3 ms·

Here's an application of our faulty, socially-dependent reason: Health care is a right, yes or no? Please explain your reasoning. The article mentions ACA so m

Here's an application of our faulty, socially-dependent reason: Health care is a right, yes or no? Please explain your reasoning. The article mentions ACA so my proposal should not be too off-topic.

Eridrus 10y ago
I think the discourse about "rights" is part of the problem in US politics, it makes the default mode of reasoning about ideology, rather than outcomes. The government should be in the healthcare business since the nature of the service precludes a functional market.
- JackFr 10y ago
  > it makes the default mode of reasoning about ideology, rather than outcomes. That is nonsense. To claim to focus solely on 'outcomes' is to simply make the ideology behind the recommendation implicit and outside the bounds of debate.
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago
  Though something that gets lost in the "aargh, socialist death panels" style discussion in the US, is that there are plenty of market-based mechanisms within the most "socialist" health care systems around the world, and there's a whole bunch of weird, anti-market bureaucracy in the American system. So you're right that talking about rights is unhelpful, I'd go further and suggest that just making healthcare provision better, rather than more/less market-based should be the main discussion to further avoid the conversation bogging down into "reasoning about ideology, rather than outcomes".
- exclusiv 10y ago
  > I think the discourse about "rights" is part of the problem in US politics I think the definition is a very important distinction, although you're right about outcomes being a binding agent. I don't believe that health care is a right. A right is something that another person doesn't provide. This "me" movement has really clouded everyone, thinking they are entitled to everything, even if what they want to be entitled to compels another person to provide it, thereby infringing on that person's rights. So while I don't think it's a right, healthcare is a good idea as an investment and is a social good. So I agree on the positioning you suggested to get both sides to come together. It's the right thing to do and look at all the tangible benefits we could get from it....
- squozzer 10y ago
  Sorry, I guess where I was going was when someone defines something as a right, they should be able to explain how they arrived at that conclusion. For instance, if you believe that we have a right to live, and healthcare has some relation to life, then haelthcare might arguably be a right. Another might be an analogy, such as with law enforcement. Some might say we have a right to a life free from crime. Most jurisdictions prefer to run and staff their own police departments, or contract with another government-run police department. Only as a last resort would privately-run police departments be acceptable. Additionally, police officers, given their mission and tools, have the power of life and death over the citizens they serve. This is a typical reason given for government-run law enforcement. Healthcare, to a certain degree, also has the power of life and death. Therefore, one could argue governments should run healthcare.
  - Eridrus 10y ago
    I think a rights based reasoning framework is problematic in general, it leads people to focus too much on what is considered their "right" and ignores both the harms associated with having that right and the reasoning on which that right was based. You can fall into the trap of assuming your "right to private property" means that taxation is theft or you can start with a "right to privacy" and decide law enforcement should never be able to access the contents of your smart phone, rather than discussing the reasons for private property or privacy. And in case case, rights tend to never be justified, just asserted and treated like true axioms.
- Qcombinator 10y ago
  Of course, one man's "reasoning should be about outcomes, not ideology" is another man's "the ends justify the means"….

Here's an application of our faulty, socially-dependent reason: Health care is a right, yes or no? Please explain your reasoning. The article mentions ACA so my proposal should not be too off-topic.

Eridrus 10y ago

I think the discourse about "rights" is part of the problem in US politics, it makes the default mode of reasoning about ideology, rather than outcomes. The government should be in the healthcare business since the nature of the service precludes a functional market.

JackFr 10y ago
> it makes the default mode of reasoning about ideology, rather than outcomes. That is nonsense. To claim to focus solely on 'outcomes' is to simply make the ideology behind the recommendation implicit and outside the bounds of debate.
ZeroGravitas 10y ago
Though something that gets lost in the "aargh, socialist death panels" style discussion in the US, is that there are plenty of market-based mechanisms within the most "socialist" health care systems around the world, and there's a whole bunch of weird, anti-market bureaucracy in the American system. So you're right that talking about rights is unhelpful, I'd go further and suggest that just making healthcare provision better, rather than more/less market-based should be the main discussion to further avoid the conversation bogging down into "reasoning about ideology, rather than outcomes".
exclusiv 10y ago
> I think the discourse about "rights" is part of the problem in US politics I think the definition is a very important distinction, although you're right about outcomes being a binding agent. I don't believe that health care is a right. A right is something that another person doesn't provide. This "me" movement has really clouded everyone, thinking they are entitled to everything, even if what they want to be entitled to compels another person to provide it, thereby infringing on that person's rights. So while I don't think it's a right, healthcare is a good idea as an investment and is a social good. So I agree on the positioning you suggested to get both sides to come together. It's the right thing to do and look at all the tangible benefits we could get from it....
squozzer 10y ago
Sorry, I guess where I was going was when someone defines something as a right, they should be able to explain how they arrived at that conclusion. For instance, if you believe that we have a right to live, and healthcare has some relation to life, then haelthcare might arguably be a right. Another might be an analogy, such as with law enforcement. Some might say we have a right to a life free from crime. Most jurisdictions prefer to run and staff their own police departments, or contract with another government-run police department. Only as a last resort would privately-run police departments be acceptable. Additionally, police officers, given their mission and tools, have the power of life and death over the citizens they serve. This is a typical reason given for government-run law enforcement. Healthcare, to a certain degree, also has the power of life and death. Therefore, one could argue governments should run healthcare.
- Eridrus 10y ago
  I think a rights based reasoning framework is problematic in general, it leads people to focus too much on what is considered their "right" and ignores both the harms associated with having that right and the reasoning on which that right was based. You can fall into the trap of assuming your "right to private property" means that taxation is theft or you can start with a "right to privacy" and decide law enforcement should never be able to access the contents of your smart phone, rather than discussing the reasons for private property or privacy. And in case case, rights tend to never be justified, just asserted and treated like true axioms.
Qcombinator 10y ago
Of course, one man's "reasoning should be about outcomes, not ideology" is another man's "the ends justify the means"….