15 ms·

Medical care is a commodity, and aren’t we all often faced with commodities we cannot afford? People who cannot afford medical care have no right to demand it

Medical care is a commodity, and aren’t we all often faced with commodities we cannot afford? People who cannot afford medical care have no right to demand it from anyone. Maybe someone will be empathetic enough to offer charity; friends and family may choose to band together and fund a sick person’s medical care. But even a poor person’s necessity does not change the fact that healthcare is a service and a good provided by a third party. No matter how much some starving kid needs food, he doesn’t have a right to steal someone’s wallet or hold up the local convenience store to obtain it. If I were in that position, maybe I’d end up choosing to steal since it’s the least immoral choice under the circumstances, but that does not make it a moral choice, or suggest that I have not violated someone‘s rights in pursuing my own needs.

warent 9y ago
Setting aside the fact that you're conflating voluntary theft with involuntary medical catastrophe, we're only as good as our weakest link. To your point, when people in society suffer, society as a whole suffers.
wlesieutre 9y ago
You can make that argument about other services the government provides. It's like saying "Security is a commodity. People who can't afford security guards and private investigators have no right to demand protection from criminals or investigations into their house being burglarized. A poor person's necessity does not change the fact that policing is a service and a good provided by a third party." We are aware that the current healthcare system treats it as a commodity for those who can afford it. The argument being made is that this is a problem and that we would do better to treat it a public service provided for those who need it.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
fao_ 9y ago
> Medical care is a commodity No, it's a right. > No matter how much some starving kid needs food, he doesn’t have a right to steal someone’s wallet or hold up the local convenience store to obtain it. Everyone has the right to life. I cannot imagine how callous one must be to willingly deprive fellow human beings of that right, purely because it is not how the economic system works. If we have the resources to provide healthcare to everyone, then we should. No matter what the cost. Repeat after me: Property is worth less than people. ""This means that nobody - including the government - can try to end your life. It also means the government should take appropriate measures to safeguard life by making laws to protect you and, in some circumstances, by taking steps to protect you if your life is at risk. Public authorities should also consider your right to life when making decisions that might put you in danger or that affect your life expectancy."" In the UK, Sweden, Norway, and many other civilized countries, everyone pays into a public pot that is used to provide medical care. Because of this, our workers are much more healthy, and much more able to work without the stress of "what if I get injured during work". They do not have to die of preventable diseases like septicemia, from something silly like duct taping their glass cut because they cannot afford to be treated.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  > Medical care is a commodity > No, it's a right. You cannot have a right to healthcare without taking the right to not work for someone else. You have a right to access healthcare, you dont have a right to force someone to service your health. And you shouldn't either. > In the UK, Sweden, Norway, and many other civilized countries, everyone pays into a public pot that is used to provide medical care. Because of this, our workers are much more healthy, and much more able to work without the stress of "what if I get injured during work". They do not have to die of preventable diseases like septicemia, from something silly like duct taping their glass cut because they cannot afford to be treated. This is medicare. Would you say medicare is economically successful?
  - Voloskaya 9y ago
    > This is medicare. Would you say medicare is economically successful? Good old late stage capitalism. Because economic success is paramount to all things right? Certainly more important than increasing the quality of life of citizens.
    - Domenic_S 9y ago
      How does bankrupting the system improve quality of life for all?
      - Voloskaya 9y ago
        You assume that having a non profitable healthcare system means bankrupting the entire system. This is false. In France, where the healthcare system is arguably one of the best in the world, it has been losing money since as long as I can remember. So what? The healthcare system looses money and the government injects money back, either directly from taxes or by some other means. I don't know a single french person that would want to get rid of this system even if that means paying less tax, because this very clearly improve the quality of life of everyone.
        9y ago
ako 9y ago
You are correct, but i feel a decent society cares about its citizens. Personally, i'm very happy to live in a country where we care about our citizens, and where we have voted for supporting those in need of food or healthcare.
radoslawc 9y ago
That would be true if those high prices were actual price of 'parts' and service fee. But if the same procedure is few times cheaper in EU...
sorokod 9y ago
"No matter how much some starving kid needs food, he doesn’t have a right to steal someone’s wallet or hold up the local convenience store to obtain it." There is something fundamentally wrong with a state that prioritizes punishing hungry people over not having hungry people in the first place.
Voloskaya 9y ago
> If I were in that position, maybe I’d end up choosing to steal since it’s the least immoral choice under the circumstances, but that does not make it a moral choice, Or you know, maybe the fact that you recognize that in this situation you would be left with only immoral choices, is a sign of broken system?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
afandian 9y ago
I'll reply rather than just downvoting. There's no such thing as "stealing" or "property" as a natural phenomenon. It's a social construct. We have collectively decided that it's important that if people have things in their possession, they shouldn't have them taken away. We have made property into a real thing by constructing a judicial system. We have also decided as a society (to a greater or lesser extent) that people have a right to some kind of food. We have made this right to food real by constructing a social security system. If someone takes possession of your car do you have the right to demand it back? Society says you do, and you do it by asking the state to help and resolve the judicial issue. If someone is going to starve to death, do they have the right to demand food? Society says you do, and you do it by asking the state to help with food / benefits.
- sdfasdasf 9y ago
  What does social construct even mean? I mean it appears everything outside of physics and chemistry is a social construct (in academia they argue those are SC too). Biological gender? Social construct! How is having ovaries or testicles a social construct? Hierarchy? Social construct! Hierarchy appears even in non-living things, never mind most biological systems! Property? Social construct! Why? How? Why is a solitary apex-hunter delimiting territory "natural" but when bald monkey does it, it's a "social construct" Finally this "decided as a society..." BS! That just revels your identify with the social class that gets to make the rules. But, unless (maybe) you're Swiss, you have no real political power. The vast majority of Americans despise Trump, didn't like Hillary, and don't want Bernie either. There are more independents than either party (almost than either combined). But somehow this representative democracy makes decisions that respects with my agency? BS! Get this even society is not a social construct. That's right! Society arises as soon as you have a handful of people (or agents) finding their place in their interrelationships. Hierarchy will naturally arise from this. I'm not saying the OPs point are (or aren't) abhorrent. But this social construct and contract thing is getting out of hand.
  - afandian 9y ago
    Yes, lots of things are social constructs. We are social animals, we have created and evolved highly complicated structures. But very little is intrinsic. The hierarchy in my filesystem has a similar structure to the one in my family tree / political system / place of work. But the fact that they form a shape that has an abstract representation doesn't mean that there's some law of physics that say that humans form hierarchies. Many people form monogamous relationships. You know what else does? Oxygen atoms! Maybe there's a link! The difference between science and religion (which is in the same ballpark as society) is that if you started from scratch you'd eventually converge on the same observations and scientific theories. Society, on the other hand, could go a very different way. Other societies decide different things, case in point, America. I can't be bothered to argue sex vs gender. But if you really think everyone fits neatly into two buckets in a nice bimodal distribution, maybe you haven't met enough people. That's kind of the point - inferring some kind of law, and therefore "should" from "looks like", e.g. Natural Moral Law is flawed. I understand it's very unsettling that there aren't many certainties in the world. We construct them to make ourselves feel safe. I'm very happy to inhabit that psychological world. But I'm not fooling myself that we're not alone in a cold universe.
hu3 9y ago
if even medical care is a commodity, what's the point of paying taxes?
tdb7893 9y ago
I think the issue is that basic medical care is enormously expensive in the US. Other countries will have similar outcomes for much less money. This is an entirely separate point but your argument about stealing doesn't seem related to healthcare as I don't see anyone in this thread arguing for stealing healthcare
Ixio 9y ago
> No matter how much some starving kid needs food, he doesn’t have a right to steal someone’s wallet or hold up the local convenience store to obtain it There is at least one Italian court that disagrees with you: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36190557 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36190557 The article states that Italy's highest court of appeal has ruled that stealing small amounts of food to stave off hunger is not a crime.
- Domenic_S 9y ago
  The court says it's legal, or not a crime, but it didn't say it was right.
gerbilly 9y ago
Consider the following: It might not be possible to create a consistent and complete set of logical rules to derive the best outcomes in human affairs. Think of it as a type of 'incompleteness theorem.'

warent 9y ago

Setting aside the fact that you're conflating voluntary theft with involuntary medical catastrophe, we're only as good as our weakest link. To your point, when people in society suffer, society as a whole suffers.

wlesieutre 9y ago

You can make that argument about other services the government provides. It's like saying "Security is a commodity. People who can't afford security guards and private investigators have no right to demand protection from criminals or investigations into their house being burglarized. A poor person's necessity does not change the fact that policing is a service and a good provided by a third party." We are aware that the current healthcare system treats it as a commodity for those who can afford it. The argument being made is that this is a problem and that we would do better to treat it a public service provided for those who need it.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

fao_ 9y ago

> Medical care is a commodity No, it's a right. > No matter how much some starving kid needs food, he doesn’t have a right to steal someone’s wallet or hold up the local convenience store to obtain it. Everyone has the right to life. I cannot imagine how callous one must be to willingly deprive fellow human beings of that right, purely because it is not how the economic system works. If we have the resources to provide healthcare to everyone, then we should. No matter what the cost. Repeat after me: Property is worth less than people. ""This means that nobody - including the government - can try to end your life. It also means the government should take appropriate measures to safeguard life by making laws to protect you and, in some circumstances, by taking steps to protect you if your life is at risk. Public authorities should also consider your right to life when making decisions that might put you in danger or that affect your life expectancy."" In the UK, Sweden, Norway, and many other civilized countries, everyone pays into a public pot that is used to provide medical care. Because of this, our workers are much more healthy, and much more able to work without the stress of "what if I get injured during work". They do not have to die of preventable diseases like septicemia, from something silly like duct taping their glass cut because they cannot afford to be treated.

conanbatt 9y ago
> Medical care is a commodity > No, it's a right. You cannot have a right to healthcare without taking the right to not work for someone else. You have a right to access healthcare, you dont have a right to force someone to service your health. And you shouldn't either. > In the UK, Sweden, Norway, and many other civilized countries, everyone pays into a public pot that is used to provide medical care. Because of this, our workers are much more healthy, and much more able to work without the stress of "what if I get injured during work". They do not have to die of preventable diseases like septicemia, from something silly like duct taping their glass cut because they cannot afford to be treated. This is medicare. Would you say medicare is economically successful?
- Voloskaya 9y ago
  > This is medicare. Would you say medicare is economically successful? Good old late stage capitalism. Because economic success is paramount to all things right? Certainly more important than increasing the quality of life of citizens.
  - Domenic_S 9y ago
    How does bankrupting the system improve quality of life for all?
    - Voloskaya 9y ago
      You assume that having a non profitable healthcare system means bankrupting the entire system. This is false. In France, where the healthcare system is arguably one of the best in the world, it has been losing money since as long as I can remember. So what? The healthcare system looses money and the government injects money back, either directly from taxes or by some other means. I don't know a single french person that would want to get rid of this system even if that means paying less tax, because this very clearly improve the quality of life of everyone.
      - 9y ago

ako 9y ago

You are correct, but i feel a decent society cares about its citizens. Personally, i'm very happy to live in a country where we care about our citizens, and where we have voted for supporting those in need of food or healthcare.

radoslawc 9y ago

That would be true if those high prices were actual price of 'parts' and service fee. But if the same procedure is few times cheaper in EU...

sorokod 9y ago

"No matter how much some starving kid needs food, he doesn’t have a right to steal someone’s wallet or hold up the local convenience store to obtain it." There is something fundamentally wrong with a state that prioritizes punishing hungry people over not having hungry people in the first place.

Voloskaya 9y ago

> If I were in that position, maybe I’d end up choosing to steal since it’s the least immoral choice under the circumstances, but that does not make it a moral choice, Or you know, maybe the fact that you recognize that in this situation you would be left with only immoral choices, is a sign of broken system?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

afandian 9y ago

I'll reply rather than just downvoting. There's no such thing as "stealing" or "property" as a natural phenomenon. It's a social construct. We have collectively decided that it's important that if people have things in their possession, they shouldn't have them taken away. We have made property into a real thing by constructing a judicial system. We have also decided as a society (to a greater or lesser extent) that people have a right to some kind of food. We have made this right to food real by constructing a social security system. If someone takes possession of your car do you have the right to demand it back? Society says you do, and you do it by asking the state to help and resolve the judicial issue. If someone is going to starve to death, do they have the right to demand food? Society says you do, and you do it by asking the state to help with food / benefits.

sdfasdasf 9y ago
What does social construct even mean? I mean it appears everything outside of physics and chemistry is a social construct (in academia they argue those are SC too). Biological gender? Social construct! How is having ovaries or testicles a social construct? Hierarchy? Social construct! Hierarchy appears even in non-living things, never mind most biological systems! Property? Social construct! Why? How? Why is a solitary apex-hunter delimiting territory "natural" but when bald monkey does it, it's a "social construct" Finally this "decided as a society..." BS! That just revels your identify with the social class that gets to make the rules. But, unless (maybe) you're Swiss, you have no real political power. The vast majority of Americans despise Trump, didn't like Hillary, and don't want Bernie either. There are more independents than either party (almost than either combined). But somehow this representative democracy makes decisions that respects with my agency? BS! Get this even society is not a social construct. That's right! Society arises as soon as you have a handful of people (or agents) finding their place in their interrelationships. Hierarchy will naturally arise from this. I'm not saying the OPs point are (or aren't) abhorrent. But this social construct and contract thing is getting out of hand.
- afandian 9y ago
  Yes, lots of things are social constructs. We are social animals, we have created and evolved highly complicated structures. But very little is intrinsic. The hierarchy in my filesystem has a similar structure to the one in my family tree / political system / place of work. But the fact that they form a shape that has an abstract representation doesn't mean that there's some law of physics that say that humans form hierarchies. Many people form monogamous relationships. You know what else does? Oxygen atoms! Maybe there's a link! The difference between science and religion (which is in the same ballpark as society) is that if you started from scratch you'd eventually converge on the same observations and scientific theories. Society, on the other hand, could go a very different way. Other societies decide different things, case in point, America. I can't be bothered to argue sex vs gender. But if you really think everyone fits neatly into two buckets in a nice bimodal distribution, maybe you haven't met enough people. That's kind of the point - inferring some kind of law, and therefore "should" from "looks like", e.g. Natural Moral Law is flawed. I understand it's very unsettling that there aren't many certainties in the world. We construct them to make ourselves feel safe. I'm very happy to inhabit that psychological world. But I'm not fooling myself that we're not alone in a cold universe.

hu3 9y ago

if even medical care is a commodity, what's the point of paying taxes?

tdb7893 9y ago

I think the issue is that basic medical care is enormously expensive in the US. Other countries will have similar outcomes for much less money. This is an entirely separate point but your argument about stealing doesn't seem related to healthcare as I don't see anyone in this thread arguing for stealing healthcare

Ixio 9y ago

> No matter how much some starving kid needs food, he doesn’t have a right to steal someone’s wallet or hold up the local convenience store to obtain it There is at least one Italian court that disagrees with you: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36190557 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36190557 The article states that Italy's highest court of appeal has ruled that stealing small amounts of food to stave off hunger is not a crime.

Domenic_S 9y ago
The court says it's legal, or not a crime, but it didn't say it was right.

gerbilly 9y ago

Consider the following: It might not be possible to create a consistent and complete set of logical rules to derive the best outcomes in human affairs. Think of it as a type of 'incompleteness theorem.'