Posted on 05/02/2002 7:42:08 AM PDT by Aeronaut
Ah yes. The old "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" strategy.
Can't beat the socialists? Become one!
The "deeply held moral conviction" is that a nonproductive citizen's need constitutes a valid claim on a productive citizen's wealth. Far from being a moral conviction, the basis of that feeling is the ultimate expression of immorality.
I agree with you, though, that no amount of explanation is going to make the misedducated public understand just what an immoral concept they are embracing when they call for such free services.
Beside that fact that that is a erroronous assumption,,, that has been different, when?
And that means people will demand more and more government intervention.
And if they demand it, you should give it to them?
You and I will be taxed so people who cannot pay for a half a million dollar operation get one.
Stealing from one person to give to the other person is still stealing. It doesn't matter who is doing it. Which also belies the fact that people can afford insurance if they aren't taxed so highly and if they want to forego other purchases in favor of health care. The private sector will always be able to provide health care (and any other good or service) more efficiently than government can with confiscated money.
This is where the Libertarian Party always fails.
What does the Libertarian Party have to do with this article?
The LP dogma goes nowhere when a society's deeply held moral convictions, in this case equal access to medical care, are in opposition to it.
As I pointed out, they are not "moral" convictions, rather they are immoral convictions. It isn't about equal access, it's about buying support from some people with money that belongs to other people. Why shouldn't all have equal acces to BMWs? Or mansions?
Moral or immoral, it is reality. Human nature. I am a free market type guy. But if a family member needs a heart, I'm going to get it for them. And I think most would. Principle be damned.
As for myself, I don't care. Gave up years ago expecting I would have the same level of care my parents have had. But I don't know many other people who feel the same way.
Libertarians can create all the wonderful scenarios about how things should be but they are going nowhere unless they compromise and use some libertarian/free market concepts to improve a system which human nature demands we have.
So you would steal from me or kill me to get the money to get your family a heart? Curious morality. Why not a BMW then? In that case, I guess you think stealing is ok as long as the money being stolen goes to a good cause?
Libertarians can create all the wonderful scenarios about how things should be but they are going nowhere unless they compromise and use some libertarian/free market concepts to improve a system which human nature demands we have.
No problem, unless you mean compromising means selling out morals by stealing from Peter to give to Paul. Stealing is part of human nature as well, I guess it's OK on that basis?
The free market could work just fine if the government would get the hell out of the way. Lots of ways to do that.
BTW, you keep talking about Libertarians and I keep asking you why you keep doing that. The article is about health care and government.
In a free society people should be free to contract for whatever services they wish.
Government meddling is the primary culprit.
In 1950, you could not buy a pacemaker, a hip replacement, a CAT scan, Lipitor or a bovine heart valve replacement no matter how much money you had.
8 years ago a 1GB hard drive cost $1000. Yesterday I bought an 80GB hard drive for $100. The computer industry is almost entirely unregulated. Your implication that advancements in technology account for increases in cost is misleading and incorrect.
Government should get out of the market but that will never make the care some people may need affordable.
That is where private charity comes in.
This is wrong and it must change. Misfortune does not justify theft.
The LP dogma goes nowhere when a society's deeply held moral convictions, in this case equal access to medical care, are in opposition to it.
I submit that those who believe that ends justify means have a corrupt and perverted moral construct.
We just observed the 10th anniversary (if you want to call it that) of the LA riots. Thousands of people believed they were morally entitled to steal and vandalize for one reason or another -- injustice, poverty, misfortune, etc. None were justified. They were all criminals.
I didn't say technology accounted for all rises in cost. Only some. Government accounts for much. But medical care is extremely labor intensive. There is no comparison between what it costs to run a trauma center and making disk drives. In addition, costs have risen because more products are in demand and being sold. My grandfather probably could have used some Lipitor and a heart by-pass. They weren't around. He died. Medical care didn't consume as much of GDP then as now because people went without that which was not available.
Point of fact, most of the (modern day) Socialist bred difficulties the US is experiencing now began with LBJ. And he was inspired by his hero, FDR. Who was inspired by his hero, Woodrow Wilson. Who was inspired by his hero, Karl Marx.
I didn't accuse you of saying technology accounts for all rises in costs. It accounts for so little a rise that it's insignificant.
...medical care is extremely labor intensive.
If there is a profit to be made somebody will meet the demand despite the cost and labor involved.
...costs have risen because more products are in demand and being sold.
Price increases result when there is insufficient product to meet demand. Only government has the power to stifle innovation and keep drugs and procedures off the market. Without interference from government there is nothing stopping people from selling products and services. The most blatant example is government prosecuting and imprisoning people who smoke marijuana for pain relief. While these people could use marijuana to relieve pain for a few bucks per month they must instead purchase drugs costing hundreds of dollars.
However, we do not have the same healthcare we had in the fifties. People walk away from heart attacks now that would have killed them fifty years ago. We have wonderful treatments and procedures. Life expectancy keeps going up.
That has not come cheap.
It was unheard of in the fifties to have a car with air conditioning. Care to live without that luxury these days?
That would be a good solution, get the government out of health care completely, let people buy whatever kind of plan they want. I choose a $1000 deductible and put the money into a 401K that I save ---that way I don't loose money in high premiums and I almost never use health care so it costs little.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.