3 ms·

What amazes me is that people keeping keep increasing the definition of basic needs and we wonder why things become unstable. Universal healthcare is now consi

What amazes me is that people keeping keep increasing the definition of basic needs and we wonder why things become unstable. Universal healthcare is now considered a basic need. We're not even talking about basic healthcare either. I see people arguing all the time that everyone is entitled to a level of care that is for all intents and purposes a premium product that commands a premium price. If you were to tally up all the entitlements people argue should be basic human rights, you'd have a economically unsustainable system, because you'd eventually take so much from those working that the motive for them to continue participating in the system would disappear. It got so bad in East Germany, that they had to build a wall to keep those that were productive from fleeing.

thinkloop 10y ago
The max is generally: food, shelter, health care, education, communication
- greendesk 10y ago
  But what good is the minimum? Food that you grow and cook yourself, or fried chicken at McDonald's? Shelter - at what size is the minimum? I remember US standards increased the size of the houses two-fold within the past 30 years (I might be mistaken, I can't find the source now). Health care - does it include complex treatments? Education - would signing up to Coursera classes be considered minimum, or a drop in the level of education? Communication - I considered a broadband minimum for reasonable standard of life. Would 10 Mbt/second be guaranteed? I do not think everyone shares this opinion what is minimum standard of life. When working with others, you would see disagreement over all aspects of it - and it will prove hard to come to an agreement how to define the exact minimum. Furthermore, it might become very hard if the resource you are distributing is referred as a 'free' one.
Fraterkes 10y ago
You could argue that "premium" universal healthcare can't be a basic need because it isn't sustainable, but the alternative, deciding who deserves it based on who can afford it, seems even worse. This growing sense of entitlement that many people complain about is mostly just normal people wanting all the same perks that modernity brought the wealthy, and I don't think thats unreasonable. (As a thought experiment, imagine that premium health care was extremely cheap. It would be completely intuitive that everyone deserved it, since we are basically talking about ensuring that people stay alive/in good health.)
- malandrew 10y ago
  deciding who deserves it based on who can afford it, seems even worse. What's wrong with this? Technology improves and productivity improves. Over time, more and more people are getting better and better healthcare. The healthcare the cheapest insurance available today can buy is better than what the richest had access to 100 years ago. If premium healthcare were extremely cheap, everyone could afford it.

thinkloop 10y ago

The max is generally: food, shelter, health care, education, communication

greendesk 10y ago
But what good is the minimum? Food that you grow and cook yourself, or fried chicken at McDonald's? Shelter - at what size is the minimum? I remember US standards increased the size of the houses two-fold within the past 30 years (I might be mistaken, I can't find the source now). Health care - does it include complex treatments? Education - would signing up to Coursera classes be considered minimum, or a drop in the level of education? Communication - I considered a broadband minimum for reasonable standard of life. Would 10 Mbt/second be guaranteed? I do not think everyone shares this opinion what is minimum standard of life. When working with others, you would see disagreement over all aspects of it - and it will prove hard to come to an agreement how to define the exact minimum. Furthermore, it might become very hard if the resource you are distributing is referred as a 'free' one.

Fraterkes 10y ago

You could argue that "premium" universal healthcare can't be a basic need because it isn't sustainable, but the alternative, deciding who deserves it based on who can afford it, seems even worse. This growing sense of entitlement that many people complain about is mostly just normal people wanting all the same perks that modernity brought the wealthy, and I don't think thats unreasonable. (As a thought experiment, imagine that premium health care was extremely cheap. It would be completely intuitive that everyone deserved it, since we are basically talking about ensuring that people stay alive/in good health.)

malandrew 10y ago
deciding who deserves it based on who can afford it, seems even worse. What's wrong with this? Technology improves and productivity improves. Over time, more and more people are getting better and better healthcare. The healthcare the cheapest insurance available today can buy is better than what the richest had access to 100 years ago. If premium healthcare were extremely cheap, everyone could afford it.