Socialized Medicine - Let's Discuss!

[Archalen]

Yes minimum sustenance and minimum tools for survival (you can decide on what that is) should be provided to a pathological individual who refuses to contribute, on elementary moral grounds. The reality is a phenomenon of "refusing to contribute" is something to be studied as it is a marker of poor mental health. Living on minimum sustenance would be miserable and unfulfilling. Always try to understand before assigning blame.

[fash]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

there are a lot of people who support redistribution on moral grounds, rational grounds or both. How do you get passed those question?

Their ethics are inconsistent if they argue forced redistribution is in some way moral. But you misunderstand what they're doing. They aren't arguing from morality nor are they reasoning. They are using rhetoric. It's a mistake to think you can argue against their rhetoric with logical reasoning. You have to use rhetoric yourself.

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Do you care about humanity as a whole? How do you reconcile the conflicts?

Most people who push the welfare agenda in a state like the US don't care about humanity as a whole. They are ignorant of welfare's effects, want the gibsmedats, or simply spout the my feels rhetoric to virtue signal.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Archalen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yes minimum sustenance and minimum tools for survival (you can decide on what that is) should be provided to a pathological individual who refuses to contribute, on elementary moral grounds. The reality is a phenomenon of "refusing to contribute" is something to be studied as it is a marker of poor mental health. Living on minimum sustenance would be miserable and unfulfilling. Always try to understand before assigning blame.

So you do not see a rational argument for it then? It is an entirely moral argument?

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by fash [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Their ethics are inconsistent if they argue forced redistribution is in some way moral. But you misunderstand what they're doing. They aren't arguing from morality nor are they reasoning. They are using rhetoric. It's a mistake to think you can argue against their rhetoric with logical reasoning. You have to use rhetoric yourself.



Most people who push the welfare agenda in a state like the US don't care about humanity as a whole. They are ignorant of welfare's effects, want the gibsmedats, or simply spout the my feels rhetoric to virtue signal.

I'm not actually looking to win an argument or persuade anyone. I'm trying to learn something. It fascinates me that intelligent people can arrive at radically different conclusions. I accept that my current understandings could always be wrong and that is why I shared these two questions.

For the most part I agree with the assessments in your first post. I don't see the difference between the two behaviors in my second point and I do not see a rational justification with regard to the detriment greater humanity as addressed in my first point.

[Archalen]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So you do not see a rational argument for it then? It is an entirely moral argument?

I think a rational argument would not generalize the questions to a philosophical level (often the more you generalize; the more impossible it becomes to find an answer). A rational discussion in my mind focuses on a cost-benefit analysis of possible solutions within a specific context, like single-payer in the United States. There's an abundance of literature on that specific question so no need to ask it here. If you refer to a logical discussion on a philosophical level them I'm not aware of one, would be happy to learn about it.

[big_ole_jpn]

much like comped tuition, comped healthcare will never be properly administered (ie, to the net benefit of the polity) in a democratic system with women's suffrage where saying no to the undeserving is political suicide.

If you don't want an authoritarian state and you're not stupid enough to believe idiot retards deserve your money for treating their obesity and lung cancer and getting women's studies degrees, suck it up and learn to make money to buy your own services. The system works.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

1. Is it wise to indefinitely care for those who are unable or unwilling to care for themselves? I guess the more basic question here is, "Are all individuals equally beneficial to society?" If not, why is it reasonable to subsidized less desirable outcomes?

Of course all individuals aren't equally beneficial to society, but one of the core principles of our social contract is that we aren't going to kill you or let you die simply because you are injured, weak, or otherwise helpless*

*Ideally

To do otherwise would be anarchy. Our constitution and the political philosophy that underpins it guarantees the same rights to the weak as it does the strong. It's reasonable to take care of the weak because even strong people often experience a period of weakness or vulnerability when they must rely on others, and not letting them die is a net positive for society.

For example, when we enacted Medicare and Social Security in the 1930's, the US decided we would rather not be left to die if we find ourselves elderly and low on resources, sometimes through no fault of our own (A market implosion for example, Great Depression). We figured it was reasonable that we should protect the old, and expect the same protection when we are old. It's still an extremely popular (if mismanaged and poorly executed) idea, and neither party can touch medicare or social security without sinking their career.

Consider the fact that more egalitarian, more collectivist cultures with a strong safety net (Germany, Japan, Denmark, Australia, Netherlands, etc) perform better in nearly every metric for human quality of life than the more individualistic, sink-or-swim United States.

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

2. How is it less selfish to take something for nothing than it is to refuse to give something for nothing?

I don't know if you thought this was a thought provoking question or something, but it's just a ridiculous, simplistic way to try and frame the issue of socialized medicine.

[big_ole_jpn]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Consider the fact that more egalitarian, more collectivist cultures with a strong safety net (lists a bunch of 80-90+% ethnically homogenous countries) perform better in nearly every metric for human quality of life than the more individualistic, sink-or-swim United States.

great argument, see how it works for anything?

[Lune]

Originally Posted by big_ole_jpn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

great argument, see how it works for anything?

Nice attempt at misdirection, but limit the statistics to 80-90% ethnically homogenous US states, or even just American Whites, and we still lag behind.

Temporarily embarrassed millionaires are always so recalcitrant about admitting our more collectivist peers outperform us.

"B-b-b-but we have b-b-black people!"

Yea and their currency isn't the world's reserve currency, providing absolutely massive benefits to economic performance and standard of living.

[big_ole_jpn]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nice attempt at misdirection, but limit the statistics to 80-90% ethnically homogenous US states, or even just American Whites, and we still lag behind.

Temporarily embarrassed millionaires are always so recalcitrant about admitting our more collectivist peers outperform us.

"B-b-b-but we have b-b-black people!"

Yea and their currency isn't the world's reserve currency, providing absolutely massive benefits to economic performance and standard of living.

I wasn't arguing that black people are the issue, I was explaining that you are cherrypicking your pet political position and blaming every nuance of the condition of America on it without controlling for any variables

ie you have not yet made an argument