Socialized healthcare debate (Split from Canadian Care)

[kojikun]

Slarti: the debate is over, give it up.

[Darth Wong]

True, but Objectivism also holds that its immoral to harm people. So again that doesn't conflict.

What you're ignoring is that objectivism is predicated upon the conceit that all of its tenets directly follow from objective reality. Yet it has no real explanation for why it is bad to harm others, so it simply states it as an unsupported premise. In short, it simply incorporates principles such as ethical utilitarianism as constraints on self-interest, and tries to sell it to you as a more "objective" ethical system than all others. This is exactly what's wrong with objectivism; it claims superiority to other moral systems, but its central principle of self-interest is virtually useless as a moral guideline unless it quietly invokes those other ethical systems to constrain it.

It assumes that people will see far enough into the future that they can take actions which benefit society in such a manner that they will eventually benefit themselves, even if those actions cause short-term detriment. This is demonstrably untrue, hence the only way to get people to take these long-term beneficial actions is to force them to do it. Yet one of the tenets of "enlightened self interest" is that no one can be forced into doing anything.

Again, one of the core things about Objectivism is long term goals not short term self pleasuring here and now (Objectivists are against that kind of philosophy, usually known as hedonism).

You're missing the point, which is that people are not smart enough to foresee all the long-term consequences.

I never said anything about enlighted, all I said was that it was in your self interested to help other people out of poverty if you want to be in a country like Canada or the US or whatever.

But people would choose not to do it anyway, because people cannot see their own long-term self-interest. You yourself made an absurd claim earlier today about self-insuring yourself in lieu of health insurance, and it had to be pointed out to you that this would never work. That is why people must be forced to do it.

I don't claim it to be "enlighted" self interest. Just pure, rational self interest, as well as agreement of terms.

Objectivism claims "enlightened self interest". You are defending objectivist ethics. And by invoking the "do not harm" clause, you are essentially advocating "enlightened self-interest" even if you won't call it that.

Well someone has to be smart enough to foresee these things

... and then force the stupid people to go along with it. This is the part which you don't acknowledge.

and those people should go out and educate the rest of all these points.

You just love that fairy tale world of yours, don't you? Just go out and 'educate" everybody so they're never short-sighted again!

[Alyrium Denryle]

Again, one of the core things about Objectivism is long term goals not short term self pleasuring here and now (Objectivists are against that kind of philosophy, usually known as hedonism).

Unfortunatly, unless you are working on the genetic survival level, that simply doesnt work. Very few people are smart enough orsee all these massive problems. which is why we NEED a government to enforce our little social contract.

[Slartibartfast]

Then why do you insist that involuntarily supported social programs are unethical, when they are in fact an ethical necessity?

They cause less harm then to just remove them, as they are now; but that does not make them ethical, just less harmful.

You're really really hungry. You find a morsel of food, and eat it. You're still very hungry, only slightly less hungry thanks to that food. According to you, that piece of food isn't better than the total lack of food, it's just "less harmful".

[Iceberg]

True, but Objectivism also holds that its immoral to harm people. So again that doesn't conflict.

However, objectivism does not acknowledge the harmful effects of inaction. If you see people suffering there are two kinds of immorality: Clearly, it is immoral to exacerbate that suffering through deliberate action. however, it is also immoral to prolong suffering or allow harm through inaction.

[Darth Wong]

True, but Objectivism also holds that its immoral to harm people. So again that doesn't conflict.

However, objectivism does not acknowledge the harmful effects of inaction. If you see people suffering there are two kinds of immorality: Clearly, it is immoral to exacerbate that suffering through deliberate action. however, it is also immoral to prolong suffering or allow harm through inaction.

I mentioned the Kitty Genovese example to him before, but he ignored it. He subscribes to the notion that inaction cannot possibly be unethical. There's also the whistle-blower ethical scenario which pretty much blows gaping holes in objectivist ethics, but I find that objectivists try to play games with the scenario in such a manner that they can find a laughably convoluted manner in which to weakly rationalize the obviously ethical choice (to blow the whistle) with the tenets of objectivism.

[Slartibartfast]

Slarti: the debate is over, give it up.

Doesn't seem that way, it just looks like you backpedaled to make it seem like that's what your system was all about, and you're fooling nobody.

[kojikun]

What you're ignoring is that objectivism is predicated upon the conceit that all of its tenets directly follow from objective reality. Yet it has no real explanation for why it is bad to harm others, so it simply states it as an unsupported premise. In short, it simply incorporates principles such as ethical utilitarianism as constraints on self-interest, and tries to sell it to you as a more "objective" ethical system than all others. This is exactly what's wrong with objectivism; it claims superiority to other moral systems, but its central principle of self-interest is virtually useless as a moral guideline unless it quietly invokes those other ethical systems to constrain it.

It has explanations, I just really suck at conveying them without mangling the ideas horribly. You can't rely on my pitiful attempts.

You're missing the point, which is that people are not smart enough to foresee all the long-term consequences.

This is true. But you should atleast try to convince them that they need to think long term and seek (and listen to) advice from people who can.

But people would choose not to do it anyway, because people cannot see their own long-term self-interest. You yourself made an absurd claim earlier today about self-insuring yourself in lieu of health insurance, and it had to be pointed out to you that this would never work. That is why people must be forced to do it.

I had a bad idea, but I did not reject a better alternative.

Objectivism claims "enlightened self interest". You are defending objectivist ethics. And by invoking the "do not harm" clause, you are essentially advocating "enlightened self-interest" even if you won't call it that.

Wait, whats the problem with not harming people now?

... and then force the stupid people to go along with it. This is the part which you don't acknowledge.

Well, to be honest, I advocate letting stupid people fuck themselves over. But beyond a certain extent, its also hurting me. Which I, certainly, will not support. But whatever. This is getting tedious.

You just love that fairy tale world of yours, don't you? Just go out and 'educate" everybody so they're never short-sighted again!

Never said you could instantly 'educate' everybody, but you give them the tools to use.

[Darth Wong]

It has explanations, I just really suck at conveying them without mangling the ideas horribly. You can't rely on my pitiful attempts.

On the contrary, I've seen many of these explanations elsewhere, and they are generally either circular or arbitrary. They simply cover up the occasional injection of an arbitrary premise with a lot of handwaving and carefully worded rhetoric.

It sounds soooooo much better to say something like "certain inherent rights flow naturally from the principle of self-interest" than "I'm going to add a few human rights to my self-interest system because it's shitty without them", but they're basically the same. At least the second one is honest.

But people would choose not to do it anyway, because people cannot see their own long-term self-interest. You yourself made an absurd claim earlier today about self-insuring yourself in lieu of health insurance, and it had to be pointed out to you that this would never work. That is why people must be forced to do it.

I had a bad idea, but I did not reject a better alternative.

The fact that you even held such a silly idea for even a moment is more than enough evidence that more subtly stupid ideas can easily be clung to for a long time.

Objectivism claims "enlightened self interest". You are defending objectivist ethics. And by invoking the "do not harm" clause, you are essentially advocating "enlightened self-interest" even if you won't call it that.

Wait, whats the problem with not harming people now?

No problem, but it happens to be more utilitarian than objectivist. As I said, objectivist "self interest" doesn't work, so it has to basically steal from other ethical systems in order to form constraints on what would otherwise be a complete trainwreck. And even then, it gives absurd recommendations in ethical dilemmas such as the classic engineering whistle-blower scenario.

Never said you could instantly 'educate' everybody, but you give them the tools to use.

Which won't work. As I said, a system of ethics exists in order to provide guidelines for decisions in the real world, not a bunch of impressive-sounding slogans that are totally inapplicable to real situations or which give solutions that would never work.

[Patrick Degan]

My mother gets about $850/month from SSI. I'd love to know where you're getting your figures from, because they don't match what's on her cheque.

And in any case, Social Security is meant as a backup, not a replacement for private investment or company pension plans. It was never meant in any other way.

Even 850/month is too little to survive, though. Electric, water, and rent combined are usually over that. Then theres food and medicine.

My mother's house is paid off, she's not paying down a car note, and she has no credit card debt. Things are a bit tight for her, but she manages to live quite independently. And after the expenses of her working life, which included three home-repair loans, she wasn't able to "manage her portfolio" as efficently as she might have liked or as ideally as you might imagine is possible for everyone. Real life has a habit of doing that.

As a backup it barely works. And people are not putting their money into retirement accounts because the EXPECT social security to help them.

Wrong —people aren't putting money into savings because they've got debts and bills to pay down, in addition to cost-of-living.

Let me guess; you're not even out of university yet, are you?

Let me guess, you're dodging the point. (sorry, i left out the 2 in 2000)

Dodging what point? Your little piece of rhetorical bullshit which makes no point? My question —which you're dodging— is designed to ascertain whether you are old enough to actually know, from firsthand experience, how things fucking work in the Real World instead of relying on a nice sheaf of Pure Theories. So again —have you even gotten out of university yet?

No, you didn't specify the terms, you little shit. And I notice you've already halved that estimate on the expected return (and don't try saying you never babbled about having "almost a million dollars" just two posts ago).

Half a million if you stop investing after 14k. About a million if you keep investing. Don't know why I said nearly a million in the first post. Jumping ahead of myself or forgot to account for inflation. But that does not negate the fact that private investing is better then relying on social security.

And if the investment scheme goes wrong, or you're forced to drain that nest-egg prematurely, and you find you've got nothing afterward for your retirement, then WHAT'S THE BACKUP PLAN?

And I find it highly risible that you imagine every pre-20 year old will have even an extra $2000 lying about each year to build up to that $14,000 base.

Starting when you're 20. And even before then, living with your parents while youre in school, working for minimum wage, you could save up 14k in a few years.

Assuming you don't have to pay off a big student loan, of course. And what of those who don't have the convenience of being able to live with mummy and daddy while going to school? And have you really tried saving anything from a minimum-wage job, especially after payroll, Social Security, and FICA taxes take their bite?

Doubly amusing that you blithely assume no circumstance forcing a tapping into that nest-egg at any point, or any sort of investment reversal caused either by economic downturn or, as we've just witnessed not three years ago, massive securities fraud.

Considering that no retirement account (401(k)s or IRAs) can be used until you actually retire, theres not much of a problem. And it's not like you have any alternative, as you so kindly admitted, because Social Security is not a retirement account just a backup, so I guess its tough shit for everyone.

You might like to speak to the former employees of Enron about that one, mate. If not for Social Security, they'd be staring at a big empty NOTHING for their retirment years.

Nevermind the fact that apparently, taxes, inflation, and increased cost-of-living 45 years down the line hasn't affected your vision that $500K would have quite the same buying power as it does today.

Actually, the 500k estimate includes inflation. Without inflation you'd get about two million, but with inflation its 500k. I also havent factored in taxes. I do not know what taxes are on retirement money.

Bullshit —you said no such fucking thing and you know it. You got caught in a web of your baseless rhetoric, and now you're trying to backpedal. The fact that you didn't even bother factoring in taxes (income, both Federal and state) shows you really haven't thought through the ramifications of the theory you've attatched yourself to.

Oh, and BTW, you still might want to check your sums; 45 years of compound interest on a $14,000 principal at an annual 5% rate adds up to only $125,769.41. Living at a rate of only 1/10th that per year as a retirement annuity, that nice nest-egg will be burned up in ten years.

What stocks are YOU investing in? The S&P500 has an average growth rate of 10%, other indices average higher (NASDAQ I believe gets 14%).

And we all know how secure the stock market is, don't we?

Bad luck if you live past 76, actually.

Yeah, if you use a shitty bank or something. Real retirement accounts go into stocks and bonds. They get over 5% average. Well over. Even government BONDs get 8% or so.

And, as I've asked, what's to safeguard that portfolio from reverses in the market or vitiation from securities fraud? How many people in the last three years saw their stock-based 401Ks halved or even wiped out? Assuming that a serious enough financial crisis doesn't materialise and forces you to cash in all your investments simply to keep ahead of it. If there's no Social Security, then WHAT'S THE BACKUP PLAN?

I must ask again; you're not even out of university yet, are you?

I must ask again, why are you making an ad hominem.

No, that's not an ad-hominem. That's a question bearing upon your actual qualification to speak, with any competent authority, on how things work in a Real World as opposed to the world of Pure Theory.

If you're working minimum wage your entire life, you're a worthless person to begin with and its your own fault that you don't have money to retire. Move to Canada or something, where people are nice and like to pay for you to live, but don't presume the right to take something you have not earned.

Looks like part of my question's already been answered with that little gem.

[Zac Naloen]

We don't pay a tax, but every citzizen has to be health insured, compulsory, with the rates currently ranging between 12 and 14% of your monthly income (Though your employers pays 50% of it).
There are two kinds of insurance companies, the private ones and the "compulsory health insurance" ones. You can go into a private health insurance if you have an income above a certain (quite high) limit.
YOu won't get a job without a health insurance.

On a whole, Germany pays about 10% of it's GDP for health insurance, for a total of 215 billions (~2700 Euros per citizen).

sounds the same as the australian system for healthcare, compulsory insurance which is pretty much the same as paying a tax (as far as your concerned) but means the government doesn't control medical budgets and stuff (like with hte fuck up that is the NHS at the moment)

[Keevan_Colton]

For anyone who wants a basic overview of the morals of this system, the following examples should cover it nicely:-

Assume there is a child starving right before your eyes, slowly dieing of hunger, you have all the food in the world. According to objectivism it is perfectly moral to grab another bucket of chicken wings and watch the child die while doing nothing. Inaction is never immoral.

Similarly, lets move you back to the sidelines of this little tradgedy.

Assume there is the same child starving, and there is someone with all the food in the world. You are standing watching the bastard with the food eating another piece of popcirn chicken while the child starves. It is perfectly moral to walk away and leave the child to die rather than trying to get food for them. 'Initiating' force is wrong

And now for the final one, this should give you a real hint if the last two havent....

Lets take our objectivist, lets call him Ebenezer. Lets say he runs some sort of accounting firm, in a society without any social security system. Now, its around christmas time, and a fellow comes to the door collecting for charity for the poor, as an objectivist Ebenezer decides that altruism is beneath him, and that the poor are simply that way by choice. He then says to the man in illustration of his point "Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?"


Koji, I'd still love to hear how your wonderful morals deals with those who are orphaned or born disabled?

[Dahak]

The more I read about objectivism, the more disgusted I am. I can't understand why anyone would think that this morally bancrupt system is worth living in...

[Stravo]

Considering that no retirement account (401(k)s or IRAs) can be used until you actually retire, theres not much of a problem. And it's not like you have any alternative, as you so kindly admitted, because Social Security is not a retirement account just a backup, so I guess its tough shit for everyone.

You might like to speak to the former employees of Enron about that one, mate. If not for Social Security, they'd be staring at a big empty NOTHING for their retirment years.

Patrick you're missing the point, those people CHOSE to be in the situation that they're in and now that they have no money they're worthless people who deserve what they got because we all know you chose to be poor.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Considering that no retirement account (401(k)s or IRAs) can be used until you actually retire, theres not much of a problem. And it's not like you have any alternative, as you so kindly admitted, because Social Security is not a retirement account just a backup, so I guess its tough shit for everyone.

You might like to speak to the former employees of Enron about that one, mate. If not for Social Security, they'd be staring at a big empty NOTHING for their retirment years.

Patrick you're missing the point, those people CHOSE to be in the situation that they're in and now that they have no money they're worthless people who deserve what they got because we all know you chose to be poor.

Yeah you see, without realizing the consequences of a particular investment(enron for example) they invested poorly and are nw worthless people and deserve what they get because they chose to hav their investments go sour.

Oh, and wait. A woman, after she created the accounting firm at a stable companyand ran it for almost a year, is worthless because the business owner placed a supervisor over the accounting department who cant stand women in manegement positions that know more than him. Naturally he demoted then fired her. I suppose she is worthless and not entightled to any help because she CHOSE that company right? She CHOSE to lose her Job to some sexist prick right?

[aerius]

Ths reminds me of something I've read...

Some humans believe that the further removed a political philosohpy is from reality the more morally pure it must be. For them it's held that the world as reported by the senses is inherently corrupt and deceptive. Given that assumption the only reliable source of knowledge is correct doctrine. Demonstrated unworkability in the real world merely proves a belief system's "higher truth" in the eyes of its true believers.

[The_Nice_Guy]

For what's it's worth, a minimum level of healthcare should be provided for all citizens. Whoever wants better than that baseline can pay for it themselves. That's what we do here in Singapore, and many people are willing to suffer the longer queues at the polyclinics instead of paying the extra bit at higher level medical facilities for better service. More importantly, many of those people are the older folks, who don't have much in spare cash. This is a worthwhile system.

Indeed, a society should provide a very basic care package for those who've fallen on hard times or are unable to support themselves. Enough food for them to get by, shelter, and perhaps a series of training programs that tries to pick them up again. All this shouldn't amount to much for the common taxpayer.

People have two opposing tendencies. On one side, they would want better universal healthcare for themselves and their families, which often translates to higher taxes. On the other, they would not want to pay more taxes either(well, most of the sane ones won't). But you simply can't have it both ways(unless the government is splurging on something else... like pork barrels, in which case a budget shift is in order).

In the event of an aging population, this becomes a really sticky problem, because an essential voting bloc won't have to pay for the healthcare, essentially removing one side of the push-push slidebar. Would any of you, in the case you are taxpayers, prefer to pay a higher tax in that event?

A nation with a relatively young population would not mind paying for a comprehensive healthcare system, but ask the tax-paying voters in any aging nation(like Japan), and you'll find the answer isn't as simple as we would like it to be.

For that matter, I find myself disagreeing hugely with the Austrian-school economists on the matter of public goods and national priorities. It just doesn't work.

The Wobbly Guy

[Lord MJ]

Objectivism is simply the complete refusal to accept any form of responsibility. Rights without responsibilities; it is a child's view of ethics, where the only thing that matters is my rights. Mine, mine, mine, mine, what matters to me is my rights, my things, my money, my property, mine, mine, mine, mine ...

That's all objectivism is, folks. Under objectivism, you have no moral responsibility to help those in need, and there should be no Good Samaritan laws, because they have no "claim" on what is mine, mine, mine, mine ...

The sad thing is that when put that way, hardcore libertarians will still argue the virtue of such a system.

[Superman]

It doesn't matter anyway: Insurance companies practice medicine here in the states, not the doctors. They treat based off of actuary tables and whatnot. Pretty sad...

[The_Nice_Guy]

Objectivism is simply the complete refusal to accept any form of responsibility.

The sad thing is that when put that way, hardcore libertarians will still argue the virtue of such a system.

Actually, that's a bit of an exaggeration. Objectivism only demands responsibility for oneself, and no further.

It's the 'no further' part that bothers most people.

Even classic liberals would hesitate before going that far. It's the anarchists and high ideal libertarians who would accept that.

The Wobbly Guy