2 ms·

Again, this is all maybe sorta possible in a completely theoretical new world, but in this world the debate is different - either we continue to let health insu

Again, this is all maybe sorta possible in a completely theoretical new world, but in this world the debate is different - either we continue to let health insurance companies deny coverage to most and make it so healthcare goes only to those we barely need it, or we socialize it so that its accessible for all. Even if I agreed on the ideal end state, that doesn't change the fact that there are only 2 realistic next steps, and one is better IMO even if its further away from the "ideal". I understand you are libertarian and believe only in consent, i don't need that explained to me again. I'm talking about actual concrete next steps on a concrete situation (healthcare), not "imagine you could rebuild the entire world in an ideal fashion". Thats the question I really want you to answer. More along the lines of the philosophical (but less important, pointless) debate - Consent is not so clear as you think it is. Why should I consent to your single-minded focus on consent as the only valid principle of organizing society overriding all other concerns of practicality? What if I view that as an imposition of your virtues on mine?

thegrimmest 6y ago
I would say any next step should be focused on moving towards the ideal, not away from it. As we've identifed earlier, deregulating the actual practice of medicine, and adopting a model that more closely resembles veteranry care, would take us quite far in the right direction. Basically instead of socializing the ridiculous costs of the current system, we should focus on creating an wider spectrum of options for people. There should be a budget option. I strongly disagree that it's pointless to have an underlying philosophy that decisions are based on, quite the opposite in fact. I would say that having a consistent philosophy or set of principles is the most important thing when making any sort of decisions, especially in the administration of complex systems such as society. To answer your second (very valid) question, the underlying assumption is that we are all more or less equal, and therefore neither of us has a right to impose anything on the other. The question I've asked that you've not answered is what is the source of your authority to decide what virtues I should live by? I'm not saying you have to live by mine, just that you lack the moral authority to make me live by yours. The fact that I'm asking for a source of authority is just a fancy way of saying "why do you think you can impose on me and not expect me to resist with violence and subversion?"

thegrimmest 6y ago

I would say any next step should be focused on moving towards the ideal, not away from it. As we've identifed earlier, deregulating the actual practice of medicine, and adopting a model that more closely resembles veteranry care, would take us quite far in the right direction. Basically instead of socializing the ridiculous costs of the current system, we should focus on creating an wider spectrum of options for people. There should be a budget option. I strongly disagree that it's pointless to have an underlying philosophy that decisions are based on, quite the opposite in fact. I would say that having a consistent philosophy or set of principles is the most important thing when making any sort of decisions, especially in the administration of complex systems such as society. To answer your second (very valid) question, the underlying assumption is that we are all more or less equal, and therefore neither of us has a right to impose anything on the other. The question I've asked that you've not answered is what is the source of your authority to decide what virtues I should live by? I'm not saying you have to live by mine, just that you lack the moral authority to make me live by yours. The fact that I'm asking for a source of authority is just a fancy way of saying "why do you think you can impose on me and not expect me to resist with violence and subversion?"