3 ms·

>...than a doctor weighing in on your position... As smart as they are, the doctors are most clueless regarding the moral issues involved. There is another MD

by dmfdmf 12y ago

>...than a doctor weighing in on your position... As smart as they are, the doctors are most clueless regarding the moral issues involved. There is another MD in this thread claiming the essence of medicine is service to others but I think 5 minutes of thought can dismiss that non-sense, even from a doctor. > It'd seem that you suffer from all-or-nothing, black-and-white thinking -- I don't consider this a flaw in my position. Its called Aristotelian logic either/or, maybe you have heard of it. There is no gray in reality it is in your head. > that when confronted with tension between two ideals you don't know what to do except pick a single winner and declare that any attempt to balance tension between the two as an unacceptable compromise against the value you've judged higher. Name those ideals, please. If you boil it down it is not a conflict between two good principle or ideals (this does happen but not in this case) but between a bad one and a good one. Are the doctors free to withdraw their service? Its a simple question. If you believe that medical service is a right doesn't that mean that medical service is an obligation of the doctors to provide? Who, other than a slave, has an obligation to provide service? If you force the doctors to follow the Code of Federal Regulations and limit their salaries are they still really doctors in the proper meaning or are they bureaucrats? Do the good doctors stay under such a system or do they move on? Don't be fooled by nomenclature. > Finally (and perhaps most specifically and pertinently), while I'd be willing to believe that you may be familiar with the regulatory aspects that directly affect your professional life (and invite you to express your confidence about this by drawing attention to the specific market vacuum you've left behind in case someone else doesn't share your opinion), your summary doesn't seem to me to be a particularly accurate description of the state of values/laws when it comes to health care in the US. AMA good enough for you? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8248017 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8248017 HIPPA is Coming!, HIPPA is Coming!, HIPPA is Coming! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8247991 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8247991 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8248417 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8248417 You have been warned. > People do sometimes speak of the struggle many face for access to health care in terms of rights. Words have real meaning and aren't rubber terms to justify anything people need or want. So where do you draw the line? You and I need food, is that a right too? Your concepts are so confused that I doubt you could even answer that without equivocating and hedging your position but that is a serious question. Every argument you made for health care being a right applies more so to food. So tell me what is different between food and healthcare, shall we enslave the farmers now too? And what about electricity or the internet? I have heard people argue that these are rights too and based on your soft thinking you have no argument against them. If you were consistent, as in my black and white world, you would have to join the hoards demanding these "rights" -- provided by whom?

secabeen 12y ago
In most western civilizations government food assistance and other nutritional aid are available for those who would otherwise starve to death. Given that the only estimate I found of actual starvation deaths in the United States was 140 in 2004, I think we can say that people in the United States have a right to basic amounts of food.
- dmfdmf 12y ago
  Is food a right or is charity for the poor humane? These are completely different world views.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
As you have invited personal criticism: You are naive and your thinking is simplistic. You have managed to get away from complete naivete, you think using abstract concepts, which allows you to look through the superficial appearance of things, and thus cut through a lot of bullshit. But you haven't noticed yet that your abstractions are way too abstract to give a reliable representation of the real world by themselves, that abstractions are just helpful thinking tools, but not the full truth - and that because of that your way of thinking produces about as much bullshit as it cuts through, just of a different kind. In particular, it's seldom helpful to cling to specific terms and their supposed definitions rather than look at the actual facts. Who cares whether doctors are slaves? Is there anyone who has any actual disadvantages due to how the system works or not? If everyone, including the doctors, is better off with how the system works, who cares whether they are slaves by some definition? If they have some disadvantages, then that should be addressed, who cares whether it fulfills the criteria for being a slave? Also, you always have to consider the wider societal context. There might be indirect benefits outside the immediate transactions that arise from how a society is constructed. Where I live, for example, if you see someone in distress and there is no significant danger to you if you were to rescue them, and you are able to, it is a criminal offense not to help. I guess by your standards that would mean we are all slaves - but I think the democracy that created the law is perfectly sufficient to justify this obligation, which as a side effect presumably generates higher safety and a higher sense of safety for everyone.

by dmfdmf 12y ago

secabeen 12y ago

In most western civilizations government food assistance and other nutritional aid are available for those who would otherwise starve to death. Given that the only estimate I found of actual starvation deaths in the United States was 140 in 2004, I think we can say that people in the United States have a right to basic amounts of food.

dmfdmf 12y ago
Is food a right or is charity for the poor humane? These are completely different world views.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago

As you have invited personal criticism: You are naive and your thinking is simplistic. You have managed to get away from complete naivete, you think using abstract concepts, which allows you to look through the superficial appearance of things, and thus cut through a lot of bullshit. But you haven't noticed yet that your abstractions are way too abstract to give a reliable representation of the real world by themselves, that abstractions are just helpful thinking tools, but not the full truth - and that because of that your way of thinking produces about as much bullshit as it cuts through, just of a different kind. In particular, it's seldom helpful to cling to specific terms and their supposed definitions rather than look at the actual facts. Who cares whether doctors are slaves? Is there anyone who has any actual disadvantages due to how the system works or not? If everyone, including the doctors, is better off with how the system works, who cares whether they are slaves by some definition? If they have some disadvantages, then that should be addressed, who cares whether it fulfills the criteria for being a slave? Also, you always have to consider the wider societal context. There might be indirect benefits outside the immediate transactions that arise from how a society is constructed. Where I live, for example, if you see someone in distress and there is no significant danger to you if you were to rescue them, and you are able to, it is a criminal offense not to help. I guess by your standards that would mean we are all slaves - but I think the democracy that created the law is perfectly sufficient to justify this obligation, which as a side effect presumably generates higher safety and a higher sense of safety for everyone.