6 ms·

> Have you considered the logical endpoint of your line of reasoning? In fact I have. In my estimation, if we adopted a model of interaction that emphasizes co

> Have you considered the logical endpoint of your line of reasoning? In fact I have. In my estimation, if we adopted a model of interaction that emphasizes consent, the incapable and unfortunate among us would rely on charity to have their needs met, as they have for most of history. This seems much more ethical than to rely on force through taxation. It can't be compassionate to impose your idea of compassion onto other unwilling people. It is also worth noting that as long as we consume goods made by people in conditions we don't tolerate domestically, we're being wildly hypocritical. All we've done is offshore the suffering, and in the process massively harm the environment shipping things to and from more lenient jurisdictions. > In a world that worked so hard over centuries to create modern healthcare, we should only use it for people who barely need it. We may have literally figured out how to transplant organs and save lives, but nah its too expensive so why bother? It should be reserved for those who can afford to pay for it. If you want a modern operating theatre, filled with expensive equipent and highly educated people, someone has to pay for it regardless of whether it's for yourself or for your horse. I'm only saying that the person who pays should do so consensually. Likewise, if all you can afford is a street dentist with rusty tools, then I don't see from where one derives entitlement to anything else. As mentioned earlier, we already buy things made by people who live in such conditions, so the point is moot. > Anyways, your worldview is fucked. Hope you think much more deeply about it. Or just grow old in the world you wish for, maybe one day you will need surgery, insurance will reject you, banks will not loan you the $200k it costs, and you will die for the sake of the algorithms and profit maximization. This all may be, but I will be dying with my dignity intact, not greedily reaching into the pocket of a stranger, deluded into thinking I'm entitled to what's inside.

dredmorbius 6y ago
Two wrongs don't make a right. Maybe we can only fix one evil at a time. The approach that rejects the rusty-tools dentist is also more likely to reject the offshored oppressive offshored (or quite frequently, domestic) labour, rather than binning all empathy looking at either, other similar situations, or worse, and shrugging it off with a "meh, not my problem". The worldview you're expressing has absolutely no dignity.
- thegrimmest 6y ago
  Well this all implies that we agree that empathy should be a driving force in decision making, overriding all others, to the point that it's ethical to impose onto wider society. Where do you derive the authority to extract compliance, by force, with your virtues and worldview at the expense of others? Also I don't think we agree on the definition of dignity. In my eyes it's perfectly possible to die of disease or starvation with dignity. Otherwise you're implying that nature itself is bereft of it.
zaptheimpaler 6y ago
You seem to think prices and wages are set in stone by the gods or ideal free markets. They're not. Healthcare is an inelastic good, people have to pay whatever it costs. Lots of research into the cost vs. outcomes of healthcare in the US vs. other countries shows that its very wasteful. Heck there was an interview with an ex health insurance exec who admitted they created the narrative of healthcare being shitty in Canada to sway public support for privatized healthcare. I personally buy drugs that cost $1-2 in other countries, but $100+ without insurance in US. In most cases, state owned healthcare ends up being much cheaper - so perhaps a surgery that costs $200K to one person, would cost only $100K when funded by the state because they have MUCH more negotiating power. So in a sense, public healthcare makes the entire system more efficient. If we took on your Darwinian model, then its a very simple negotiation - life-saving medicines or surgeries are worth infinity, because otherwise you die. So if you ever need either of those, the doctors will simply ask for every single dollar and asset you have in perpetuity, easy.
- thegrimmest 6y ago
  > You seem to think prices and wages are set in stone by the gods or ideal free markets. I don't. I think prices and wages ought to be privately negotiated between consumers and producers, and employees and employers respectively. I also think that people are no more entitled to goods, employment or services from other people than they are to romantic relationships, which clearly need to be consensual. Healthcare in the US is extremely heavily regulated, that's why it's so expensive. The minimum quality of care is absurdly high. There's no budget option. If you want any medical care, you have to see a physician with an ridiculously expensive education, the supply of which has been artificially limited by regulatory capture. This is all highly unethical. If you need a simple procedure, why can't someone with the equivalent of technician training do it for much cheaper? Again, this would be a consensual interaction between two parties, which is nobody's buiness but their own. > If we took on your Darwinian model, then its a very simple negotiation - life-saving medicines or surgeries are worth infinity, because otherwise you die. So if you ever need either of those, the doctors will simply ask for every single dollar and asset you have in perpetuity, easy. This just totally ignores the idea of competition. If some doctors are charging infinity, then others would realize they could capture market share by charging less than that. The veterenary comparison is very apt, why should human healthcare work any differently?

dredmorbius 6y ago

Two wrongs don't make a right. Maybe we can only fix one evil at a time. The approach that rejects the rusty-tools dentist is also more likely to reject the offshored oppressive offshored (or quite frequently, domestic) labour, rather than binning all empathy looking at either, other similar situations, or worse, and shrugging it off with a "meh, not my problem". The worldview you're expressing has absolutely no dignity.

thegrimmest 6y ago
Well this all implies that we agree that empathy should be a driving force in decision making, overriding all others, to the point that it's ethical to impose onto wider society. Where do you derive the authority to extract compliance, by force, with your virtues and worldview at the expense of others? Also I don't think we agree on the definition of dignity. In my eyes it's perfectly possible to die of disease or starvation with dignity. Otherwise you're implying that nature itself is bereft of it.

zaptheimpaler 6y ago

You seem to think prices and wages are set in stone by the gods or ideal free markets. They're not. Healthcare is an inelastic good, people have to pay whatever it costs. Lots of research into the cost vs. outcomes of healthcare in the US vs. other countries shows that its very wasteful. Heck there was an interview with an ex health insurance exec who admitted they created the narrative of healthcare being shitty in Canada to sway public support for privatized healthcare. I personally buy drugs that cost $1-2 in other countries, but $100+ without insurance in US. In most cases, state owned healthcare ends up being much cheaper - so perhaps a surgery that costs $200K to one person, would cost only $100K when funded by the state because they have MUCH more negotiating power. So in a sense, public healthcare makes the entire system more efficient. If we took on your Darwinian model, then its a very simple negotiation - life-saving medicines or surgeries are worth infinity, because otherwise you die. So if you ever need either of those, the doctors will simply ask for every single dollar and asset you have in perpetuity, easy.

thegrimmest 6y ago
> You seem to think prices and wages are set in stone by the gods or ideal free markets. I don't. I think prices and wages ought to be privately negotiated between consumers and producers, and employees and employers respectively. I also think that people are no more entitled to goods, employment or services from other people than they are to romantic relationships, which clearly need to be consensual. Healthcare in the US is extremely heavily regulated, that's why it's so expensive. The minimum quality of care is absurdly high. There's no budget option. If you want any medical care, you have to see a physician with an ridiculously expensive education, the supply of which has been artificially limited by regulatory capture. This is all highly unethical. If you need a simple procedure, why can't someone with the equivalent of technician training do it for much cheaper? Again, this would be a consensual interaction between two parties, which is nobody's buiness but their own. > If we took on your Darwinian model, then its a very simple negotiation - life-saving medicines or surgeries are worth infinity, because otherwise you die. So if you ever need either of those, the doctors will simply ask for every single dollar and asset you have in perpetuity, easy. This just totally ignores the idea of competition. If some doctors are charging infinity, then others would realize they could capture market share by charging less than that. The veterenary comparison is very apt, why should human healthcare work any differently?