increase the Freedom of Doctor's Treatment Plans
Insurance companies, being motivated by profit, impose severe restrictions on treatment plans. Giving doctors the freedom to be flexible with patient treatment plans would ignite innovation, motivate preventative measures, and increase the overall health of the country.
8. Mitigate the Various Ill Effects of Profit-Driven Medical Practices
The most profitable practices are not always the best ones. The free market has made it more profitable to create new, questionable drugs than to make continued use of trusted, generic drugs. Profit-hungry pharmaceutical companies bribe doctors to push their drugs rather than the best drugs for the job. Flashy marketing obfuscates drug-related information before it reaches the public eye, contributing to image-influenced decision-making, rather than information-driven decision-making.
Drug patent laws often mean that the best drugs are too expensive for the people who could benefit the most from them. Socializing health care would encourage medical professionals and researchers to share information in the name of social progress, rather than guard the findings of their research in order to profit from them.
The lobbying power of the insurance companies would be eradicated, freeing our politicians from the yoke of the obligations foisted on them by huge, profit-driven voting blocks. These same voters would naturally reorganize themselves into the categories that other citizens naturally fit into.
The giant bureaucracies housed by the insurance companies would be eradicated, reducing the number of workers whose jobs are spent administrating rather than generating.
I could easily go on.
9. Increase the Vocational Freedom of Individuals & Motivate Entrepreneurism
Socializing health care would contribute to the freedom of individuals to pursue careers they are passionate about, rather than those that happen to provide health care. For example, rather than feeling strapped for health care and therefore motivated to take a job as an employee at somewhere like Starbucks, individuals would be that much more motivated to start businesses of their own or pursue those jobs that don't always provide health care, increasing vocational freedom and entrepreneurism. This will be especially true for those with chronically, or terminally, ill family members. Such individuals will be free from feeling driven to find the job with the best health care.
10. Improve Responses to Regional Outbreaks, Natural Disasters, Rare Illnesses, and New Illnesses
Socialized health care would provide an ideal platform for coordinating the skills of various medical professionals with the medical needs of entire communities impacted by regional outbreaks or disasters. Those with rare diseases could be much more readily paired with the professionals whose specialty is well-suited to the problem. Medical information could be broadcast or spread by other means to those areas for which it is most relevant at a given time. Medical mentors and coaches could be utilized to promote general health practices and mitigate harmful ones. The livelihood of medical professionals wouldn't be tied to a specific set of patients, or to a geographic region, giving them the freedom to go where their skill is needed most.
• Socializing healthcare doesn't mean that the private sector is forbidden to attempt to produce superior plans (think of private schools).
Universal Health Care could be done poorly. And depending on who gets elected and what follows, that may end up happening in America. But, it doesn't have to be that way, and Sweden is living proof of that fact. Democratic forces could hold politicians accountable, and we could all rally with talented leaders, who could devise and implement a plan that works.
We have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, so let's agree to use this resource to accomplish something beautiful.
See also:
• John R. Battista, M.D. and Justine McCabe, Ph.D. "The Case for Universal Health Care"
• Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, "Hidden Costs, Value Lost"
I have no problem with a socialized health care system, so long as….
ReplyDelete-It’s more efficient than a privatized one.
-I don’t end up paying more for health care than I do now.
-It’s recognized by all parties that there is no such thing as a natural right to health care.*
-the establishment of such a system is done democratically
*if interested, I’m willing to argue for this claim.
The only reason why I am agnostic on this issue is because I don’t know enough…
I do have objections, though, too an obligatory universal healthcare system.
Consider Bob and Pong. Bob eats like a pig, smokes, does drugs, and drinks a lot. Pong doesn’t do any of that stuff, and he’s really healthy. Bob’s life long medical expenses reach 5.5 million; Pong’s is 65,000. Assuming Bob’s medical condition was self-inflicted, why should Pong be fiscally obliged to pay for Bob’s treatment?
So maybe there should be an opt-out clause; perhaps we could call it Qualified Universal Healthcare. Every five years the government asks if you want to opt-in or opt-out of their plan. If you choose to opt-out, the government will not cover any of your medical expenses, and hospitals may refuse to treat you in an emergency (you would wear a bracelet that says “opt-outed” or something, much like the “I’m a donor” thing on your driver’s licenses, if you opt-out and have don’t have your own insurance);. In return, of course, is you will be taxed less whatever the average cost of healthcare would be for each citizen who is in the government’s plan.
I’m thinking too, that for those who opt-in: their premiums should increase of decrease relative to the government’s cost of running the plan, and that by opting-in, they agree to be taxed on the basis of the government’s cost for the five year time-period. Taking such measures would always keep the government from spending money it doesn’t have.
The chart you linked to tells us absolutely nothing.
ReplyDeleteThe article that you linked to from the conservative/libertarian obviously does not understand what libertarianism is.
You seem to be under the impression that America's current health care system is a free market. It is not. I am not skeptical about how bad things are here, I accept that they are bad, but again, that is because it is not a free market. It is full of government intervention and regulation.
A centralized military is not run best by the federal government and coinage is ABSOLUTELY NOT run best by a federal government.
If you want to protect the most individual rights possible, then obey the constitution. If you don't care about rights, follow Europe's example.
1. Increase Competitiveness of American Businesses
If you really want American Businesses to be more competitive, get the government out of the market place.
Here is an excerpt from John Robbins' "Ethics and Economics of Healthcare" which I highly recommend:
"Employer-provided health insurance emerged during the 1940s. The price and wage controls illegally imposed during World War II, plus an illegal military conscription, brought about a shortage of civilian labor. Employers were forbidden from increasing salaries to attract workers. In 1942 the War Labor Board decided that fringe benefits up to five percent of wages would be permitted. Employers began to offer health benefits as a way of providing additional compensation and attracting needed workers. Enrollment in group hospital plans grew from less than 7 to about 26 million subscribers from 1942 to 1945."
http://www.bmei.org/jbem/volume8/num2/robbins_the_ethics_and_economics_of_health_care.php
2. Increase Health of American Workers and Citizens
"When people are left uncovered by healthcare, they get sick"
What a fallacy. Are you suggesting that the cure to the common cold is government provided healthcare?
Everyone knows that being sick is not good, that's why everyone avoids it. We don't need to raise Stalin from the dead in order to make a "democratic" decision for the people to avoid getting sick.
3. Balance the Use of Healthcare
Will people drive less if gas is free? (No, in case you were wondering)
4. Keep Track of Medical History Records Across the Board
"Ver are yer papers!" I don't want a government file on my entire life. If people don't like the amount of paperwork they have to go through to change a doctor, then the market will provide a solution. Businesses will offer ways of reducing paperwork in order to attract more customers. I don't understand how an entreprenuer like yourself doesn't see this. If the market is unable to reduce the paperwork, I can guarantee you it is because of some kind of government regulation determining what they have to do with the paperwork.
5. Mitigate Fraud
Government is the biggest fraud out there. So now you are suggesting that we have universal health care, but that the government should hand select people to be excluded? Since private practices will no longer exist, these people will not be able to get healthcare anywhere in the country. Sounds a little totalitarian to me.
"People we agree ought not be part of the system"
You said you're not a commie, but I don't buy it.
If an individual doctor (like Dr. Ron Paul) wanted to provide medical services to someone here illegally, that is their decision. The problem is when the government pays the bill. The solution, then, is not more totalitarian regulation, but less. Get the government out of health care.
"The level of care we give such individuals, and the protocol guiding how we handle such situations, could be topics of discussion."
Notice your progress use of "we".
6. Decrease Costs
So private businesses are too stupid to figure out how to reduce costs?
7. Increase the Freedom of Doctor's Treatment Plans
Hahahahahaha, you just said increase freedom. I thought we were talking about the government here. Are you suggesting there is something wrong with the profit motive? If people don't like the way their insurer handles things, they can shop elsewhere. Again, the problem is government's intervention in the system. Medicare and Medicaid tie doctor's hands more than anything else.
8. Mitigate the Various Ill Effects of Profit-Driven Medical Practices
Yup, I guess you are. I suppose we should have Federal Grocers, Federal Car Lots (cause used car dealers are sketchy), Federal Abercrombies, Federal Apple (can we really trust Steve Jobs to do what's best for America?), Federal Web Designers, Federal Movies too.
If doctors are prescribing drugs that do not help their patients, their patients will cease being their patients. Again, look to where the government is involved. The AMA strictly limits the supply of doctors in this country by using the force of the government, thus reducing alternatives/competition.
The reason drugs are expensive is because of the FDA, get them out of it.
"Socializing health care would encourage medical professionals and researchers to share information in the name of social progress"
All hail social progress! I'm pretty sure Hitler used that one.
"The lobbying power of the insurance companies would be eradicated, freeing our politicians from the yoke of the obligations foisted on them by huge, profit-driven voting blocks."
Are you seriously try to say that the politicans are the victims here?
"The giant bureaucracies housed by the insurance companies would be eradicated, reducing the number of workers whose jobs are spent administrating rather than generating."
Or you could vote for Ron Paul and have him abolish all their agencies.
9. Increase the Vocational Freedom of Individuals & Motivate Entrepreneurism
Socializing anything does not increase individual freedom, it decreases it. Socialism means giving government more control over an individual's life. Freedom means the absence of coercive force (government) in an individual's life.
We could also make people more "free" by providing everyone with their food and housing, that way they wouldn't have to work at all and they could really pursue their passion, whether it be frisbee, or golf, or kayaking.
10. Improve Responses to Regional Outbreaks, Natural Disasters, Rare Illnesses, and New Illnesses
There is nothing prohibiting people from working together in the free market.
"Socializing healthcare doesn't mean that the private sector is forbidden to attempt to produce superior plans (think of private schools)."
Yes, it does. I am thinking of schools and how public education destroyed private schools. I want them out of that too.
"And depending on who gets elected and what follows"
That's what they said about Lenin, and then about Stalin.
"Democratic forces could hold politicians accountable"
Yeah, cause that's worked so far.
"We have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, so let's agree to use this resource to accomplish something beautiful."
If you're going to use the language of the founding fathers, use all of it.
"Free government is founded on jealousy, not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind those we are obliged to trust with power. In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
-TJ
-----
Here are some other sources to consider:
***The Ethics and Economics of Health Care"***
http://www.bmei.org/jbem/volume8/num2/robbins_the_ethics_and_economics_of_health_care.php
(if you read only one, read this one)
Free Market Cure (documentary)
http://www.freemarketcure.com
Socialized Health-Care Nightmare
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=3092
Health Care for All!
http://www.mises.org/story/1239
Why is Medical Care so Expensive?
http://www.mises.org/story/2285
Private Enterprise Grants us Life
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=521
Healing America: The Free Market Instead of Government Health Care
http://www.fee.org/publications/notes/notes/healing_america.asp
Socialized Health Care: The Communist Dream and the Soviet Reality
http://www.fee.org/publications/notes/notes/SocializedHealthCare.asp
A Sales Pitch for Laissez-Faire Health Care
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4180
The Immorality of Government-Mandated Health Care
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=3094
Healing America: The Free Market Instead of Government Health Care
http://www.fee.org/publications/notes/notes/healing_america.asp
What Hunger Insurance Could Teach Us About Health Insurance
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=2114
National Health Insurance: A Medical Disaster
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=2251
Free-Market Medicine
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4305
Loved to Death: America's Unresolved Health-Care Crisis
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4797
A Model for Medical Tyranny
http://www.fee.org/Publications/the-Freeman/article.asp?aid=4290
The Medical Mess
http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=369&month=16
Let's Not Throw American Medicine into Boston Harbor
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=3437
The Medical Market Place
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=6511
Free Market Medicine (written by Ron Paul)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul175.html
Socialized Medicine in America
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=458
Make sure you understand the role that the AMA plays in raising costs as well
100 Years of Medical Robbery
http://www.mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1547
Real Medical Freedom
http://www.mises.org/story/1588
How Medical Boards Nationalized Health Care
http://www.mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1749
Bring Back the Guild System?
http://www.mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1252
_____
"The Sweden Myth"
http://blog.mises.org/archives/005436.asp
BTW, I highly recommend reading Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" its a classic.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.fee.org/library/books/economics.asp#p_two
sorry if my tone's a little harsh. i get worked up about it.
ReplyDeleteLouis,
ReplyDeletethough I don't agree with everything you said: this is a fantastic blog.
Derek,
Why is it necessary that everyone agree that it's not a natural right? If a plan that satisfied your other requirements was found, but one side based it on the idea that health care IS a basic right, would you then oppose it based on that?
Brandon,
If your point was to prove that you're a pompous ass, then congratulations! Mission Accomplished!
oh, sorry, I get a little worked-up sometimes.
ReplyDelete"The Constellation Hypothesis: ...I hope you have a good imagination"
ReplyDeleteIf by imagination you mean "vagueness" and "obfuscation".
Corie, you quoted "The Constellation Hypothesis: ...I hope you have a good imagination" and then said "If by imagination you mean "vagueness" and "obfuscation"."
ReplyDeleteThis renders the sentence: "The Constellation Hypothesis: ...I hope you have a good vagueness and obfuscation".
I don't get it.
Lindsey, thanks.
ReplyDeleteDerek, thanks for the post.
Brandon, thank you for providing your thoughts, and links to all those resources. I have been working through some of these articles. I will give your arguments a charitable consideration and a respectful reply.
Lindsey asked me:
ReplyDelete”Why is it necessary that everyone agree that it's not a natural right? If a plan that satisfied your other requirements was found, but one side based it on the idea that health care IS a basic right, would you then oppose it based on that?.”
When the “Founding Fathers” paraphrased Locke in penning “all men have been endowed from their Creator certain unalienable rights, and these rights are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness”, they were saying the primary purpose of government is to protect such rights in the specific civil sense; that is, they thought that government should protect each person from infringing upon the others' rights, and vice versa. There are two ways someone can be unhealthy: either by one’s own self-destructive behavior, or by an “act of God,” which is legal term for nature getting in our way (be it a “natural” disaster or a disease). But neither of these two things is within the scope of civil society, and therefore there’s no such thing as a natural right to health care.
Since there is no natural right to health care, I think it would be an injustice and abuse of the nature and purpose of government to make health care a compulsory function of itself. If there is no natural right to health care, there should never be an amendment to the Constitution that protects our health, or entitles others to provide us with health care.
If there was a plan that met my requirements but somehow it necessitated a Constitutional amendment to entitle everyone to it, I would find myself unable to either to support or reject the plan (yes, unlike most people, I think a government will only be fruitful if the populous not only benefits from it, but also if the government in question is supported by well thought-out and justified principles.)
Since health care is not a natural right, whether we will have government-sponsored health care or not is a purely democratic issue. That is, whether or not we have a government backed health care system should be like the question whether or not the government should build roads or not, and not whether its okay for businesses to racially discriminate. We don’t have a natural right to having roadways, but we do have a natural right not to be discriminated against based on our skin pigment. The former is a purely democratic issue because it’s not an issue over our natural rights, while the latter does concern the protections of our natural rights, and no democratic vote should be able to make discrimination on the base of race legal….
Another argument that health care is not a natural right.
(1) All who benefit from the labor of another ought to be proportionally compensated, unless the benefactor waives her right to compensation.
(2) Those who provide medical services are laboring.
(3) Therefore, those who provide medical services must be compensated, unless the provider waives compensation.
(4) No person is entitled to the labor of another.
(5) Every natural right is an entitlement (an obligatory act needing no monetary compensation) between two persons.
(6) By (2) (that those who provide medical services are laboring), (4) (No person is entitled to the labor of another), and (5) (every natural right is an entitlement between two persons), it follows that no person has the right to health care.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI was quoting your blog title and a line from Jon's most recent blog entry. Duh. Good to see you read Jon's blog.
ReplyDeleteDerek, you may find the distinction between negative rights and positive "rights" helpful.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
Thanks Brandon, for this. I suppose my view is this. All natural rights are negative rights: I think everyone has a right to not let another violate their freedom, and I think government’s primary function is the protection of such rights. And further, once we discover what negative rights there in fact is, no democratic vote should alter the protection of said rights.
ReplyDeletePositive rights are basically those rights which entitle one to goods or services. Some might argue that a starving person has the right steal food, and so on. I deny that such rights are natural rights, and this is because supposed positive rights end up violating negative rights, rendering said positive rights non-existent. For instance, in the case of the supposed right to steal food if one is starving, the act of stealing in effect would be violating the negative rights of the person to whom the starving person stole from, for it’s obviously the case that all men have the right not to have their deserved property stolen from them. So positive rights always, at least in some degree, end up violating another’s negative rights.
I’m not opposed, though, to the recognition of positive rights, so long as recognition of such rights is instituted democratically. For instance, every man has the right to not have their property stolen from them, but in this society we have voted in favor of the government building roadways for us. So the government can take our money and build roads for us only because we have agreed to give up a negative right for a positive right. I'm fine with this, but it should always be noticed that any such positive rights are only recognized by the will of the people.
Hi Derek,
ReplyDeleteYou say "government’s primary function is the protection of (negative) rights".
What reasons can you offer me to agree with this claim?
Thanks.
Derek,
ReplyDeleteI understand what you are saying, but you seem to have contradicted yourself.
"positive rights end up violating negative rights"
"no democratic vote should alter the protection of said rights."
"I’m not opposed, though, to the recognition of positive rights, so long as recognition of such rights is instituted democratically."
It certainly presents a problem with natural law. If these rights are "endowed by a Creator" and are "inalienable" then a majority of "the people" voting have no authority to violate those rights in the name of a higher good.
Personally, I don't think government should be in the road building business and I think we would be much better off without them involved.
Louis,
ReplyDelete"Thou shalt not steal" is a good foundation for the protection of property (a fundamental negative right).
Brandon,
ReplyDelete""Thou shalt not steal" is a good foundation for the protection of property (a fundamental negative right)."
I am not sure what this is in reference to.
Brandon pointed out the following contradiction in my view:
ReplyDelete"positive rights end up violating negative rights"
"no democratic vote should alter the protection of said rights."
"I’m not opposed, though, to the recognition of positive rights, so long as recognition of such rights is instituted democratically."
You are correct, the first and second proposition contradict the third. But thankfully, it’s because I wasn’t being clear. The view I am attempting to advocate is the following.
All natural rights are negative rights.
Negative rights are obligations all men have to one another: not to steal each other’s stuff, not to kill, not to be refused service because of skin pigment, etc. The salient feature about negative rights is that they all obligatory and they don’t require any goods or services. My right not to have my car stolen by you demands a certain kind of behavior from you (that you don’t steal my car), but my right to not have my car stolen by you doesn’t cost you a thing.
In contrast, all positive rights lay claim to someone else’s service or property. Examples of supposed positive rights: the right of a starving person to steal my food, the right to medical attention without compensating the provider, the right to be educated. I deny that all these things are actually natural rights, because all of them are parasitic on negative rights. The right to steal food if starving violates my negative right to my property, etc.
Now, do I have a negative right to civil self-sacrifice? Suppose my friend Bob, who has earned every dime that has, decides to give me half of his money. Surely since it’s his money, Bob can do what he wishes with it, and therefore he has the right to give me half my money. Now just abstract this on to a societal scale: suppose everyone in nation A decides they would like to give 5% of their income to nation B; and assume further we know that all citizens in nation A voted unanimously for this. If the government of nation A were to facilitate the transaction of 5% of its nation’s income, would the government be infringing upon their citizen’s rights? Obviously not. And so, it seems to me, that if a society democratically decides to sacrifice some its entitlements, they have the right to do so. This is how the establishment of positive right is (at the very least) conceptually coherent.
It’s a sticky subject though: what if the only 95% of Nation A votes in favor of the donation, or only 75%, or just 50.01%? This is where I think there should be opt-in clauses. If only 75% of the populous votes “yes” for the donation, then only they will be the ones donating 5% of their income, and not the 25% who voted “no.” And this is because the 25% of them have the right not to send their money if they don’t want to.
Another qualification, too: people have the negative right (they are entitled) to sacrifice their own services, production, or goods for the sake of others, but people never have the right to take away the negative rights of others. So, again, people are able to give money as a community to build roads, but they cannot decide not to allow black people access to restaurants. So the establishment of a positive right is only possible if the goods, products, or services are coming from themselves, and not at the expense of the unrepresented.
Louis asks:
ReplyDelete“You say "government’s primary function is the protection of (negative) rights".
What reasons can you offer me to agree with this claim?
Thanks.”
Locke’s account of the purpose of government:
123. If man in the state of Nature be so free as has been said, if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest and subject to nobody, why will he part with his freedom, this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of Nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain and constantly exposed to the invasion of others; for all being kings as much as he,
every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very insecure. This makes him willing to quit this condition
which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers; and it is not without reason that he seeks out and is willing to join in society with others who are already united, or have a mind to unite for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name—property.
124. The great and chief end, therefore, of men uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation
of their property; to which in the state of Nature there are many
things wanting.
(Two Treatises of Government, pg 178)
I said the primary purpose of Government is to protect the negative rights of the people. The establishing of positive rights is secondary, because positive rights are parasitic on the protection of negative rights. In order for there be farmers to provide us with fruit and vegetables, we have to be able to compensate them for their labor, for they are providing us with their product. If they did not have the right to their own property and they were not appropriately compensated for the things that they produce, and further, if the government didn’t protect their goods from theft, the farmers from being murdered, their right to cultivate their land as they wish, then there is no way those farmers could continually produce the goods we enjoy. So if someone asserts that a “starving man has the right to steal food” (a positive right), such a right (if it is one) can only be acquiesced if there is food being produced, and continual food production is only possible if negative rights of the food-producers are being protected. In this sense then, the primary purpose of government the protection of negative rights.
Sorry for not being clear Louis, the property rights comment was in answer to your question to derek regarding the government's function.
ReplyDeleteI highly recommend the book "Freedom and Capitalism: Essays in Christian Economics and Politics" http://www.trinitylectures.org/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=162
Derek,
Thanks for the clarification. Part of what throws me off is that you keep including the "right" not to be discriminated against as a natural or negative right. Its not, its simply another wish (positive right). If I own property, or a service, I have no obligation to render it to anyone that I don't want. To say that I must is to violate my right to my property.
Your analogy about Bob giving you his money is fallacious because all government action is coercion. That is the defining factor of government, it can legally use coercion. It is force. Otherwise its just a private company. To say that the government is just providing a charity service that everyone wants to participate in is incorrect. If everyone wanted to participate, it would be a function of something like Red Cross and would require no use of force.
Your paragraph about opting-in misses the whole point. That's the service that a private company provides. Everyone "opts-in" to an idea or service every time they spend their own money. There is absolutely no reason to involve government.
Oh, and btw, derek, you claim that government owned and constructed roads is not a violation of negative rights because the community wants it. I would like to let you know that I do not want it, and I am being forced to pay for it. Is that a violation of my natural right to property?
ReplyDeleteBrandon protests my including the right not to be discriminated against as a negative right:
ReplyDelete“Thanks for the clarification. Part of what throws me off is that you keep including the "right" not to be discriminated against as a natural or negative right. Its not, its simply another wish (positive right). If I own property, or a service, I have no obligation to render it to anyone that I don't want. To say that I must is to violate my right to my property.”
On my view, you have the right to your own property, and the right to determine if you wish to provide goods and services. Assuming you choose to exercise your right to provide goods and labor, it seems clear to me that your transactions in providing those goods and services must be done with prudence. For instance, you don’t have the right to falsely advertise your product, you don’t have the right to sell damaged goods as if they weren’t, and you cannot act in an arbitrary and irrational manner about whom you will allow to purchase your product, because in doing so you end up violating the negative rights of others. True, without your product there would be no transactions in the first place. But the constraints on your transactions I just mentioned also lay no claim to your property in a way that they you would end up providing property that you’re not getting compensated for. The right not to be discriminated against does not demand any of your labor, and as such is a natural right.
Brandon,
ReplyDeleteThe reason I wasn't certain that you were responding to that question is because "thou shalt not steal" may at best be used to support the claim that there exists of a divine mandate to protect negative rights.
But construed thusly, "thou shalt not steal" still falls significantly short of the evidence required to support the the claim that there is a transcendent necessity for government to only function in protection of negative rights.
And once again, thanks for the reference. Have you read everything you've referenced in full? Do you own any of the books you've referenced on this site? Can I borrow a couple?
Derek,
At first I was underwhelmed by your Locke quote. Since, if he is successful, the most he accomplishes in this passage is the demonstration that man is willing to assemble for the purpose of protecting his negative rights. This fails to show that there is a transcendent purpose to government, such that if I were to convince enough humans to be willing to assemble for other purposes, it would be morally permissible under such a view.
Then I thought that perhaps your view allows for this, so long as the primary purpose of government remains the protection of negative rights.
Anyway, you go on to add a pragmatic argument for the protection of negative rights.
Derek under your view, is there any God-breathed reason for using government primarily for the protection of negative rights? Does this differ from a God-breathed reason for protecting negative rights in general? Does this view differ from Locke's? Do you still maintain that government may be used for functions other than the protection of negative rights, so long as such functions are agreed upon democratically? Should a government protect the negative rights of those outside its borders? Should it use force to do so? What is your answer to Brandon's argument that even democratically established positive "rights" violate the negative rights of those who fail to support such policies?
Derek, you are referring to contractual obligations, not rights when you talk about falsely advertising, etc. I can advertise my products however I want, but if it misleads someone who purchases a product from me, and deceives them, then I have violated my contract with them. Honoring contracts is a legitimate role of the government.
ReplyDeleteAnd I can absolutely act arbitrarily in determining who I want to sell my goods and services to, they are my goods and services. I do not violate anyone's negative rights by refusing to sell them my property, they do not have a claim to my property regardless of what color their skin is or how much money they want to exchange for it. You honestly sound very confused.
The "right not to be discriminated against" does force me to provide for someone else, that is the whole point. It forces someone to sell their goods and services to someone they do not want to. It forces them to do so.
For those just joining this conversation from the web, the thread is continued here, and you can always find the latest healthcare posts here.
ReplyDelete