Hello everyone. First things first.
I admit it, I lean to the left, but I'm not here to flame. I just want to have a reasonable, civilized debate with some conservatives. I want some insight into what makes you tick politically. I am open to the idea that, while the progressives will be right about certain things, the right can also be correct about others.
I see an unhealthy amount of polarization in US politics these days, and think we'd all be better off doing a bit more listening and a lot less screaming and name-calling.
Having said that, I'd like to present my take on johnnyb325's comments.
1) "A "right" is the ability and autonomy to perform a sovereign action."
This definition didn't seem right to me. To me you've defined something like "ability" or "capacity". My dictionary defines a "right" as "something (as a power or privilege) to which one has a just or lawful claim".
It would seem to me that everyone has an equally just and lawful claim to health and well-being, and I'm sure it's included in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
I'm not sure I follow you when you say that in order to claim health care, you have to infringe upon the rights of others. The health care system is set up to deal with large numbers of patients, precisely so that one person's treatment doesn't preclude another's. I also fail to see how private health care is superior to nationalized health care in this respect.
2) "The word "profit" is considered to be a dirty word by many on the political left, but why?"
I agree with you. It's silly to consider profits to be evil. Capitalism uses profits as its primary motivation. Take them away and you undermine Capitalism.
However, the idea behind Capitalism and profits is that these profits will ultimately serve to benefit society as a whole. I, and the left in general, believe that this simply doesn't happen if you leave Capitalism to its own devices.
What Capitalism does is *generate* wealth, and it generates it fantastically well. It is very very good at producing most of the goods and services we see around us. But ultimately its underlying motivation is *profit,* not the greater benefit of humanity, and for this reason it seems inadequate as the sole provider of vital social programs like education and health care. Social programs should have as their sole founding principles the betterment of human life and society at large; money should not serve as a middleman.
3) "Some love to bemoan the fact that the United States is one of the few industrialized nations without a government health care system. Yet they rarely note that the United States produces disproportional amounts of the new, life-saving drugs, largely because of the profits drug companies make."
True. Correct me if I'm wrong, but countries such as Finland, Sweden and Denmark also produce a disproportionate amount of drugs. It's harder to tell because all together they only have a population of about 18 million versus the US's 290 million or so, but per capita I think they're right up there.
I suspect conservatives might see these places as silly little socialist countries, but the fact is that, though their governments play unbelievably (to American ears) huge roles in their public's lives, they combine it with a quite vibrant version of Capitalism. The result has its strengths and weaknesses, but so does the American system. Health care-wise it's a trade off between:
1. National health care
Plusses: Lifelong availability to everyone. Treatment never costs anything. Many medicines are discounted in price. Many countries also have a parallel, private system for those who prefer its advantages.
Minusses: Waiting lists, though only for those operations that can wait. Less personal (though not necessarily lower quality) treatment.
2. Private health care
Plusses: Very high quality treatment exists. Extremely innovative. More personalized service.
Minusses: Prohibitively high costs for a very significant part of the population, resulting in a large percentage of the population without access to health care or medicine.
The US has chosen one way; most of the rest of the world has chosen the other. I'm not saying that one system is better, but clearly the world in general prefers the nationalized route.
Is nationalized health care right for the US? I don't know. What I can say is that I'm American, but I live in Spain, and after having experienced both of the systems in question, I prefer the way they do it here. I like knowing that I and everyone else around me can have anything from a routine check up to brain surgery if necessary and not pay a penny for it. I like the fact that my asthma medication costs me 10% of what it would cost me in the US. And I also like the fact that there is that parallel private system in place (paid for via insurance, just like in the US) which I can turn to if -- and only if -- I so decide.
That's my take. I could elaborate, but I'd like to hear what you guys think first.
It would seem to me that everyone has an equally just and lawful claim to health and well-being
This premise is false, and your argument falls because of it.
Consider the situation of a healthy young person. That person is in a state of health and well-being that requires nothing from anyone. It is the state of nature. Their "right" to their situation derives from the natural order.
Now consider a 75 year old man with acute myelogenous leukemia. In your formulation, his "just and lawful claim to health and well-being" is equal to the hypothetical young person.
But unlike the young person, this person's "just and lawful claim" is impossible of achievement, not by any expenditure, however great, nor by any human extertion, however forceful.
The "right to health care" (which does not exist, IMO) does follow from the Declaration on Human Rights, since the "right to health and well-being" does implicate the associated human exertions directed at health.
But the "right to health and well-being" in the DHR is directly imported from preexisting socialist systems, principally from the 1934 USSR Constitution, and this fictitious "right", granted to the well by nature and unavailable to the sick under any system, was invented precisely to extend State control over the medical sector.
Reflect on what can or should be done to secure the "right" for those with incurable illness, and you will, I think, advance your thinking on the subject.
Again, welcome.
I see an unhealthy amount of polarization in US politics these days, and think we'd all be better off doing a bit more listening and a lot less screaming and name-calling.
Well said.
My dictionary defines a "right" as "something (as a power or privilege) to which one has a just or lawful claim".
Fair enough, I'll go with that.
It would seem to me that everyone has an equally just and lawful claim to health and well-being
I accept that you have a right to prevent me from *harming* your health and well-being. I don't accept that you have a right to compel me to provide whatever resources you desire for the purpose of improving your health.
and I'm sure it's included in the UN Declaration of Human Rights
It probably is, but around here that document isn't held in very high esteem. It starts off well enough, and then takes a hard left into socialism.
I'm not sure I follow you when you say that in order to claim health care, you have to infringe upon the rights of others. The health care system is set up to deal with large numbers of patients, precisely so that one person's treatment doesn't preclude another's.
So there's an infinite amount of health care available? Of course not. Doctors, hospitals, equipment, and drugs are all limited.
I also fail to see how private health care is superior to nationalized health care in this respect.
For the same reason that capitalism is superior in providing virtually all other goods and services. Food is far more vital to life than health care; *everyone* needs it *constantly*, and our (mostly) capitalist system provides it so well that obesity is now a serious health problem among the *poor*.
But ultimately its underlying motivation is *profit,* not the greater benefit of humanity, and for this reason it seems inadequate as the sole provider of vital social programs like education and health care.
Why does the profit motive preclude benefiting humanity? In most cases the two are directly correlated. Under capitalism, I can only profit by providing a product or service that humanity wants.
Social programs should have as their sole founding principles the betterment of human life and society at large; money should not serve as a middleman.
You're ascribing more importance to intentions than results. See Marxism for how this turns out.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but countries such as Finland, Sweden and Denmark also produce a disproportionate amount of drugs. It's harder to tell because all together they only have a population of about 18 million versus the US's 290 million or so, but per capita I think they're right up there.
I can't say you're wrong, but I'd like to see some stats on this.
National health care Plusses: Lifelong availability to everyone. Treatment never costs anything.
Yes it does. TANSTAAFL.
Minusses: Prohibitively high costs for a very significant part of the population, resulting in a large percentage of the population without access to health care or medicine.
True only of "pure" capitalism with no safety net at all. Not true in the US where the poor can get health care through a variety of means.
The US has chosen one way; most of the rest of the world has chosen the other. I'm not saying that one system is better, but clearly the world in general prefers the nationalized route.
On the other hand, the US is also the world's dominant economic power. It could be that we know what we're doing better than the rest of the world.