What's The Moral Basis for Universal Health Care?

[ulTRAX]

The US is pretty much alone among the advanced democracies in providing universal health care for its citizens. Though Progressives think universal health care is inherently desirable... what's the moral basis to justify it?

I have my own opinion. But should you be confronted by someone on the Right.. what is yours?

[codegreen]

1. using a religious basis for advocating it confounds the Righties.

Jesus isn't here to heal the people, so we should take it upon ourselves to do our best in his stead

[SharonAnn]

99. Catholic - Corporal and Spiritual Works of Mercy

The traditional enumeration of the corporal works of mercy is as follows:

To feed the hungry;
To give drink to the thirsty;
To clothe the naked;
To harbour the harbourless;
To visit the sick;
To ransom the captive;
To bury the dead.


The spiritual works of mercy are:

To instruct the ignorant;
To counsel the doubtful;
To admonish sinners;
To bear wrongs patiently;
To forgive offenses willingly;
To comfort the afflicted;
To pray for the living and the dead.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10198d.htm

[benburch]

2. It is this.

"All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated...As therefore the bell that rings to a sermon, calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come: so this bell calls us all: but how much more me, who am brought so near the door by this sickness....No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

-John Donne

[radwriter0555]

3. it's the right thing to do, for the richest, most powerful country in the

world, our FIRST obligation is the care and consideration of our citizens, in particular, our most valuable asset, our children.

Besides, name another country on equal standing that doesn't provide decent, affordable health care for all its people?

[Maat]

4. The moral basis is that every wise man or religious leader...

in the world has pointed out that we need to take care of others as we would ourselves, and that instead of being greedy, the rich need to see that the less-fortunate's basic needs are taken care of -- instead of buying themselves $6,000 shower curtains.

[ulTRAX]

107. OK.... but capitalism has its own "morality"

And that "morality" justifies the pissing away of one's own money on a $6000 shower curtain as perfectly moral.

Or what that someone pissing away profits that belonged to company stockholders?

[LynzM]

5. Um, you did mean *not* providing, right?

Personally, I just don't think it's fair that anyone should have to suffer from injury or illness just because they don't have money to pay the (often outrageous) medical bills. The uninsured pick up a much bigger tab than insurance companies for the same goods and services, and I don't think that's fair. For example, I am diabetic. If I could not afford my daily medications and testing supplies, which would total about $300/month without insurance, I would die inside a week. Should that happen? To me, it is as much a necessity as food and water; in fact, it is more so. I think it is awful that in such a 'wealthy' country, we have anyone who is starving, homeless, or unable to get medical care. I'm a bleeding-heart liberal :D

[LoZoccolo]

6. Health insurance is just capitalism's answer to socialism anyways.

It's already a pool of risk, so I don't know what the big deal is. I guess I'd get kind of freaked out if it turned out really shitty (this is serious for me, I have heart disease and I'm not even thirty) so I'd rather have something like the Dean plan or the Gephardt plan rather than single-payer, but still, it would be good to have a really good government plan give the private ones something to really have to compete with.

[LoZoccolo]

11. I guess I haven't given a moral basis.

But I've found it's very hard to convince people of a moral basis for government programs because they tend to twist their position into some dubious alternate moral basis like "if we don't give people an incentive they won't work hard", so I guess I'm thinking practically.

[brainshrub]

7. Do unto others what you would do unto yourself.

It is immoral to allow a person to remain sick or injured if you have the resources to help him.

[cornfedyank]

21. i vote for this one... treat people like you want them to treat you

i also like the inch worm theory.

[SemperEadem]

88. "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me"

[No2W2004]

8. Moral Basis??

Is not everyone entitled to live in decent health?

[ulTRAX]

14. entitled by whom?

Just curious. What if someone's health problems are do to lifestyle choices? Why should John Q Public pay to treat someone's lung cancer when there's been health warnings on cigarettes for 30 years?

Just playing Devil's Advocate.

[Union Thug]

17. because this is a community

and john q public doesn't exist in a vacuum. The bottom line is that we are all interdependent, despite the cancerous individualism that so many in this country worship.

at the end of the day, this is a problem intrinsic to capitalism and probably won't be resolved so long as win cling to gilded age ideals.

[No2W2004]

23. Because,

We are all human beings and human beings help each other.

If some idiot trys a "jackass" stunt in front of me and cracks his skull open, I, for one, won't just sit there and say "well, he deserved it." I WILL call them an Idiot, but I WILL try and help them out.

[cornfedyank]

26. education

but it has to be education. some evildoers insert the word indoctrination. if there is education then each of us has to take responsibility for the choices we make. now that would be a tough law to right. i do not think that it is possible in a for profit world. example: the unhealthy crap the advertisers call food.

[No2W2004]

28. I understand your point,

and on it's face, I agree.."why should my taxes go to take care of someone who abused themselves and now has to be hospitalized?"

If more people would start applying that same logic to govt. programs already in place like..."Why should my taxes go to buy that missle system that the defense dept. doesn't even want?", or "Why should my taxes go to pay corporations to export my job?", then money for health care wouldn't be an issue.

In my opinion anyway.

[cornfedyank]

38. what do we do with greedy people?

i think people should be satisfied when they have enough. now we have to define enough. i used to think that enough was when one could "take care" of themselves and their kids. now i think enough has to include their grandkids. Why? because old men get to looking at their grandkids and thinking about whether the grandkids have enough. greedy old men say "well, i better get a little more so little georgie can ...". that's when old men start wars.

wage peace ----it's cheaper

[kysrsoze]

37. How about an asshole president who is a dry drunk and

former (at least we think) coke user? Give me a break. Universal healthcare spreads the risk over everyone. It's not as if millions of people who smoke, drink, drive or jump out of airplanes don't have medical insurance already.

[No2W2004]

39. I know better than to argue

with Zorak!

[kysrsoze]

41. Damn straight. I, Zorak, enjoy a good smoke from time to time.

Mwwwaaaaaa-haaaaaa-haaaa-haaaaaa. Blink-blink.

[billyskank]

45. That is the standard right-wing argument

I know you are playing devil's advocate, so you know it is the standard RW argument too.

We will always be able to find some idiot who doesn't deserve to be helped because they heaped their misfortune upon themselves wilfully. The question is, does that justify witholding assistance from those others who are equally unfortunate but who don't deserve it?

We hear the same arguments here in the UK. Social programs ought to be abolished because some people are abusing them, yada yada yada. The question is, does the inevitable abuse by the unscrupulous elements among us justify witholding the aid from everyone else who needs it too? I say it doesn't. The greedy ones who don't want to pay taxes say it does.

[0007]

49. This is the republican, the greedy, the stingiest that has these ignorant

preconception of logic.

Ignorance of even a devil prohibits mankind from advancing.

[dumpster_baby]

100. entitled by the "general welfare" clause of the American Constitution

any questions?

[Donkeyboy75]

104. I understand your devil's advocacy,

but where does one draw the line? Do we restrict health care for those who smoke 20 or more cigarettes a day? Or how about 5?

What about drinking? If one consumes more than five drinks a week, should we tell them to fuck off? How about "extreme sports." I'm sure there are more smokers than skiers in this country. Should we fail to cover skiing injuries? If one chooses to live in a city, they are more likely to contract lung cancer. Should we restrict universal health care to rural peoples?

It would be folly to decide who does and doesn't get health care. It theoretically isn't in short supply, like organs or the like. If one is on the waiting list for organs, I can see taking lifestyle choices into account, but not for health care in general.

[ulTRAX]

111. if you ask me..........

I personally believe that we should tax activities indirect proportion to their health consequences. One condition: ALL monies should go to treatment. In a round about way... this brings market principles to health care. So is this socialized medicine or using government as the only way to institute market reforms?

[Union Thug]

9. we're given a choice...

slave your life away for the good of big business or starve to death. If I am going to shill for the man, the man had better be willing to give a little back. If not, it's 1917 all over again. Fuck them.

[dumpster_baby]

56. Right on! No war but the Class War!

I am with you!

[mmonk]

10. pre-existing conditions maybe

and given the fact of the increased costs in this country for coverage while subsidizing hospitals for those uninsured means our system isn't cost effective. It would help the employment picture since healthcare coverage is a big part of labor costs for business. It makes no sense to pay more for less coverage. Its a moral question when children go uninsured and low wage workers are uninsured (working poor) or businesses temp to avoid paying the medical benefits of full time wokers.

[DoktorGreg]

12. Its good for business

The job creation engine of the US is the small business community. Hoever for small scale manufacturers, Asian countries have a huge financial advantage, government funded health care.

Another way it is affecting the small business community is brain drain. Many people who would fit better in small business, stay out of small business, because the options available in health care are really limited, and more expensive than giant providers. To see a revolution in small business, free up the work force to choose career fields in small business.

[starroute]

25. Exactly -- the advantage is pragmatic, not merely moral

Health insurance costs are placing an enormous strain on American business -- and not merely small businesses, either. Even larger companies can't compete with companies in other countries that don't have those costs.

Health costs are also a major factor in distorting the employment situation. They are a primary reason why companies would rather invest in equipment than hire more people, and why they would rather lean on their existing employees to work longer hours than hire additional employees. If it weren't for that, we could have more people working fewer hours for better wages, and everyone would be better off.

Health care costs also make companies reluctant to hire older workers who might get sick and drive up their premiums. Not only does this make things very difficult for anyone over 40 who loses a job, but it also means that the workforce as a whole is less experienced and less knowledgeable. And that in turn makes American business less competitive.

On the whole, morality is not opposed to self-interest -- merely to short-term self-interest. Morality consists of things like the recognition that if you help other people now, they'll be more likely to help you later, or that if you foster employee loyalty you will have less turnover and more profit in the long run. It may be hard for diehard social Darwinist types to see this when Wal-mart is raking in a fortune by screwing its employees, customers, suppliers, neighbors, and the American taxpayer, but in the long run, Wal-mart is bad for all of us. That's the message you have to get across.

[stepnw1f]

13. Unified or Not?

If we truly are a unified body made of many states than how can we allow certain citizens to die while others survive. To me it's like cuting the hand off to save the knee. As ridiculous as that may seem, both parts of that body are equally important as a whole.

Unfortunately the dumb asses that run this country, don't realise that, so now we are soley right handed. Now the right wipes the ass.

[Union Thug]

15. It's not that they don't realize...

it's that they don't give a rat's ass about you or me or our families..

[camero]

16. Moral basis in the book of genesis

We are our brother's keepers and the pubies are just Cain and not Christians. That usually puts the fundies in their place.

[Egalitarian]

18. Is there Competition in Heaven or do People Share?

When God looks down on us from Heaven, God sees us all as equals. We are all Gods children are we not? As such, it must be Gods wish that there is an equitable distribution of Gods gifts, one of which has been the advancement of our capabilities in Healthcare.

[Union Thug]

19. who was it that said "competition is for parasites." I love that. eom

[starroute]

27. Corporations as parasites or predators

My son has lately been applying what he's learned from years of watching nature shows to analyzing American business -- and he's come up with some very interesting metaphors.

One is that all businesses are predators -- and we as customers are their prey. They are lions and we are a herd of zebras, and their purpose in life is to feed off us. They try to delude us into thinking they are here to serve us, but if we believe that we merely make ourselves vulnerable.

Another is that all bueinesses are either parasites or symbionts. Some, like your local merchants, have a symbiotic relationship with the community and give back as well as taking. But others, like Wal-mart, are parasites that suck the life out of their hosts while giving nothing in return.

The point of both metaphors is that businesses are not friendly creatures. They are hostile and dangerous and care nothing about our well-being, and we have to control them as best we can.

[dumpster_baby]

61. Corporations as predators on society is an excellent metaphor, but ,

....but the vast majority are so bamboozled by corporate propaganda that they cannot even allow such thoughts into their heads.

[TahitiNut]

20. Is profiting from the labor of some treating the illness of others moral?

We spend 14% of our GDP on Health Care.
Canada spends 9% of their GDP on Health Care.
Our per capita GDP is larger.
More than 45 million Americans have no health care insurance.
Every Canadian has access to paid health care.

Of the billions more we spend, most goes to profiteers.

Capitalists are capitalism's worst enemies.



(On edit) Let's do another comparison:
In 1999, Canada spent US$1,939 per person on health care.
In 1999, the United States spent US$4,271 per person on health care.
I want my $2,332 back!

Where'd the excess $650 billion go?
That's just one year!

[JanMichael]

22. What ^^^^^^^he said. That's why.

The only argument is that: Exploitation of disease, sickness, illness, is a good thing! Including children...

Ethical, moral, Human, persons rarely answer "Yes" to that.

[dumpster_baby]

55. it is the same as price gouging by merchants during a natural disaster

The healthcare CEOs and govt officials who have allowed this healthcare extortion should be indicted and tried under existing laws and punished publicly.

[Selwynn]

35. OMG please please PLEASE gimme a source for those numbers!

Fabulous post.

[TahitiNut]

36. Well, I posted one link below.

The others are easily Google-able ... since they're pretty common knowledge. Nationmaster is an excellent source for such national statistics, even though they're mostly outdated. (I can't imagine how difficult it'd be to keep such a site up-to-date.)

Actually, I'm a bit behind since we're now spending 15% of our GDP on health care ...
<-- click to read the article

But that's OK... since the same article says Canada is now spending 9.7% of their GDP.

[Selwynn]

44. "its common knoweldge" is the cheapest fallacious argument tactic ever

You do realize that right?

Imagine if a republican came up to you and started blathering off bull crap, citing stats. You challenge him to support his/her claims, which is HIS/HER responsibility, not yours. Now imagine in response that they simply shurg and say, "well its common knoweldge."

Sorry but GDP satistics are not "common knoweldge." And if your going to cite a bunch of stats, you should be able to support your own statistics, not tell others to go look it up for themselves. I'm not making the claim - you are. What's more, if I'm asking you for a source, clearly it is not common knoweldge to me. So basically, when you respond like that, your just calling the other person stupid, which falls into the realm of ad hominem logical fallacy.

I'm sorry for the change of tone. I appreciate the one link you did provide, and its not that I disbelieve you. But as critical thinkers and thoughful human beings, we should, like, all swear an oath to ever take the intellectually lazy way out of a challenge to our position by saying "its common knoweldge" nor make a claim then tell someone else to go prove it. :)

I apologize again for my anality, but as a philsopher and former lecturer on the subject of formal and informal logic, I just HATE IT WHEN PEOPLE DO THAT! :D AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Ok, I'm all better.. if I came down to hard on this I apologize.

And I *DO* thank you for the link.
Sel

EDIT - PS, I love Noam Chomsky, but he is the KING of the "its common knoweldge" cheap shot which I hate so much! But usually, he supplements his "its common knoweldge" statements with 500 pages of footnotes anyway, so it works out.

[TahitiNut]

47. Well, since GDP statistics are so widely published (like employment) ...

... and available to anyone on 'findstats.gov', I use the phrase in the context of DU and this discussion. It has been my impression that DUers are very adept at doing Googles. Sorry you took offense.

I rarely waste my time in discussions with people whose agenda is a "win" rather than learning and "win-win." I refuse to take responsibility for the malice and deceits of others. I thought perhaps my track record of truth and accuracy over nearly 3 years on DU might've offered a clue.

I also included more links in my reply above. Maybe because I formatted them to make the post 'prettier' they escaped your notice?

Absolutely everything I said was supported, chapter and verse, by the few links I provided. I also refuse to get into a "I don't like your links" argument. Notice ...

<snip>

Health spending surged in recent years while the economy sputtered. As a result, health spending rose from 13.3 percent of the G.D.P. in 2000 to 14.1 percent in 2001 and 14.9 percent in 2002, the report said. From 1992 to 1999, the share was stable.

<snip>

Even though more than 43 million Americans are uninsured, the United States devotes more of its economy to health care than other industrial countries. In 2001 -- the last year for which comparative figures are available -- health accounted for 10.9 percent of the gross domestic product in Switzerland, 10.7 percent in Germany, 9.7 percent in Canada and 9.5 percent in France, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

<snip>
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_2004/us_recordhigh_healthcare_spending.html

(Try milk on your cornflakes?) :shrug:

[Selwynn]

70. I'm surprised at your response.

There is one simple bottom line: when you make a claim, you support it. When someone asks for that support, responding "its pretty common knowledge" is just intellectually lazy, and also logically unsound. Arguing that "because I've been right so many times in the last, every claim I make should be taken at face value" is also ridiculous. I also claim I have a long track record of factual and truthful commentary - that doesn't mean I've never made a mistake or that you would be inappropriate to ask for a source for something that I claim.

Also, I never denied you included links, in fact I thanked you for them. that doesn't change the fact that the "its pretty common knowledge" defense is a logical fallacy.

"I rarely waste my time in discussions with people whose agenda is a "win" rather than learning and "win-win.""

This statement has nothing to do with anything. Number one, I don't disagree with you, so my agenda is not to win. Number too, it is absolutely absurd to try to act as though there is something wrong with someone asking for sources when statistical claims are made. Basically you're saying, "how dare you not take my statements at face value!" That's ridiculous. It has nothing to do with "wining" to expect people who make statements to be able to support them.

And once again you did provide evidence for them, I'm not denying that. And I appreciate it. I am just point out that the "its common knowledge defense" is fallacious, and that your attitude of huffing and puffing here as if it is somehow offensive that I should have the audacity to expect that you provide support for your conjectures, and accept everything you say because of your "track record of truth and accuracy over nearly 3 years on DU" (which is totally irrelevant to the fact that claims should be backed up with evidence, and someone requesting that evidence should be told "well its common knowledge" when that is both untrue and unsound argumentation.)

This could have been real simple. You could have just provided some links when asked for source support, or included them in the first place - but instead you had to act like I was somehow stupid or missing out on something obvious because I didn't just accept your statements at face value. I'm sorry, but I'm not a republican. I don't just accept what anyone else says to me without thinking for myself. I liked your claim, which is why I called the post fabulous, and wanted to see more information.

And you provided it, but not with out brining on the fallacious argument tactic of saying "its common knowledge" (in other words, "you are at fault for having to ask" which is a joke) and acting as though I, who did not make the claim, should be the one responsible for proving the claim true. And those were the things I pointed out. And the only real reason to respond as you did above, its because my pointing that out bent your nose out of joint, nothing more.



I is mind boggling to me that you can take a basic attitude like

[TahitiNut]

89. Let's keep this simple.

(1) You asked for links and I provided some - again. At that point, I don't really know what the fuck anyone would reasonably complain about. In a civil forum, that should have resulted in a "Thanks!" It didn't. Go fucking figure. :shrug:

(2) When I said "common knowledge" as an aside, it's because I've been aware of these basic facts for over ten years and have read such numbers so frequently in so many different contexts (including such media as Time and Harper's) that I can no longer cite where I originally learned them. I literally had to do a quick Google to offer reference resources as a service to you. (Maybe it's because there're some who haven't even been literate adults for ten years? Dunno.)

(3) There is no "source" for logic and arithmetic. For example, nowhere have I read that the US spent $650 billion more in 1999 on health care than what we'd spend with a Canadian system. That's arithmetic.

(4) When I said I rarely wasted my time arguing with folks whose agenda is "win," I was responding to the notion you presented about arguing with Repugnants -- not you. (Sorry you took that personally. I wonder why you did.) It's my experience that mindless partisans defend their ignorance and the falsehoods upon which their misapprehension is based. It's not in my job description to overcome such devoted misapprehension.

"There are two things which cannot be attacked in front: ignorance and narrow-mindedness. They can only be shaken by the simple development of the contrary qualities. They will not bear discussion." - (Lord Acton)



The last thing I'll say is that asking for "sources" can itself be a trip down Bullshit Boulevard. After all, what're the "sources" for those "sources"? Who hasn't heard about biased "sources"? Some people accept Limbaugh as a "source" and view the Bureau of Labor Statistics or the Department of Health and Human Services with skepticism and disdain. Unless participants in an argument/discussion can accept a common (sub)set of facts, they cannot agree except perhaps accidentally. That has very little to do with "sources" and has a lot to do with learning. This is not a rigorously academic forum. I rarely ask another for "sources" ... instead opting to do my own learning and research. That's because I know how.

Logic 101
The fact of the matter is that there's not a damned thing "fallacious" about false premises. A "fallacy" lies in the validity of the argument, not the veracity of the premises. (Validity and veracity are two very differing concepts.) I can cite absolutely true premises and construct a fallacious argument just as easily as I can cite false premises and construct an absolutely valid argument. "Fallacious" doesn't mean "false" and "false" doesn't mean "fallacious".

Logician heal thyself. :eyes:

[TahitiNut]

51. For what it's worth, the HUGE discrepancy in health care ...

... "bang for the buck" between the US and Canada is undeniable by any reasonably informed person, imho. Thus, both the moral/ethical perspective and the economic perspective is clearly on the side of 'socialized' health care.

Canadians spend less than half of what Americans spend on health care.

In 1999...
America spent $4,271 per person for health care.
Canada spent $1,939 per person (55% less) for health care.
Furthermore ...
Switzerland spent $3,857 per person (10% less) for health care.
Norway spent $3,182 per person (25% less) for health care.
Denmark spent $2,785 per person (35% less) for health care.
Luxembourg spent $2,731 per person (36% less) for health care.
Iceland spent $2,701 per person (37% less) for health care.
Germany spent $2,697 per person (37% less) for health care.
France spent $2,288 per person (46% less) for health care.
Japan spent $2,243 per person (47% less) for health care.
Netherlands spent $2,173 per person (49% less) for health care.
Sweden spent $2,145 per person (50% less) for health care.
Belgium spent $2,137 per person (50% less) for health care.
Austria spent $2,121 per person (50% less) for health care.
Australia spent $1,714 per person (60% less) for health care.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_spe_per_per

Canadians live longer than Americans.

The average person in ...
The United States has a 12.8% probability of dying before the age of 60.
Canada has a 9.5% probability (26% less) of dying before the age of 60.
Furthermore ...
Denmark has a 12.0% probability (6% less) of dying before the age of 60.
Luxembourg has a 11.4% probability (11% less) of dying before the age of 60.
France has a 11.4% probability (11% less) of dying before the age of 60.
Finland has a 11.3% probability (12% less) of dying before the age of 60.
New Zealand has a 10.7% probability (16% less) of dying before the age of 60.
Austria has a 10.6% probability (17% less) of dying before the age of 60.
Germany has a 10.6% probability (17% less) of dying before the age of 60.
Belgium has a 10.5% probability (18% less) of dying before the age of 60.
Ireland has a 10.4% probability (19% less) of dying before the age of 60.
Spain has a 10.3% probability (20% less) of dying before the age of 60.
United Kingdom has a 9.9% probability (23% less) of dying before the age of 60.
Switzerland has a 9.6% probability (25% less) of dying before the age of 60.
Greece has a 9.4% probability (27% less) of dying before the age of 60.
Netherlands has a 9.2% probability (28% less) of dying before the age of 60.
Australia has a 9.1% probability (29% less) of dying before the age of 60.
Italy has a 9.1% probability (29% less) of dying before the age of 60.
Norway has a 9.1% probability (29% less) of dying before the age of 60.
Iceland has a 8.7% probability (32% less) of dying before the age of 60.
Japan has a 8.2% probability (36% less) of dying before the age of 60.
Sweden has a 8.0% probability (38% less) of dying before the age of 60.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_pro_of_not_rea_60

By almost all measures of "bang for the buck," people in the United States pay about twice as much for about 25% less health care.

[JanMichael]

53. Plus they cover 100%. Some anti-Nationalized HC folks cry "TWO TIERS"!

As in the fact that there are private plans in those counrties that the rich take out that are superior to the base plans. BFD, at least they have two tiers...We (Due to not covering 100%) don't even have One tier!

[TahitiNut]

62. That's already factored in.

When health care spending is measured, both public and private expenditures are included. Further, the degree to which people have access to health care and the quality of that health care are both subsumed by (measures of) the result of that health care: life expectancy.


Discussions regarding the differing levels of access to health care are analytical - they address the 'why' of the results. It is very, very clear that when people have fewer impediments to obtaining health care (France is even a better example than Canada) they will do so far earlier in the progress of any malady. Thus, people in nations having universal health care are far more likely to obtain prophylactic care and early intervention. When people obtain early care, the costs of that care are far lower and are far more likely to preclude more costly treatment - or death.

There's a capitalist argument as well. Capitalists are dependent on a labor force for their wealth. A healthier labor force is more productive and thus more profitable. (This, indeed, is the primary rationale for including health care benefits as an employment perquisite. It was seen as "good business.") However, in an era of plantation economics, the plantation owners are choosing to forego health care for the house slaves and are shipping the field slave's jobs overseas to labor markets having far lower standards for safety, health, and environmental concerns. Notice that jobs aren't being shipped to countries with better health care? This is a recipe for eventual worldwide labor disaster. As labor is destroyed, the ability to create the very wealth that the wealthiest enjoy is also being destroyed. We're on a path to a new Dark Ages.

Capital wealth has dropped almost every pretense of a broader societal benefit. It has become almost purely predatory, viewing "ordinary" people as a means rather than an end. The corruption in capitalism is reaching new extremes almost daily.

[Kanary]

93. Haven't seen it broken down that way before

That's a very dramatic way to illustrate what we're dealing with.

Thanks for more ammunition for my arguments for Universal Health Care!

Kanary

[TahitiNut]

95. Be aware of the fallacy of "we'll pay more taxes"

If I can pay $100 more in taxes and pay $200 less for health care ... it's a good deal no matter how I look at it. Thus, the BoogieMan of "they want to raise your taxes" preys upon the ignorant with malicious half-truths.


I'm not optimistic, however, that any move towards Universal Health Care wouldn't be obscenely constructed to make the wealthy even wealthier at the expense of the least wealthy. The prescription drugs Medicare change is a great example of a Trojan Horse for the wealthy. The corruption in D.C. is obscene.

[Kanary]

58. Great figures!

Thanks for sharing that. Wish I'd had those when I was writing my caucus resolution. :)

Kanary

[Vladimir]

75. Well said

there are many other arguments but I bet appealing to their wallet will persuade GOPers best...

[Cleita]

24. Suffer the little children.

Children are dependent on the adult community for their very exitence. What their parents can't provide the community at large must. So food, shelter, education and health care are all necessary to raise children to be healthy, productive adults. Of course if their parents are too sick to care for them or their grandparents, they too need food, shelter, jobs and health care, so they can bring up the next generation.

Wasting a child's life because of indifference and greed is immoral in my opinion.

[pllib]

29. Providing health care is an obligation....

As a Christian, I believe that the community - and the government, as an extension of that community, has an obligation to provide all members of that community with basic human needs - food, shelter, health care, education.

The principle of distributive justice asserts that all members of a society should have access to basic resources necessary to function and be contributing members of that society - including health care.

The sad fact of the matter is that we are already paying for Universal Health Care, and not getting it. There was an analysis published in July 2003 Health Affairs (I think date is right) by two physicians affiliated with physicians for universal health care. They combined all government spending for health care - Medicare, Medicaid, VA, military, federal, state and local employees insurance, and tax deductions to business and individuals for health care. The conclusion - the US spends more government dollars per capita on health care than any other country in the world. However, 15 to 20% of these dollars go for administrative costs (profit, administrative salaries, administrative burden in physicians offices and hospitals to deal with multiple insurers, etc.) - In most countries this figure stands at about 5 or 6%. Medicare's administrative costs are about 2 or 3% of total expenditures.

I am a family physician. I see people whose lives are ruined financially because they cannot afford to pay hospital bills. I see families that struggle with trying to purchase simple christmas presents for their kids while paying for medicines. I have seen people die because they could not afford access to basic health care, in the richest country in the world -(and there is plenty of good systematic evidence to support my anecdotal experience) - if you are poor in the United States, you should move to Canada if you want adequate health care.

[Cleita]

30. Welcome to DU pllib.

Your views are welcome here. There are many of us who are trying to get a health system like Canada's in the works. It's definitely a pushing a boulder uphill task so far.

[TahitiNut]

31. See ...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_spe_per_per

[eridani]

32. Same moral basis as the fire department

Health care is infrastructure.

[Egalitarian]

34. I want that bumpersticker

Healthcare is Infrastructure

[Selwynn]

33. a) we don't provide it b) even if we did we wouldn't be alone

First of all, we don't provide universal health care. So did you mean, the US would be pretty much alone IF it provided universal health care? Second, is Canada not a good enough democracy?

The bottom line is, to be the wealthiest most prosperous nation in the history of the world and rank 30+ in quality health care (no, before you bitch, I don't have the source in front of me, if you need to discount my argument because of that fine, I'm not doing research on Friday night hehe) is reprehensible.

We should we provide universal health care? Because WE CAN.

[Kanary]

59. You're correct, Selwyn, no need for "research"

The US ranks 37th in the world, and that's according to the WHO.

Quite shameful.

Kanary

[Selwynn]

72. Hehe there's ALWAYS need for research :))

But thanks for getting that pinned down for me. World Health Organization says 37th. That's what it was, thanks for reminding me!

[porkrind]

40. Are you serious?

"What's The Moral Basis for Universal Health Care?"

Should I be "confronted by someone on the Right", I would say:

"Get some compassion, charity, and selflessness, MORAN!"

[ulTRAX]

108. ya... but

porkrind wrote: "Are you serious? What's The Moral Basis for Universal Health Care? Should I be "confronted by someone on the Right", I would say: "Get some compassion, charity, and selflessness, MORAN!"

OK... but if we KNOW cigarettes can cause cancer... why should the person who resists the temptation subsidize the medical treatment of someone who lack that moral fiber?

Put in other words... WTF does capitalism have to do with compassion?

[flaminbats]

42. Giving a moral basis to an amoral neoconservative doesn't work..

The Federalist, No. 51 If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal control on government would be necessary. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

The moral basis for universal healthcare is that we are not a nation of angels. In a nation with the highest supply of healthcare per citizen, it is foolish to believe that the poor and uninsured shall be treated solely because of the good will of our fellow man!

Another moral reason for universal healthcare is that those who need the quality healthcare which they lack, are the least able to support themselves because of a severe disability. Such an individual can work and save for decades, and see years worth of investments blown away by medical expenses due to cancer or a car crash. Is it moral for the wealthiest nation on Earth to turn its back on those going into debt because they were deemed by the private sector to be "high risk"?

[bemildred]

43. Morality has nothing to do with it.

In a democratic republic, why should the people not,
through their government, give themselves health care?
We can buy armies and roads and schools and water systems,
why not health care?

[KayLaw]

46. Health care is a need

We should use our tax dollars on things we all absolutely need. Some say we need to keep government out of this, but government is already ivolved by regulating our care. For example, if you need a cancerous growth removed and can't pay for it, but I've read about the procedure in a medical book and manage to obtain lidocaine, a scalpel, and some codeine, then cut it off for you, oh boy, the government will be right there to try me, convict me, and support me in prison for a few years - plenty of tax money for that.

[0007]

48. Health, education and shelter is the inherent right of all human beings

A capitalist society that is motivated by greed impedes the word of love for brotherhood as meaningless.

[robbedvoter]

50. How about pragmatic? A healty society functions better in every way

Pssst: some diseases are contagious, all are costly.
Try: healtier is better.

[dumpster_baby]

52. Not about morality, but payment under social contract and ownership rights

We citizens own this country.

And we have a contract -- a social contract -- amongst ourselves, which holds in part that we shall hire people to operate this country so as to benefit the general welfare of the citizenry.

But when our hired people (elected and appointed people) sell us out to corporate interests, and when they allow corporations to extort outrageous fees from citizens for health care, then the social contract has not been fulfilled--it has been broken--and the owners/citizens are not getting the full benefits of citizenship.

I recommend that we citizen owners immediately adopt a hands-on approach to management, and seek new and radically different management immediately, and then indict and try the old management for treason in a court of law, and then punish them appropriately and publicly. Thus, shame shall henceforth be attached to their names, descendants, and treasonous acts.

[ulTRAX]

109. a "social contract" is a mushy concept

DB wrote: "Not about morality, but payment under social contract and ownership rights. We citizens own this country. And we have a contract -- a social contract -- amongst ourselves, which holds in part that we shall hire people to operate this country so as to benefit the general welfare of the citizenry."

And this "contract" is where? I've never seen its provisions. Is it legally binding? Please enlighten us!

[Nobody]

54. When the uninsured and underpaid cashier at Walmart gives you

strep throat, blame the system.

It's contagious, makes you very ill with a fever of 102 and sore throat, you'll stay in bed if you can take the time off or can afford to do it, but that cashier making $8/hour can't afford to take even three minutes off.

Without health care, that cashier is slogging through working at a standing up all day job in front of hundreds of people each day. Did I say strep throat is contagious?

Oh by the way, if you don't see a doctor, you can't get PRESCRIPTION ONLY antibiotics to kick it. If you try to let it go away on its own, you suffer for at least a couple weeks.

That's two weeks minimum of infecting hundreds of people daily. Some of those people who otherwise wouldn't get sick are also uninsured and underpaid. These people might also work closely with the public and

WHAMMO! Epidemic.

This is a pragmatic scenario. No one wants to get sick from some idiotic policy forcing people to work when they're sick. If you have no room in your budget for emergencies, you can't take even a single day off. One day lost means turning the heat down to 58 degrees in January, subsisting on ramen noodles for two weeks, or giving up lunch each day for a month. That means you work no matter what you have and could give to other people.

Now for the moral argument.

A civilized society is judged based on how it treats the person at the very bottom of the heap.

Ever read Ursula LeGuin's short story "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas"? For those who haven't it is a story about a paradise that has one person grow up in the worst possible conditions with no love, no comfort, no decent place to live, inadequate food, and no health care. Each person living the good life has to see this person at least once to know what one person is suffering so they might live well. Some people can't stand it and leave Omelas, never looking back.

It's never made clear how one person's suffering allows everyone else to have an idyllic life. It's never made clear how that one person is selected. And no mention is made of people sticking around trying to end this practice.

Whether it's one person at the bottom or everyone except an elite few at the bottom, there's still someone at the bottom and the conditions aren't all that different.

Why must there be even one person without basic necessities?

[Brooklyn-Mecca]

57. U.S. health care is embarassing n/t

n/t

[Kanary]

60. How do you unfreep this argument...

The reich wing comes back with "it's GOOD that big business is making lots of $$$ from health care... that means jobs".

Immoral as can be, yet that's how they choose to see it.

So, what's the best argument against that?

Kanary

[OneTwentyoNine]

66. Simple..... they would make MORE...

You've got at least 15% or more in this country with no Health care.Many,many more have very restricted or ridiculous co-pays and won't see a doctor unless its a severe emergency.

With UHC everyone is insured and everyone would visit a doctor more because they know their covered.

This is a GD National disgrace IMO. We blow off a BILLION per week in Iraq but UHC is out of reach,way to expensive? Bullshit....

[Kanary]

68. In my case, billions for Iraq

nothing for housing.

Turn us out into the streets, and be done with it.

Kanary

[TahitiNut]

67. Well...

Killing the jobless reduces the unemployment rate. Does that mean it's a good idea?

When people must work for a compensation that's 1/3rd of value of their labor, and then must pay the remainder merely to stay alive and keep providing 2/3 of the value of their labor to those who don't labor ... who benefits?

The plantation owner labors the least and benefits the most. He then argues that he's able to buy more slaves. Is that supposed to be a "good thing"?

The "American Dream" was to own one's own farm where one received the benefit of one's own labor. The industrial revolution has made that "dream" one of being, in effect, sharecroppers. We're now moving from being sharecroppers to being slaves - labor coerced by the rule of "work for me or die."

It's all in the degree to which labor itself receives the value of that labor. Conglomeration and globalization of ownership has reduced that share to less than 40% ... and going down.

[Kanary]

83. *Very* cogent reply!

"Killing the jobless reduces the unemployment rate. Does that mean it's a good idea?"
Y'know, I'm afraid that to a lot of this crowd, that's exactly what they would agree to. Our once great nation has sunk to some very low depths. If so many can yell "Level Iraq", I doubt they would have any qualms, or shed any tears, about doing away with those who are seen as "problems" inside our own borders.

I very much like your piece about the "American Dream", and will keep that in mind. We've mostly been reduced to wage slaves, with somewhat the same fear level as slaves.

Kanary

[Vladimir]

77. But that's like arguing

for an expanded buerocracy because it creates jobs. Actually, why not just tell the freeper that since government is so ineffgicient, they would be able to create lots more jobs by having a centralised system... :P

[Kanary]

80. I agree it makes no sense, and it's frustrating as all get-out

But, this "It creates jobs" is a HUGE mantra to this crowd, and we might as well be prepared for it.

I think we need to have some big town hall meetings about Universal Health Care, and dispell some of these silly arguments.

Kanary

[kodi]

63. it has none, but it is efficient in a modern society to do so.

fighting for universal health care on the swampy grounds of morality is neigh useless, because a priori an erroneous assumption is made that all agree on what morality means.

instead, universal health care has to be shown that it is more efficient for society to do so than other alternatives.

a simple fact that overhead costs from government run health care programs are less than 5% while those run by private organizations are around 18% indicates that for dollars spent, the government is more efficient than the private sector in returning services for money rendered.

that 13% difference eventually finds its way as profits for the private sector.

all other things being equal, one would naturally side with greater efficiency.

but here is the problem:

US government expenditures account for $2.3trillion/year

US health care cost expenditures account for $1.8Trillion/year.

all this from a $10 trillion US economy.

moving all health care to the public sector changes the total balance of government spending to $4.1 trillion/year (of course it should be less if that 18% overhead is reduced to 5%) but still this means that nearly 40% of the US economy is state driven.

what are the consequences of this to a capitalist economy in general and will such a program actually deliver quality care? i dont know, and i haven't read anything that indicates anyone truly knows.

[IronLionZion]

64. It takes a village

to raise a child like Hillary said. So doesn't it take a village to ensure the child's health?

We are only as strong as our weakest link, and if poor Americans can't get health care, then the state of our nation is NOT strong.

[OneTwentyoNine]

65. My Senators get UHC,why shouldn't I and everyone else in our State?

Let me see,we send those A-Holes to Washington where they pick up free health care as a perk and then argue till the wee hours that free health care is to expensive.

Really? then dump it for members of Congress and they can start shopping the open market for it.

[RapidCreek]

69. What is the moral basis to work fight Universal Health Care?

It's just that simple.

RC

[HighJinx]

73. Managed health care

If we wanted our care insurance to pay for our oil changes and replacing our windshield wipers, we'd pay a mighty big premium. The advent of managed health care confused the American people. Now we only want to pay a $20 copay, and expect to have unlimited health care. The better idea of how to use health insurance is to pay as you go for what you can afford, and insure against the big ticket items, i.e. major medical or catastrophe plans.

Managed health care spends a ton of money on bureaucracy, billing departments, gatekeeper doctors saying you can only have 12 painkillers per month for your migraines instead of the 15 that will allow you to leave a darkened room without dibilitating pain, etc.

There are government programs for the very poor. It's the working lower and middle classes that are in the health care vice.

One other point: obesity is epidemic in this country, and that leads to diabetes, heart disease, cancer, hypertension, etc. etc. I'm sorry but if you want to pack around an extra 100 lbs., you will reap what you sow. Is that a taxpayer responsibility? Just asking.

[RapidCreek]

105. Answer the question....

Or are you not able? What is the MORAL basis to fight against Universal Health Care. WHAT!!! TELL ME!!!

RC

[scisyhp]

71. The equal and universal right to life

is the moral basis for equal and universal healthcare. As well
as a self-evident truth that all human lives have equal values.
And since this right is written into the Constitution it is
not only a moral but also a legal basis for universal healthcare.
When a society refuses to guarantee an equal access to life saving
medical services to some of its citizens based on their income,
it effectively distributes right to life for money. The very
right which is deemed "inalianable" and "endowed by Creator" is
being rationed through a marketplace instead of being shared
equaly among all. Now, what is a "moral basis" for that?

[opihimoimoi]

74. Universal Health care for All is a No Brainer. The Healthier a Society

the Better that Society.

To make it fair however, all citizens report to their Doctor to reports to the Central Information Gathering point for free check ups, those that smoke/do drugs/do not follow health tips/etc etc get less coverage than 100% on a sliding scale.

This makes it fair for the guy who runs and keeps fit as opposed to the guy who is 487.78 lbs and smokes. The fat guy has to pay for his med bills while the runner gets free med service. Whatever, just a thought.

[Kanary]

78. I was thinking of Iz just yesterday morning.....

the years have flown by........

You bring up a question I've had in my mind for a long time now. On the one hand, it seems punitive, but on the other....... there is something fair about being responsible for your own health, too.

ON that one hand, I've been one of those very health-conscious, and since I was in high school, reading and finding answers to how I can better care for myself. Yet, because of a tremendous amount of stress from this ugly society, I end up with health problems that I can do little about, and am treated like a pariah for needing health care. At the same time, the wife of a friend of mine eats herself into oblivion, couldn't give up smoking until she had damaged her lungs, and drinks like a fish until her liver is shot. Yet, she is well treated and has no problem getting medical care. Something just ain't right!

On the other hand, I also know that drs can be quite good at blaming the patient, especially if s/he is poor, so....... I'm a bit afraid of labels and punishments being handed out that simply don't apply.

It's a conundrum, and I don't know that there are any perfect answers.

But, I'm glad you raised the issue.

aloha, opi

Kanary

[opihimoimoi]

81. Out of the mish mash of healthy discussions often come solutions

We should be looking for more solutions to make our Society a better one. The Pubs have had their opportunity and blew it. It is very apparent they just don't care for the LONG TERM.

[Kanary]

84. "Healthy" being the operative word.

If we're all in it together, and come together as friends to share concerns and be heard, much happens.

It's this constant competitiveness and the need to bash each other that causes us to spin our wheels, and thereby hand the power over to the evil side.

So, what do you think about the other side of it that I brought up?

Kanary

[opihimoimoi]

85. Doctors are Human too, failings aside though, we should be looking

for the workable, doable solutions. The mechanics will be solved soon enough. Look to the larger picture. Think of a solution and how to make it work in such a way, it succeeds.

[Kanary]

86. When you're on the receiving end of those failings

life becomes questionable.

What I don't want to see is more people denied health care.

For me, at this point, the workable and doable is to keep it a system for ALL.

Kanary

[opihimoimoi]

90. Then the first step is to vote the Pubs out. It is they who wish to

supress the common folk in the manner evidenced by the present.

More Americans must realize our Nation is like a car, the more care, the better the longivity and performance. We want from our collective power(Govt)? then we must adhere to the principle, Smart Voting gets you Smart Govt. When we meander away from this first Principle, we risk getting shit ... as we are now getting by the bucket loads.

[Kanary]

91. You = Preacher, Me = Choir

[TahitiNut]

94. When we vote the Pubs out ...

... they'll merely call themselves Democrats. Many already do. :shrug:


From such a morally bankrupt worldview you expect Truth in Labeling? Ha!

[opihimoimoi]

98. There should be a system to weed out these selfinterest Politicans

no matter the label.

That our system is failing us points to a need to revamp, reconstruct, re think. If we can solve for putting a man on the moon, we can do anything. Peace is attainable only if we collectively want it. Peace will result in a Heaven on Earth for many more of us as opposed to the Heaven for only the rich folk.

We want "Heaven" we gatta vote for it, work for it, plan for it, and Demand it.

The paradigm shift is close at hand. We are now too far to the Right and evidence points this is the wrong direction, leads to the "reef" where ship wrecks occur.

[Kanary]

101. Agreee... I'm cynical about that, too.

That's part of the reason why I'm more interested in issues than candidate anymore.

Except Dennis, of course. ~~gigglesnort~~

Kanary

[TahitiNut]

102. I must admit to a somewhat greater fondness for Dennis than ...

... any of the others. Other than flag-burning, there's nothing I've found to disagree with him on. I don't guess that's an accident ...

[TahitiNut]

92. About economic penalties for "unhealthy" behavior.

I am adamantly opposed to exacting economic penalties on those whose behavior is less "healthy" than the current crop of alchemists and shamans opine.

Isn't the misery of illness enough? Isn't an early death enough? For God's sake, what is it that impels people to blame the fucking victim? Why is it we're insanely driven to impose our "virtuous behavior" on others? (If it's not a choice, it's not a virtue.)

I firmly and profoundly believe that individual liberty and freedom is well worth whatever differences in health care costs might allegedly exist. Indeed, legitmate and reputable studies suggest that people whose life expectancies are shortened by unhealthy behavior cost soceity less and would be far less likely to obtain prolonged health care.

While I believe we have a profound obligation to inform and educate people of the health risks of certain behaviors, I'm 100% against exacerbating their misery by making health care less affordable for them. No way; no how.



I'm old enough to recall vividly when exercise, physical fitness, and body-building was commonly regarded as "unhealthy." It took the efforts of people like Jack Lalanne and many others to disabuse us of the notion that physical fitness in one's younger years led to a shortened life expectancy. At one time, fresh air itself was regarded as unhealthy. Tomatoes were regarded as toxic.

[Kanary]

96. I hear your anger

I understand your point.

Also, the cost factor dictates covering *everyone*.

However, I think you can also understand my upset with the example I illustrated above. And, even her suffering didn't deter her from continuuing on a self-destructive path.

Maybe just some acknowledgement for those of us who make the effort?

Kanary

[TahitiNut]

97. Here's part of the problem, as I see it.

We're corrupted by the "greed is good" philosophy.

We tend to credit our healthy behavior to a "it'll cost me less" motivation. When we engage in behavior for our own economic benefit, it's not a virtue; it's greed. It seems corollary to that (false) premise that we're inclined to employ the "greed is good" philosophy and use the presumed greed of others to change their behavior. We delude ourselves in pretending it's virtuous. It's NOT.

Indeed, the misery of ill-health is enough for me to engage in healthy behaviors. I stopped drinking more than 14 years ago. That's also not a virtuous choice on my part. It's self-serving.

Self-destructive behavior is itself a health problem ... a mental health problem just like depression. To any degree it's not a health problem, it's an education problem. The purveyors of alcohol, tobacco, pollutants, and couch potato pastimes spend money on "education" that dwarfs into insignificance the money we spend on health education.

[Kanary]

103. Agreed that self-destructive behavior is also a health problem

Given that the woman I gave as a "bad example" was also a dr, I would also say that the value of "education" is also limited. She certainly had all the information available to her.

As far as quitting drinking wasn't "virtuous", I see your point. However, I also know it's not an easy thing to do, so I have a lot of respect for those who manage to do it. I've never struggled with such myself, however, just the thought of never being able to have chocklit again is enough to make my hands sweat, so I can imagine the effort it would take. :) It may not be "virtuous", but every effort in that direction deserves acknowledgment, as far as I'm concerned.

So, you see, I have compassion.... even though I've not been there, I can put myself in the other person's shoes. But I will admit that it's still a sticking point to me that a person can continue to cause their own health problems and others have to pay for it. (Yes, others are paying for it if it's insurance, too). I see some of that same thing with cyclists who refuse to wear helmets. A life of brain damage is costly. It's one thing to have a horrible accident that one can't do anything about, but it's even worse when one could have avoided the worst consequences.

I wouldn't have a problem with Universal Health Care being for everyone, regardless of their own level of responsibility. That is probably the most sensible way. But, I won't say that I don't have thoughts about people's own responsibility. I *do* think there's some merit to that.

At any rate, getting everyone healthy would certainly be a big improvement over what we have now!

Kanary

[HFishbine]

76. Um

"The US is pretty much alone among the advanced democracies in providing universal health care for its citizens."

Is that a typo?

[Design8edGrouch]

79. It is a matter of fairness

If "Dear Leader" had a sudden stroke, He would get the best care imaginable, costs would not be spared, and his family would not have to worry for a single second how this great care would be payed for. Shouldn't the people he serves have the same peace of mind about their own medical care.

[Robin Hood]

82. Jesus healed the sick for nothing.

That is our moral basis for free health care. He also fed the hungry. Jesus was the first out spoken socialist, and he makes me proud to be a socialist.

[ulTRAX]

110. please show me ANY reference to God or Jesus in the Constitution

Thanks!

[cap]

87. John Paul II:

"Government has a moral obligation to help the needy".

[0007]

106. btt