Monday, May 2, 2011
Vermont's Universal Healthcare
Not to spam my blog with Rachel Maddow, but I encourage you to watch this video because it gives you a look into why Vermont is trying to pass Universal Healthcare.
I am a libertarian, though I have expressed doubts from time to time. I'm also a humanitarian. The reason I'm a libertarian is because I believe in personal liberty, freedom, rights, and equality. Yes, the ability to run a private business with minimal government intervention is included in that. But healthcare makes it a much more complex situation. Shouldn't universal healthcare not impact my legitimacy as a true libertarian? I want equality and freedom: couldn't that include equality in treatment, not based on your social class or economic standing? And couldn't that include freedom from being denied healthcare because you don't have health insurance? health insurance is taking over healthcare, and that's not promoting a free market at all. I want to protect people from government intrusion, yes, but that doesn't mean I think corporations should have the ability or right to dictate people's lives and health.
Take the movie John Q as an example: his son was unable to receive a heart transplant even though it would save his life. True, they didn't kick him out onto the streets, but he was going to die nonetheless. How can we accept living in a society where this is acceptable? I do not have healthcare right now, I won't for quite a few months until my mother gets another job. Sure, I might not be left to die.. but they'll refuse to fix a broken arm? Should I be left to try to make my own cast? If I get a fever I won't go to the hospital because I know that they'll turn me away, or I'll know I can't afford it. So I could just stay home, and end up dying from a fever. I could still be alive if I just had health insurance or more money or if I didn't have to pay for school on top of it. So, on one hand, how can you say health insurance is not a right? Yes, it's a "service", but it directly dies too people's lives. Their right to live in general, their right to live an acceptable life. Just as it's a state interest to keep orphans off the street, shouldn't it be a state interest to keep people from dying of curable diseases in their homes? (or on the streets as well, to be fair). This isn't even unprecedented, to see adequate healthcare as a right, it's qualified as a right under international law. I'm not saying I think Vermont's approach is the best option, I just am curious about how it will play out. I'm still not entirely convinced that whatever method they're proposing (specifics are not clear) will provide the best standards of care. I know publicly run nursing homes have many drawbacks, but then again so do private ones. But I don't think that's what this bill will do, private hospitals won't be taken over, patients' bills will just be covered.
I have yet to see a libertarian alternative that would offer universal healthcare. I think people's health shouldn't be negotiable with money, it's their health. While in most cases a free market approach is best, I just cannot see how it would ensure everyone receives adequate healthcare. And our current approach to health care builds up these health insurance companies, which rip people off. If it truly was free market, it would be between doctors and patients.. but the insurance companies get in the way and raise costs for patients and often refuse to cover procedures. I hate insurance companies. I hate how they are employer based, and I hate how people end up untreated and undiagnosed with illnesses because they don't have health insurance or their health insurance won't cover it. I hate how the cost of healthcare is rising so dramatically. People's lives are hanging in the balance.
If an alternative is offered, I'd gladly consider it. In the meantime, I hope Vermont's bill passes so I can at least see how it goes. If I lived there I would support it as well, even if it directly impacts me no matter the outcome. Because the alternative is me hoping I don't get sick or injured the next few months.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Without government involvement, there are two current setups. One, you don't have insurance, and if you get sick, you pay the doctors directly. The second is you pay an insurance company whether you get sick or not, and then it pays the doctors if you do get sick. Either way, you are only paying for yourself. If you can't pay, you don't get treated.
ReplyDeleteWhat you are proposing is that we all pay for everyone. Why should I have to pay for someone else's medical bills?
There's the emotional pleas about people dying being wrong. But that's life. People get killed, people get sick, people die. Why should healthcare be a right, and why should I have to pay for it?
“Without government involvement, there are two current setups. One, you don't have insurance, and if you get sick, you pay the doctors directly. The second is you pay an insurance company whether you get sick or not, and then it pays the doctors if you do get sick. Either way, you are only paying for yourself. If you can't pay, you don't get treated.”
ReplyDeleteBut I find that problematic. Because many impoverished people do not have the ability to pay for their healthcare, or get a better position that will allow them to do so. For example, many new immigrants are unable to find jobs beyond low income because they grew up with another language, limited education, and access to technology. Our economy heavily relies on the service sector, which people with accents or limited English are often unable to get. And that’s just one category of people. There are also transsexuals and transgender people who often fall into poverty because of job discrimination. They also are vulnerable to STDs, which could in turn end up costing the state money, unless we choose to allow AIDS and other serious STDs to spread and start killing people living on the streets.
“What you are proposing is that we all pay for everyone. Why should I have to pay for someone else's medical bills?”
Because everyone is human, but some people are disadvantaged in different ways. By allowing people to be denied healthcare, it causes a ripple effect of health problems in certain areas, especially with contagious diseases. Unless we want to resemble third world countries where systematically impoverished people have serious health problems, we should find a way to help people in these situations. Plus, children, dependents, and college students face a problem with healthcare. If their parents can’t afford to pay for their healthcare, they are screwed. They were trying to escape poverty, but poor healthcare would cause them to be unable to do so, by either having to drop out of school to get a job to pay for their medical bills or just facing the consequences of whatever illness or injury is effecting them.
“There's the emotional pleas about people dying being wrong. But that's life. People get killed, people get sick, people die. Why should healthcare be a right, and why should I have to pay for it?”
Because we’re humans. Why should we as individuals care about racism or sexism? The reasoning against these problems are emotional as well. Why we should care about rape victims is an emotional appeal, why we should respect private property of small business owners and freedom of speech are just as emotional appeals as requesting healthcare for all. Humans are emotional beings, if we weren’t no progress would be made because nobody would care. The reason rights are constructed is to respect what we emotionally consider fundamentally important to life and liberty.
"But I find that problematic. Because many impoverished people do not have the ability to pay for their healthcare, or get a better position that will allow them to do so. For example, many new immigrants are unable to find jobs beyond low income because they grew up with another language, limited education, and access to technology. Our economy heavily relies on the service sector, which people with accents or limited English are often unable to get. And that’s just one category of people. There are also transsexuals and transgender people who often fall into poverty because of job discrimination. They also are vulnerable to STDs, which could in turn end up costing the state money, unless we choose to allow AIDS and other serious STDs to spread and start killing people living on the streets."
ReplyDeleteSo? You are just restating that it sucks to not have healthcare, which I know.
"By allowing people to be denied healthcare, it causes a ripple effect of health problems in certain areas, especially with contagious diseases. Unless we want to resemble third world countries where systematically impoverished people have serious health problems, we should find a way to help people in these situations."
We've allowed them to be denied healthcare for the past 200 years, and we don't really look like a 3rd world country.
"Why should we as individuals care about racism or sexism?" I don't have to pay money to stop racism.
"why we should respect private property of small business owners and freedom of speech are just as emotional appeals as requesting healthcare for all." Untrue.
Rights should be constructed as freedom From. Freedom from having someone do something to you. Freedom from having someone steal your private property, in your example. With the rape victim, the person is being harmed by another person, which is why we stop it. But we can't stop the march of nature, we can only delay it.
“So? You are just restating that it sucks to not have healthcare, which I know.”
ReplyDeleteWell I also said that it has health risks for communities as a whole. It is is not an individualized problem. Racism and sexism sucks too, and they’re still problems we should address. And they are not mutually exclusive problems, either. I also addressed how people are oppressed in ways that creates inequality of access to healthcare. It is a structural problem, which must be addressed.
“We've allowed them to be denied healthcare for the past 200 years, and we don't really look like a 3rd world country.”
Valid point, but there are still communities where healthcare is denied because of increased poverty, and the health problems do spread. Also these conditions develop into life threatening issues, and theenn the taxpayer must pay for them to be treated or at least kept in a hospital until they die.It would be more beneficial and fair if we addressed these problems before they developed into a more widespread serious problem.
"Why should we as individuals care about racism or sexism?" I don't have to pay money to stop racism.
In general you have a valid point. But, what line do you draw about how your money is spent on others? Are children not allowed to use your tax money to receive an education or healthcare? What would we do as an alternative?
“"why we should respect private property of small business owners and freedom of speech are just as emotional appeals as requesting healthcare for all." Untrue.”
Back that up. Why is it untrue? Why are these recognized as rights?
Rights should be constructed as freedom From. Freedom from having someone do something to you. Freedom from having someone steal your private property, in your example. With the rape victim, the person is being harmed by another person, which is why we stop it. But we can't stop the march of nature, we can only delay it.
This isn’t about just about human v. nature, it’s also about human v. human created inequalities and oppression in many forms. Review how I brought up minorities, immigrants, and transgender people.
It’s not only about aging or unstoppable diseases, it’s about caring for things that could have been avoided, such as health problems due to inadequate housing, injuries due to manual labor for lower income jobs, perhaps medical treatment for a victim of domestic abuse. And Rights are not merely constructed as freedom froms. We have a right to an education. Most people also have a right to marriage, which is not a mere “freedom from intervention to marry” it comes with legal and economic connects to another person.
"It is a structural problem, which must be addressed." Racism and sexism are problems, and they need to be addressed. They affect lots of things indirectly, and public healthcare won't directly change any of them. We need to treat the root of the problem.
ReplyDelete"but there are still communities where healthcare is denied because of increased poverty, and the health problems do spread" Examples of a low income area causing an epidemic in the US?
"Also these conditions develop into life threatening issues, and theenn the taxpayer must pay for them to be treated or at least kept in a hospital until they die.It would be more beneficial and fair if we addressed these problems before they developed into a more widespread serious problem." A fair point, and one that Obama has stressed. But even providing free health care won't fix that problem, because we can't control people. "Lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink". Brushing my teeth will prevent cavities, but it doesn't mean that I brush 3 times a day every single day, I sometimes forget. Buying me a toothbrush wouldn't increase the percentage.
"Are children not allowed to use your tax money to receive an education or healthcare?" We pay for education, it's true. I never said I was a fan of public education though. Before you ask, I am, for a specific reason. One of the fuctions of government I believe in is enforcing truth and communication. Aspects of that are enforcing contracts, putting accurate labels on food, and bans on false advertising. Public education is necessary because it allows us to validate the knowledge an individual has upon graduation. Leaving schooling to individuals would result in a vast array of differences, so much that employers would have no idea if an individual was qualified without extensive testing. Another reason that education is needed is because it's necessary for the future of our country, which healthcare isn't. If education wasn't public, only the wealthy would receive it. Like healthcare I don't think this is morally Wrong. Put it's not advisable because it would destroy the US's ability to compete globally, and eventually destroy out economy. That is why I consent to pay for other's education. Lack of public healthcare carries no such compelling argument.
"Back that up." You stated it, I rejected. The burden of proof is on you. Why are they the same?
All of last two paragraphs, see the above rebuttal to what you said see above thing also.
"It is a structural problem, which must be addressed." Racism and sexism are problems, and they need to be addressed. They affect lots of things indirectly, and public healthcare won't directly change any of them. We need to treat the root of the problem.
ReplyDelete"but there are still communities where healthcare is denied because of increased poverty, and the health problems do spread" Examples of a low income area causing an epidemic in the US?
Ok, STDs in poor neighborhoods. And health (especially lung) concerns in people without adequate housing. (note: fixing the housing isn’t the point for the sake of this topic)
“Brushing my teeth will prevent cavities, but it doesn't mean that I brush 3 times a day every single day, I sometimes forget. Buying me a toothbrush wouldn't increase the percentage.”
I’m not talking about buying toothbrushes……
“We pay for education, it's true. I never said I was a fan of public education though. Before you ask, I am, for a specific reason. One of the fuctions of government I believe in is enforcing truth and communication. Aspects of that are enforcing contracts, putting accurate labels on food, and bans on false advertising. Public education is necessary because it allows us to validate the knowledge an individual has upon graduation. Leaving schooling to individuals would result in a vast array of differences, so much that employers would have no idea if an individual was qualified without extensive testing. Another reason that education is needed is because it's necessary for the future of our country, which healthcare isn't. If education wasn't public, only the wealthy would receive it. Like healthcare I don't think this is morally Wrong. Put it's not advisable because it would destroy the US's ability to compete globally, and eventually destroy out economy. That is why I consent to pay for other's education. Lack of public healthcare carries no such compelling argument.”
Let’s leave moral judgements out of this, or at least try to. Doesn’t denying proper healthcare to segments of our population cause problems just as lack of education? Minorities and the poor wouldn’t be able to climb out of poverty, and without proper access to healthcare they wouldn’t either. I’d like you to think about this on a global scale: do you think impoverished people in Third World countries should be provided with healthcare (I don’t mean from the US). The these countries do not care about the health of these people, but only for those who afford it, isn’t that a problem? If so, why is it ok here? For a more specific example of healthcare conflicting with what you would consider “right to private property” (though it’s important to note that “tax payer money” is the only thing that could be called private property in this case, except for exploitive health insurance companies), South Africa was/is facing an AIDs epidemic, and pharmaceutical companies were charging prices that a large percent of their population could not afford. So the problem wasn’t being addressed. The wealthy were allowed healthcare, while the poor were denied it.
"Back that up." You stated it, I rejected. The burden of proof is on you. Why are they the same? You are saying that they are rights that are established on something other than emotional appeals. I said they are based on emotional appeals, because that is why these issues have been constructed as something worthy of being “rights”. So I did back up my opinion, why do you disagree?