Socialized Medicine - Let's Discuss!

[Danth]

Just in: A forum full of healthy 20- and 30-year olds, most of whom have never faced serious illness, exhibits little understanding of why socialized health care is beneficial to society as a whole. While unfortunate, it's also typical and fully expected.

Swish and Lune get it. Society shouldn't just toss a person out to the trash heap because he got permanently disabled at work and can't do his job anymore. How this nation treats the sick, elderly, and infirm is outright shameful. Medical bills are one of the leading causes of bankruptcy in the United States even among people with insurance. Many families are one serious or unexpected illness away from financial ruin. The present system we have in this country is hideously broken and in many cases, outright sociopathic. We can do better as a nation. We don't, because healthy people outnumber sick people and everyone's vote counts the same. Sigh.

You want all able-bodied people to work? Problem: The United States already has an oversupply of workers, and that problem will grow worse over time, not better. You think it's bad today, just wait a couple decades when automation starts eliminating truck drivers and warehouse workers and many service jobs. It's coming. What do you do with all these redundant people? Ignore 'em because you don't care if it isn't happening to you? I find that mindset distasteful. You either make work (TVA round two?) or accept that an increasing number of perfectly fit people simply won't be needed as part of a shrinking labor force.

Socialization of some form is the future, like it or not. The real question is whether we choose to maintain ourselves a nation worth living in, or wind up with some form of "Soylent Green" hellscape. Fixing our health care system is one step of many we'll have to take.

As an aside, I opposed the Affordable Care Act, and still do. It's at best a band-aid which fails to address the core problems inherent to our system.

Danth

[big_ole_jpn]

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

Just in: A forum full of healthy 20- and 30-year olds, most of whom have never faced serious illness, exhibits little understanding of why socialized health care is beneficial to society as a whole. While unfortunate, it's also typical and fully expected.

Swish and Lune get it. Society shouldn't just toss a person out to the trash heap because he got permanently disabled at work and can't do his job anymore. How this nation treats the sick, elderly, and infirm is outright shameful. Medical bills are one of the leading causes of bankruptcy in the United States even among people with insurance. Many families are one serious or unexpected illness away from financial ruin. The present system we have in this country is hideously broken and in many cases, outright sociopathic. We can do better as a nation. We don't, because healthy people outnumber sick people and everyone's vote counts the same. Sigh.

You want all able-bodied people to work? Problem: The United States already has an oversupply of workers, and that problem will grow worse over time, not better. You think it's bad today, just wait a couple decades when automation starts eliminating truck drivers and warehouse workers and many service jobs. It's coming. What do you do with all these redundant people? Ignore 'em because you don't care if it isn't happening to you? I find that mindset distasteful. You either make work (TVA round two?) or accept that an increasing number of perfectly fit people simply won't be needed as part of a shrinking labor force.

Socialization of some form is the future, like it or not. The real question is whether we choose to maintain ourselves a nation worth living in, or wind up with some form of "Soylent Green" hellscape. Fixing our health care system is one step of many we'll have to take.

As an aside, I opposed the Affordable Care Act, and still do. It's at best a band-aid which fails to address the core problems inherent to our system.

Danth

oh look, an "argument" for socialized healthcare based entirely in emotion and moral high-horsedry. The form of retardation you exhibit is why we can't have conditional socialized medicine for the deserving (those in whom an investment profits the state) in a society with unconditional suffrage.

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

Society shouldn't just toss a person out to the trash heap because he got permanently disabled at work and can't do his job anymore. How this nation treats the sick, elderly, and infirm is outright shameful.

I know you've heard of workman's comp. Why, then, did you put these two sentences adjacent unless you are attempting some disingenuous appeal to emotion? Do you write Common Core curriculum?

[maskedmelon]

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

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.

Could you elaborate on the bolded piece a bit? I don't see how the former can only occur in anarchy.

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

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.

Why/how is caring for productive people during temporary periods of lessened/no productivity equivalent to caring for people who are indefinitely unproductive?

That is akin to saying that because employers may choose to pay employees for missed work days when they are sick, employers should pay anyone who is sick whether they work or not. And no, that is not the same as a pension because pensions are paid to employees who have worked and they are paid as incentives to attract the best employees (though they are not offered much at all anymore). Governments do not have the luxury of being so selective with its citizenry.

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

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.

Of course we would rather not be left to die. That is self interest. It's why we exist. How does our continued existence subsidized by others benefit humanity though? How is it a productive use of society's resources?

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

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.

Dismiss it if you like. As I said to Fash though, I'm looking for answers and be it ridiculous or simplistic, it's an honest question. I am not sure what I think the answer is, though I am inclined to believe both are equally selfish.

[MrSparkle001]

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

Just in: A forum full of healthy 20- and 30-year olds, most of whom have never faced serious illness, exhibits little understanding of why socialized health care is beneficial to society as a whole. While unfortunate, it's also typical and fully expected.

You mean it can be beneficial, so long as everyone in society contributes to it. When not everyone does you wind up with situations like the US has now, where people are forced to purchase insurance for $300/month with a $5,000 deductible to subsidize the leeches.

As an aside, I opposed the Affordable Care Act, and still do. It's at best a band-aid which fails to address the core problems inherent to our system.

The core problem inherent to our system is the cost, not the amount of people insured. Forcing them to purchase insurance (unconstitutionally, I don't care what the Supreme Court says) does not address the cost, it only guarantees insurance companies retain a profit.

I ever tell you guys about the $1,800 I was charged to have a bandaid changed?

With social security you pay into it now and get out of it later. It's ultimately unsustainable as it is right now, but not many are leeching off it. They paid into it over the course of their workable years.

Not so with this Affordable Care Act. Now leeches everywhere can get "free" health care at the cost of everyone else who are getting extorted to pay for it.

[fash]

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 (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.

More importantly, these countries are ethnically homogeneous. We're talking 80-90% majority ethnicity, except Australia, which is still 90% white but with different ethnicities, English, Irish, Scottish, etc. That homogeneity means a great deal when it comes to building a high trust nation. Compare that to US's slightly above half white demographic.

Calling Japan's culture egalitarian is a stretch. I'm not sure about the Netherland's culture wrt egalitarianism.

[Danth]

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

various insults

It's difficult or impossible to have a useful discussion with someone who regards anyone who harbors an opinion different from his own as "retarded."

Of course there's an appeal to emotion there; emotion lies at the very core of issues like this one. If you eliminate all emotion, you're left with cold unfeeling logic--which will determine that it's most efficient to simply cull any unproductive or excess members of society. Caring for the sick, the injured, and the infirm isn't efficient or logical. Plenty of other species don't do it. However it's the humane thing to do. I go a further step and claim that people should not face financial ruin simply because they get hurt or sick. Protecting people from the problems life can throw at them is the fundamental reason we build nations in the first place.

You think worker's comp is all great? Guess what, they start you out--if you're lucky--at 70% of your pre-injury earnings (that's the maximum here in OH) and whittle it down from there. Oh, and they don't adjust it for inflation, either, so have fun a decade later when your already paltry compensation has lost another third of its buying power. You think that's fair? I call it sociopathic.

I know what it means to have to deal with the system. I watched both my parents develop long-term illnesses that bankrupted and ruined them and left them destitute before they finally succumbed. They lost their house, land, life savings, and most of their possessions. Logically? Within our present system my parents would've been better off shooting themselves as soon as they got sick. I find that reality disgusting. I've watched other family members suffer injuries at the job and lose most of what they had, exchanging a solid middle-class life for scraping by at poverty level. I've watched, with ever growing anger, other family members get denied necessary treatments by for-profit insurance companies that care only for their bottom line, while the suffering continues and conditions worsen. None of these people are or were slackers or in any way deserving of mistreatment. It's wrong, and we can and should do better.

------------------------------

Folks who're out of work don't particularly bother me in an environment where there are more available workers than useful jobs for them. Again, either work has to be made, or society has to accept a (likely to increase) proportion of adults who simply aren't needed in the workforce. Denigrating such people as slackers or worthless fails to even slightly address the reality of that issue.

Danth

[Lune]

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

Could you elaborate on the bolded piece a bit? I don't see how the former can only occur in anarchy.

A survival-of-the-fittest paradigm, or killing the weak actively or through neglect, is the antithesis of the values of Western civilization. It is the state of nature opposed to Locke's social contract (the foundation of our political system)

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

Why/how is caring for productive people during temporary periods of lessened/no productivity equivalent to caring for people who are indefinitely unproductive?

That is akin to saying that because employers may choose to pay employees for missed work days when they are sick, employers should pay anyone who is sick whether they work or not. And no, that is not the same as a pension because pensions are paid to employees who have worked and they are paid as incentives to attract the best employees (though they are not offered much at all anymore). Governments do not have the luxury of being so selective with its citizenry.

I didn't state they were equivalent, I just assumed you weren't focusing only on the "indefinitely unproductive" because you wanted a reasonable and good faith discussion of socialized medicine. Why focus on the indefinitely unproductive? Of course some people are going to be unworthy of society's investment in them; does that invalidate the entire notion of a safety net, in spite of all the good it does saving productive people who are vulnerable? (more on this below)

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

Of course we would rather not be left to die. That is self interest. It's why we exist. How does our continued existence subsidized by others benefit humanity though? How is it a productive use of society's resources?

It benefits humanity because it improves the quality and pleasure of our lives being able to live past the age of 60 and enjoy some period of retirement. Even then, is it necessary for it to be a productive use of resources? Sure, it would probably be more productive to just kill people as soon as they reach the age of 65 or whenever they stop being productive. But the thing about humans is that we have ethics and morals and we know when to sublimate productivity and the cruelty of nature for pleasure and quality of life. It's the same reason we don't kill everyone below an IQ of 80 or people who wasted years playing an emulated MMO from 1999. It's a compromise humans make-- the state of nature is the ultimate form of efficiency, and it's why capitalism is such a powerful and efficient force. However, it is also brutally disgusting, as both Hobbes and Locke concluded, and humans should aspire for more. It's almost like humans trying to create ordered systems in defiance of free market forces is entropically unfavorable. It's difficult, it takes work, and skill, but working against entropy is what makes life possible, and I'd argue, in the case of civilization, makes life worthwhile.

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

Dismiss it if you like. As I said to Fash though, I'm looking for answers and be it ridiculous or simplistic, it's an honest question. I am not sure what I think the answer is, though I am inclined to believe both are equally selfish.

With socialized medicine you aren't taking something for nothing. You paid taxes that acted as a form of public insurance, fulfilling the same role as other civic responsibilities; ie, you pay for police and firefighters even though there's a chance you'll never personally need them.

Again, if you get fixated on those few people who never work, and live completely parasitic lives, and think that small minority invalidates the entire notion of socialized medicine, you're thinking simplistically. We've found, at least in Western cultures, that kind of lifestyle really isn't human nature. Once a society reaches a certain level of human development, people generally aren't content to be parasites, and those who are are too small a population to matter-- and furthermore, the opportunity provided by more collectivist safety net societies are more conducive to preventing the formation of an inherited, multi-generational, low-achieving underclass like we have in the US.

Thus, my conclusion is this: It takes a sufficiently productive and sophisticated culture to support socialist institutions. When I argue in favor of universal healthcare, it's more that I'm arguing for the cultural attributes that support it, ie coming a little further toward a sense of collective responsibility and selflessness, rather than selfishness, pettiness, and individualism. As it currently stands, Americans as a whole simply don't deserve these nice institutions; we're too fucking stupid and amoral.

[fash]

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

Society shouldn't just toss a person out to the trash heap and more rhetoric

Nobody here has denied that bad things happen to good people and that they need some form of recourse.

[fash]

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

Again, if you get fixated on those few people who never work, and live completely parasitic lives, and think that small minority invalidates the entire notion of socialized medicine, you're thinking simplistically.

Those "few" parasites are imporant to consider when welfare has the potential to be abused with negative societal effects.

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

As it currently stands, Americans as a whole simply don't deserve these nice institutions; we're too fucking stupid and amoral.

Ehh.. it's that a low-trust individualist culture shouldn't have socialized welfare, because it creates perverse incentives.

[maskedmelon]

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

A survival-of-the-fittest paradigm, or killing the weak actively or through neglect, is the antithesis of the values of Western civilization. It is the state of nature opposed to Locke's social contract (the foundation of our political system)

I didn't state they were equivalent, I just assumed you weren't focusing only on the "indefinitely unproductive" because you wanted a reasonable and good faith discussion of socialized medicine. Why focus on the indefinitely unproductive? Of course some people are going to be unworthy of society's investment in them; does that invalidate the entire notion of a safety net, in spite of all the good it does saving productive people who are vulnerable? (more on this below)

It benefits humanity because it improves the quality and pleasure of our lives being able to live past the age of 60 and enjoy some period of retirement. Even then, is it necessary for it to be a productive use of resources? Sure, it would probably be more productive to just kill people as soon as they reach the age of 65 or whenever they stop being productive. But the thing about humans is that we have ethics and morals and we know when to sublimate productivity and the cruelty of nature for pleasure and quality of life. It's the same reason we don't kill everyone below an IQ of 80 or people who wasted years playing an emulated MMO from 1999. It's a compromise humans make-- the state of nature is the ultimate form of efficiency, and it's why capitalism is such a powerful and efficient force. However, it is also brutally disgusting, as both Hobbes and Locke concluded, and humans should aspire for more. It's almost like humans trying to create ordered systems in defiance of free market forces is entropically unfavorable. It's difficult, it takes work, but working against entropy is what makes life possible, and I'd argue, in the case of civilization, makes life worthwhile.

With socialized medicine you aren't taking something for nothing. You paid taxes that acted as a form of public insurance, fulfilling the same role as other civic responsibilities; ie, you pay for police and firefighters even though there's a chance you'll never personally need them.

Again, if you get fixated on those few people who never work, and live completely parasitic lives, and think that small minority invalidates the entire notion of socialized medicine, you're thinking simplistically. We've found, at least in Western cultures, that kind of lifestyle really isn't human nature. Once a society reaches a certain level of human development, people generally aren't content to be parasites, and those who are are too small a population to matter-- and furthermore, the opportunity provided by more collectivist safety net societies are more conducive to preventing the formation of an inherited, multi-generational, low-achieving underclass like we have in the US.

Thus, my conclusion is this: It takes a sufficiently productive and sophisticated culture to support socialist institutions. When I argue in favor of universal healthcare, it's more that I'm arguing for the cultural attributes that support it, ie coming a little further toward a sense of collective responsibility and selflessness, rather than selfishness, pettiness, and individualism. As it currently stands, Americans as a whole simply don't deserve these nice institutions; we're too fucking stupid and amoral.

Our conclusions don't really differ then and we agree on most of the points, other than anarchy being requisite for pruning. Though we may not really disagree on that either. You seem to suggest it is more of a betrayal of our political system than anything else and I think you point to it as anarchy because you favor an authoritarian government. It seems to me that a significant degree of coordination and denial of liberty inherent of a strongly authoritarian government could serve as an ample and perhaps superior substitute for the cruelty of nature.

I don't think socialist institutions are practical on a national scale with regards to a culturally amorphous society like the US. The rabid individualism embraced throughout the political spectrum in the US is an irreparable perversion of liberty promoted at the cost of community.

I find it interesting though that you consider it a uniquely human quality to sublimate reason for carnal impulse. I've considered the opposite to be true, i.e. man possesses the unique ability to deny his feelings. That is something I'll have to think on.