90% of all health care cost in US due to preventable illnesses

[GenSeneca]

How about this scenario: My town wants a new park, so the city votes for a sales tax to pay for it. Since the tax is voluntary, I decide not to pay it, but I still go to the park every Saturday for my town league softball game.

Who is not paying their way? How is that moral?

You aren't answering my questions... Instead you're trying to equivocate again by intentionally ignoring what the redistribution of wealth actually is and instead substituting other, less controversial, public expenditures funded by taxation. If you really want to use your scenario of using taxation to build a park, we have to alter it a bit to reflect how the redistribution of wealth actually works:

You want your own private park but you can't afford it. You talk the city council into levying a tax on all your neighbors, while exempting yourself from the tax, and then use the money, collected by force, to purchase some land and build your very own private park. A park which all of your neighbors paid for but none of whom are ever allowed to enter.

It's that concept of forcibly spreading the costs out among many people in the form of taxation but focusing all the revenue to one specific person that you're refusing to deal with... Probably because you realize such actions are immoral and you cannot defend them as being anything else.

Now, once again, lets substitute "your own private park" with "your own personal healthcare", or any other "need" that you wish. Altering the "need" doesn't change the immorality of the action.

 

[PLC1]

You aren't answering my questions... Instead you're trying to equivocate again by intentionally ignoring what the redistribution of wealth actually is and instead substituting other, less controversial, public expenditures funded by taxation. If you really want to use your scenario of using taxation to build a park, we have to alter it a bit to reflect how the redistribution of wealth actually works:

You want your own private park but you can't afford it. You talk the city council into levying a tax on all your neighbors, while exempting yourself from the tax, and then use the money, collected by force, to purchase some land and build your very own private park. A park which all of your neighbors paid for but none of whom are ever allowed to enter.

It's that concept of forcibly spreading the costs out among many people in the form of taxation but focusing all the revenue to one specific person that you're refusing to deal with... Probably because you realize such actions are immoral and you cannot defend them as being anything else.

Now, once again, lets substitute "your own private park" with "your own personal healthcare", or any other "need" that you wish. Altering the "need" doesn't change the immorality of the action.

Redistribution of wealth by force is wrong. I don't think I've ever argued otherwise.

But, some things need to be paid for collectively simply because it is much more efficient to do so. Let's take your example of health care. You seem to be calling a plan in which my heart attack, accident, or whatever is paid for by someone else as a redistribution of wealth. I can see where you're coming from, but I still think you're wrong.

If I'm a part of an insurance plan, then my health care is still paid for by others who had the good fortune not to get sick. If we're talking about home insurance, then my fire is paid for by others whose houses didn't burn. My wrecked car is paid for by others who saw the drunk coming, or perhaps weren't on the road at the wrong time.

While not everyone needs home or car insurance, everyone does need health insurance. If they don't have it, then what winds up happening is that the rest of us get stuck with the bill. How is that not wealth redistribution? The practical solution is for everyone to be in the insurance pool, everyone pays for it, and, when it is needed, everyone has access to it.

 

[GenSeneca]

Redistribution of wealth by force is wrong. I don't think I've ever argued otherwise.

You just did:

But, some things need to be paid for collectively simply because it is much more efficient to do so. Let's take your example of health care. You seem to be calling a plan in which my heart attack, accident, or whatever is paid for by someone else as a redistribution of wealth. I can see where you're coming from, but I still think you're wrong.

If I'm a part of an insurance plan, then my health care is still paid for by others who had the good fortune not to get sick. If we're talking about home insurance, then my fire is paid for by others whose houses didn't burn. My wrecked car is paid for by others who saw the drunk coming, or perhaps weren't on the road at the wrong time.

While not everyone needs home or car insurance, everyone does need health insurance. If they don't have it, then what winds up happening is that the rest of us get stuck with the bill. How is that not wealth redistribution? The practical solution is for everyone to be in the insurance pool, everyone pays for it, and, when it is needed, everyone has access to it.

You ARE arguing for the forced redistribution of wealth. If I voluntarily choose to purchase insurance (health, car, home etc.), I'm choosing from between a myriad of privately owned companies who are all competing for my business. I'm choosing, of my own free will, to participate in the collective risk-pool arrangement offered by the company(ies) and I'm free to opt out of that arrangement at any time and for any reason. If I choose to have no coverage, the consequences are on me.

Medicare "for all" abolishes all that freedom and eliminates the consequences that go along with making bad decisions. Government takes my money by force to fund that program whether I choose to have Medicare coverage or that of a private insurer. If I choose to go with a private insurer, I'm paying my own insurance costs and the costs of others because my tax dollars are still being forcibly extracted and sent to fund Medicare - I'd essentially be paying twice for the same service. Being forced to have one or the other eliminates the voluntary nature of insurance, I'm now forced to have it and can never opt out, not at any time and not for any reason.

And your quip about how someone who doesn't pay for insurance sticks the rest of us with the bill when they need HC is accurate but you, apparently, think that's the way it should be. Are you willing to end the immoral government policies that FORCE other people to cover the cost of that person's HC? No, you are not, and you cannot defend your support for such immoral government policies on moral grounds because you know it's not moral to use force against one person for the exclusive benefit of another person.

Instead you're trying to argue in favor of forced wealth redistribution on the grounds that it's utilitarian, that it's somehow more efficient to simply take money from some people based on their ability to pay and redistribute their wealth to others based on need - From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. What you're arguing in favor of doing is exactly what Marx was proposing despite the fact that his ideas have a 100 year track record of failure, you eventually run out of other people's money.

 

[Dr.Who]

Well, you know, that is how churches are funded. No one has to donate to a church, after all. It might even work for a new park, perhaps. Should we try to fund the military the same way?

I would not be opposed to attempting to fund all of gov in this manner. then and only then, if important programs are not funded the gov could move to a less voluntary means of collecting revenue. There could be a continuum of taxation from most voluntary to least voluntary and each one could be tried prior to attempting a more coercive method. In a society that values freedom that would only be natural.

 

[Dr.Who]

Redistribution of wealth by force is wrong. I don't think I've ever argued otherwise.

But, some things need to be paid for collectively simply because it is much more efficient to do so. Let's take your example of health care. You seem to be calling a plan in which my heart attack, accident, or whatever is paid for by someone else as a redistribution of wealth. I can see where you're coming from, but I still think you're wrong.

If I'm a part of an insurance plan, then my health care is still paid for by others who had the good fortune not to get sick. If we're talking about home insurance, then my fire is paid for by others whose houses didn't burn. My wrecked car is paid for by others who saw the drunk coming, or perhaps weren't on the road at the wrong time.

While not everyone needs home or car insurance, everyone does need health insurance. If they don't have it, then what winds up happening is that the rest of us get stuck with the bill. How is that not wealth redistribution? The practical solution is for everyone to be in the insurance pool, everyone pays for it, and, when it is needed, everyone has access to it.

Just so we are clear that being a part of a voluntary pool is not at all the same as collectivism. One is a necessary inconvenience and the other is a necessary evil that should be approached only with some pretty major safeguards.

 

[Dr.Who]

Redistribution of wealth by force is wrong. I don't think I've ever argued otherwise.

But, some things need to be paid for collectively simply because it is much more efficient to do so.

I just finished saying that the necessary evil of taxation should only be approached with pretty major safeguards. One of those would be that the thing being funded should be vital enough that it warrants taking grandmas house away from her or imprisoning Joe if need be. Efficiency is not a good enough reason. A necessary /just war in which the survival of the nation is more than a need for efficiency - if the war is lost granny may lose her home and Joe may be in prison anyway.

 

[Dr.Who]

Instead you're trying to argue in favor of forced wealth redistribution on the grounds that it's utilitarian, that it's somehow more efficient to simply take money from some people based on their ability to pay and redistribute their wealth to others based on need - From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

It never occurred to me that that quote is entirely utilitarian. It helps to have a framework upon which to analyze things.

 

[PLC1]

So, we seem to be faced with a choice of "forced wealth redistribution" through requiring everyone to have health insurance, or the same through forcing the rest of us to pay for those who choose to be uninsured.

Or, we could simply allow the uninsured to live with the consequences of their choice, but, so far, society doesn't seem willing to do so.

As long as people without insurance are allowed to stick the care provider with the bill, which we all know means sticking the rest of us with it, then there is no difference between requiring everyone with a car to have auto insurance and requiring everyone with a body to have health insurance.

 

[GenSeneca]

Or, we could simply allow the uninsured to live with the consequences of their choice

That is the only moral solution.

but, so far, society doesn't seem willing to do so.

Again, you're not addressing the morality of the action. You cannot defend it as being moral to take something from one person, by force, in order to give it to another yet you support the action.

Without morality on your side, you tried to use an utilitarian argument, failed, and now you've moved onto claiming that we should continue to use policies you know are immoral because that's what "society" wants... That is the quintessential argument for all Collectivist policies, you're trying to assert that a group of individuals has some special "rights" that no single individual member of the group has on his own. Such arguments are meant to destroy individual rights and invert morality.

I'd like Big Rob (evil 1%-er that he is) to pay for my healthcare insurance. Rob doesn't want to pay for my HC insurance. As an individual, I have no Right to force him to pay my HC insurance. Simply stated, I have no right to the products of his labor and he has no right to the products of mine.

If I did force Rob to pay for my HC insurance, by threatening his life, liberty, or property, you'd recognize my action as being immoral and probably have no problem denouncing it as such. However, something magical happens when I get all my neighbors together and, as a "society", we pass a law that forces Rob to pay for my HC insurance, under threat to his life, liberty, or property. We have now made it illegal for Rob to refuse letting us violate his rights. Through some form of mental-moral gymnastics, because it was done by a collective, you suddenly consider the action to be moral, or at the very least you ignore the fact that it is immoral.

Just as the "need" can change without altering the immorality of the action, the number of individuals involved on any side of the equation can also change, it does not change the immorality of the action: The redistribution of wealth is always immoral.

 

[PLC1]

That is the only moral solution.

Again, you're not addressing the morality of the action. You cannot defend it as being moral to take something from one person, by force, in order to give it to another yet you support the action.

Without morality on your side, you tried to use an utilitarian argument, failed, and now you've moved onto claiming that we should continue to use policies you know are immoral because that's what "society" wants... That is the quintessential argument for all Collectivist policies, you're trying to assert that a group of individuals has some special "rights" that no single individual member of the group has on his own. Such arguments are meant to destroy individual rights and invert morality.

I'd like Big Rob (evil 1%-er that he is) to pay for my healthcare insurance. Rob doesn't want to pay for my HC insurance. As an individual, I have no Right to force him to pay my HC insurance. Simply stated, I have no right to the products of his labor and he has no right to the products of mine.

If I did force Rob to pay for my HC insurance, by threatening his life, liberty, or property, you'd recognize my action as being immoral and probably have no problem denouncing it as such. However, something magical happens when I get all my neighbors together and, as a "society", we pass a law that forces Rob to pay for my HC insurance, under threat to his life, liberty, or property. We have now made it illegal for Rob to refuse letting us violate his rights. Through some form of mental-moral gymnastics, because it was done by a collective, you suddenly consider the action to be moral, or at the very least you ignore the fact that it is immoral.

Just as the "need" can change without altering the immorality of the action, the number of individuals involved on any side of the equation can also change, it does not change the immorality of the action: The redistribution of wealth is always immoral.

Sorry, but just allowing people to die of curable illnesses or injuries is not "moral." It may be defensible on the basis of continued improvement of the species by natural selection, it may be defensible using the argument that it requires that someone else pay the bill, but it is not defensible on moral grounds.

And, back to the "utilitarian", i.e., real world practicality issue, it is still cheaper to have everyone in the same pool, covered by the same insurance, than it is to have a zillion different payers, each with its own set of rules as we do now.

Using your line of reasoning, the moral thing to do would, instead of paying taxes that in turn pay for fire protection, allow homeowners to either pay a fee to pay for the fire house, or opt out. If they opted out, then their house would simply be allowed to burn. It is not "moral", according to your reasoning, to force me to pay for the firemen to come to your house.

 

[Gipper]

That is the only moral solution.

Again, you're not addressing the morality of the action. You cannot defend it as being moral to take something from one person, by force, in order to give it to another yet you support the action.

Without morality on your side, you tried to use an utilitarian argument, failed, and now you've moved onto claiming that we should continue to use policies you know are immoral because that's what "society" wants... That is the quintessential argument for all Collectivist policies, you're trying to assert that a group of individuals has some special "rights" that no single individual member of the group has on his own. Such arguments are meant to destroy individual rights and invert morality.

I'd like Big Rob (evil 1%-er that he is) to pay for my healthcare insurance. Rob doesn't want to pay for my HC insurance. As an individual, I have no Right to force him to pay my HC insurance. Simply stated, I have no right to the products of his labor and he has no right to the products of mine.

If I did force Rob to pay for my HC insurance, by threatening his life, liberty, or property, you'd recognize my action as being immoral and probably have no problem denouncing it as such. However, something magical happens when I get all my neighbors together and, as a "society", we pass a law that forces Rob to pay for my HC insurance, under threat to his life, liberty, or property. We have now made it illegal for Rob to refuse letting us violate his rights. Through some form of mental-moral gymnastics, because it was done by a collective, you suddenly consider the action to be moral, or at the very least you ignore the fact that it is immoral.

Just as the "need" can change without altering the immorality of the action, the number of individuals involved on any side of the equation can also change, it does not change the immorality of the action: The redistribution of wealth is always immoral.

To summarize, Socialism is not only immoral, but also ineffective and unsustainable. The wealthy who currently are stuck paying for all this socialist shit, will not continue doing so as the bill continues to rise. They have options. One of which is leaving the country and renouncing their citizenship. If enough of them immigrated elsewhere, the whole system will crash and burn a lot sooner.

I wonder if other nations around the world are courting wealthy Americans to immigrate. It would seem like a very smart thing to do.

 

[GenSeneca]

Sorry, but just allowing people to die of curable illnesses or injuries is not "moral."

​

False dilemma fallacy: a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. The options may be a position that is between the two extremes (such as when there are shades of grey) or may be a completely different alternative.​

Your premise is that there are just two options: A, people are refused treatment or B, we force others to pay for their treatment.

It's already been pointed out that free clinics exist, doctors do pro bono work and there are charitable funds that exist to address the issue as well. All of those are voluntary exchanges and do not require the use of force to reach the desired outcome - i.e. people who can't afford it still get medical assistance.

If you feel it's immoral to deny people medical treatment because they can't afford it, you are free to voluntarily contribute money to whatever clinics or charities exist to cover the costs. However, you do not have the Right to violate the rights of someone else by forcing them to contribute to a cause that you believe is moral.

And, back to the "utilitarian", i.e., real world practicality issue, it is still cheaper to have everyone in the same pool, covered by the same insurance, than it is to have a zillion different payers, each with its own set of rules as we do now.

Cheaper for whom? Here's a "real world" example from my life: My full time job offers HCI, it's a group policy for all the company's full time employees. My employer covered 30% of the cost leaving me with a monthly premium of $180, that policy was costing roughly $255 a month. With the exact same HDHC policy but as an individual, rather than part of the group, and from the exact same insurance company, my monthly premiums are $96 a month.

The extra money I was paying on the group plan was to subsidize the HC coverage of people who were older and in poorer health than myself. The healthy people in the group pay more than they have to in order for the less healthy people of the group to pay less than what they should.

Broken window fallacy – an argument which disregards lost opportunity costs associated with destroying property of others, or other ways of externalizing costs onto others.​

So when you say it's "cheaper" to have everyone in the same pool, that only benefits the people of poorer health and that benefit comes at the expense of those who are in better health. The cost of providing HC to any specific individual doesn't actually change, so you haven't actually reduced the cost of providing HC to anyone. Collectivization doesn't reduce the cost of a single band-aid, much less reduce the cost of purchasing or operating an MRI machine. All you've done is spread out the individual costs among the entire group - making it cheaper for some but more expensive for everyone else.

It is not "moral", according to your reasoning, to force me to pay for the firemen to come to your house.

That's correct. Just as it would not be moral for me to force you to pay to have someone mow my lawn, clean my gutters, build a pool in my backyard, or remodel my home, the ends do not justify the means; it's never moral to use force against others in order to obtain a benefit for yourself or provide a benefit for someone else.

But once again you're trying to equate a contentious expenditure, public HC, with other "public goods" that aren't seen as contentious.

Appeal to ridicule – an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous.​

Your entire argument is grounded in the idea that the ends justifies the means, that it's acceptable to use immoral means to achieve an end that you consider moral. It's only when you do not consider the ends to be moral that you oppose the means by which those ends are achieved. That's why you agree with forcing others to pay for firemen come to my home but you would oppose forcing others to pay for my lawncare or home renovations. Only the ends are different, the immoral means remain the same, and it's the immorality of the means that you're desperately attempting to avoid discussing.

 

[PLC1]

​

False dilemma fallacy: a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. The options may be a position that is between the two extremes (such as when there are shades of grey) or may be a completely different alternative.​

Your premise is that there are just two options: A, people are refused treatment or B, we force others to pay for their treatment.

It's already been pointed out that free clinics exist, doctors do pro bono work and there are charitable funds that exist to address the issue as well. All of those are voluntary exchanges and do not require the use of force to reach the desired outcome - i.e. people who can't afford it still get medical assistance.

If you feel it's immoral to deny people medical treatment because they can't afford it, you are free to voluntarily contribute money to whatever clinics or charities exist to cover the costs. However, you do not have the Right to violate the rights of someone else by forcing them to contribute to a cause that you believe is moral.


Cheaper for whom? Here's a "real world" example from my life: My full time job offers HCI, it's a group policy for all the company's full time employees. My employer covered 30% of the cost leaving me with a monthly premium of $180, that policy was costing roughly $255 a month. With the exact same HDHC policy but as an individual, rather than part of the group, and from the exact same insurance company, my monthly premiums are $96 a month.

The extra money I was paying on the group plan was to subsidize the HC coverage of people who were older and in poorer health than myself. The healthy people in the group pay more than they have to in order for the less healthy people of the group to pay less than what they should.

Broken window fallacy – an argument which disregards lost opportunity costs associated with destroying property of others, or other ways of externalizing costs onto others.​

So when you say it's "cheaper" to have everyone in the same pool, that only benefits the people of poorer health and that benefit comes at the expense of those who are in better health. The cost of providing HC to any specific individual doesn't actually change, so you haven't actually reduced the cost of providing HC to anyone. Collectivization doesn't reduce the cost of a single band-aid, much less reduce the cost of purchasing or operating an MRI machine. All you've done is spread out the individual costs among the entire group - making it cheaper for some but more expensive for everyone else.


That's correct. Just as it would not be moral for me to force you to pay to have someone mow my lawn, clean my gutters, build a pool in my backyard, or remodel my home, the ends do not justify the means; it's never moral to use force against others in order to obtain a benefit for yourself or provide a benefit for someone else.

But once again you're trying to equate a contentious expenditure, public HC, with other "public goods" that aren't seen as contentious.

Appeal to ridicule – an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous.​

Your entire argument is grounded in the idea that the ends justifies the means, that it's acceptable to use immoral means to achieve an end that you consider moral. It's only when you do not consider the ends to be moral that you oppose the means by which those ends are achieved. That's why you agree with forcing others to pay for firemen come to my home but you would oppose forcing others to pay for my lawncare or home renovations. Only the ends are different, the immoral means remain the same, and it's the immorality of the means that you're desperately attempting to avoid discussing.

Cheaper for whom?
Cheaper over all. One day, you will be older, should you not die young, that is, and will find that health care is exorbitantly expensive. That $96 a month is so far from the norm I'd be willing to bet that it covers very little, even for a young healthy person. Even $255 a month is roughly a quarter of what most people pay. We spend over $8,000 per person on health care on average in t his country. That is the cost that must be lowered, as it is bankrupting us.

Sometimes, the end does justify t he means. When ideology clashes with reality, then reality must prevail.

Now, since you seem to believe that paying taxes in order to have fire protection is also "immoral", then your position is perfectly consistent and your argument sound to a degree. In the real world, however, such a system would cause innumerable problems.

If it is immoral to collect taxes in order to pay the cost of maintaining a fire house, is the same true of police protection? If someone is breaking into your house, should the cops check to see if you've paid your police bill before coming to arrest the bad guys?

Or is that somehow different?

Or, here's another broad question: Is it ever moral, in your estimation, to collect taxes and pay for anything at all collectively?

 

[GenSeneca]

That is the cost that must be lowered, as it is bankrupting us.

I've already addressed that red herring... The cost of providing HC to any specific individual doesn't actually change, so you haven't actually reduced the cost of providing HC to anyone. Collectivization doesn't reduce the cost of a single band-aid, much less reduce the cost of purchasing or operating an MRI machine.

I point to that as a red herring because the ideological claims of utilitarianism are meant to avoid discussing the morality of the action.

Sometimes, the end does justify t he means.

Sadly, I know you believe that... but you need to realize that such a belief is ideological.

When ideology clashes with reality, then reality must prevail.

I agree that immoral ideologies fail when confronted with reality, that's why the current, immoral, ideological solutions are making the problems worse.

Now, since you seem to believe that paying taxes in order to have fire protection is also "immoral", then your position is perfectly consistent and your argument sound to a degree.

Not, "to a degree", my arguments are entirely consistent and logically sound.

In the real world, however, such a system would cause innumerable problems.

Nirvana fallacy – when solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.​

I've never claimed that problems would not exist in a moral system, only that a moral system is preferable to immoral systems that violate our rights as individuals.

Or, here's another broad question: Is it ever moral, in your estimation, to collect taxes and pay for anything at all collectively?

I have already answered that... Yes, when the "tax" is voluntary it is moral. When the "tax" is extracted by force, or by threat of force (coercion), it is immoral.

Extortion: a criminal offense of unlawfully obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion.​

Both extortion and taxation use coercion to obtain a value from an individual, both are immoral uses of force and a violation of individual rights, so the only distinction is legality.

When a street thug threatens your life, liberty, or property unless you pay him money, you recognize his action as being immoral and a violation of your rights. However, when a large enough gang of street thugs come together and pass a law doing the exact same thing, you no longer recognize the action as being immoral or a violation of your rights. Why the inconsistency?

If you recognize that a single individual does not have the right to violate your rights, such as a single street thug, what in your mind leads you to believe that a big enough gang of street thugs, large enough to have a voting or legislative majority, magically acquires a "right" to violate your rights?

 

[PLC1]

I've already addressed that red herring... The cost of providing HC to any specific individual doesn't actually change, so you haven't actually reduced the cost of providing HC to anyone. Collectivization doesn't reduce the cost of a single band-aid, much less reduce the cost of purchasing or operating an MRI machine.

I point to that as a red herring because the ideological claims of utilitarianism are meant to avoid discussing the morality of the action.


Sadly, I know you believe that... but you need to realize that such a belief is ideological.

I agree that immoral ideologies fail when confronted with reality, that's why the current, immoral, ideological solutions are making the problems worse.

Not, "to a degree", my arguments are entirely consistent and logically sound.

Nirvana fallacy – when solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.​

I've never claimed that problems would not exist in a moral system, only that a moral system is preferable to immoral systems that violate our rights as individuals.

I have already answered that... Yes, when the "tax" is voluntary it is moral. When the "tax" is extracted by force, or by threat of force (coercion), it is immoral.

Extortion: a criminal offense of unlawfully obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion.​

Both extortion and taxation use coercion to obtain a value from an individual, both are immoral uses of force and a violation of individual rights, so the only distinction is legality.

When a street thug threatens your life, liberty, or property unless you pay him money, you recognize his action as being immoral and a violation of your rights. However, when a large enough gang of street thugs come together and pass a law doing the exact same thing, you no longer recognize the action as being immoral or a violation of your rights. Why the inconsistency?

If you recognize that a single individual does not have the right to violate your rights, such as a single street thug, what in your mind leads you to believe that a big enough gang of street thugs, large enough to have a voting or legislative majority, magically acquires a "right" to violate your rights?

I believe we've come full circle at this point.

Taxation is not the same as being beset by street thugs. It is a way of paying collectively for that which is a collective benefit. While taxation without representation may be immoral, a representative government with the power of taxation is a necessary evil if we are to have a civilized society.

That is, in a nutshell, the difference in philosophy we have been arguing.