Comment by ryanwaggoner | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ryanwaggoner | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This kind of over-the-top rhetoric is great for rallying the masses, but it breaks down under the lightest of logical scrutiny. Here are three of my favorite issues with your position:

1. Why is medical care the highest priority? What about food? Shelter? Safety from rape, murder, and other forms of violence? What about electricity, water, and other infrastructure? While most people don't get very sick, pretty much everyone needs the things above. Why should medical care be the highest priority federal expense?

2. You think it's barbaric to think about paying for medical care, but guess what: you do pay for it. Everyone does. Your "right" to healthcare is not free; someone has to pay for it. And because you think you're entitled to that free of charge, someone else out there is having money taken from them under the threat of force so that you don't have to worry about healthcare. The right to private property far outweighs the right to healthcare, according to the US Constitution, but your system reverses this relationship.

3. The decoupling of supply and demand in the type of system we're about to pass is likely to result in dramatically higher costs and lower quality care over the long run, not to mention the fact that we have no way of paying for it. Granted, our current system is screwed up, but this is far from a fix. This is just moving further in a bad direction.

EDIT: Added a third item :)

There is a viewpoint, and it is strongest in Europe, that human rights extend to the basics of civilized human existence; that food, shelter and medical care are basic necessities that a society must provide for it's citizens if it is to be considered civilized. The purest expression of this can be found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ (see section 25) but it is also enshrined in national constitutions the world over.

At the root of this viewpoint is the understanding that the citizens of a nation depend upon each other and have a duty to each other.

This is clearly at odds with the modern American viewpoint which declares each individual to be utterly responsible for his own welfare. As Americans we are not in this together, we are each struggling separately.

And it is readily apparent that we are willing to sacrifice any principle on the altar of our individualism. This country (my country) openly condones torture, the bombing of civilian populations, extrajudicial imprisonment and the murder of political dissidents; all in the name of Individual Liberty.

It is less surprising that we cannot do what most of Europe regards as the sane and sanitary solution to ensuring the health of the nation; and more surprising that we aren't busy legalizing the hunting of the homeless and the use of the indigent as pet food.

This is clearly at odds with the modern American viewpoint which declares each individual to be utterly responsible for his own welfare. As Americans we are not in this together, we are each struggling separately.

I understand the point that you're trying to make, but you're misrepresenting things. American culture is decidedly more individualistic than Europe's, but its unfair to characterize us as "not in it together", either as a whole or when referring to the libertarian argument that you're attempting to refute. There's no honor in being forced to watch out for your neighbor, and in the long run, it creates problems of moral hazard where you expect that someone should be taking care of whatever problem you have at the moment.

This country (my country) openly condones torture, the bombing of civilian populations, extrajudicial imprisonment and the murder of political dissidents; all in the name of Individual Liberty.

This is where you really lost me. Those things have not been done in the name or spirit of individual liberty. Quite the opposite: they represent an egregious breach of the individual liberties we're entitled to under the Constitution. Not sure how you managed to twist this issue up to be an example in your mind of the supposed dangers of individual liberty.

...and more surprising that we aren't busy legalizing the hunting of the homeless and the use of the indigent as pet food.

Thanks for making my point about over-the-top rhetoric. Have you been to Europe, by the way? I lived there for years, and they've got their own set of problems, I assure you.

As near as I can tell, the official definition of Rugged American Individualism requires that it's practitioner be a healthy white male with a net worth of more than $20,000. You can recognize one of these Rugged Individuals due to the products they consume, the (large) vehicles they drive. their devotion to their football team, and their reluctance to pay taxes for anything other than roads and weaponry.

As such the systematic dismantling of our policies to prevent torture and hold torturers accountable; our eager rush into aggressive war and our continuing efforts to thwart prosecution of our own war criminals is perfectly comprehensible in the defense of the Rugged Individualist Lifestyle.

I am sorry that I did not adequately communicate the biting sarcasm that I habitually apply to our political discourse, or the barely repressed anger that I feel in my forced complicity in the crimes of America. In such light I think that your inability to see the swiftian satire I intended to lighten the last line of my last post is perfectly comprehensible.

Dude, I'm a public-option-supporting liberal and all that but you've even lost me. Chill out.

This is a factually incorrect description of the U.S. America already has massive government-provided health care systems for children, the poor, and the elderly.

The health care system in the u.s. is immune to supply and demand. The doctors control the supply of doctors. Laws control supply of medications. Insurance companies control supply of procedures.

I agree with the post you are replying to. I think if people didn't have to worry about whether or not their health was at stake, they could make better decisions about the work they do. They'd be more productive and worry less and have more brain waves to devote to a better life.

People seem to complain a lot saying the government can't do things well. But they run our defense industry and it's the best in the world. They run the roads and we have plenty to drive on. They control the dams and those aren't breaking. Many are lasting way longer than they thought. Furthermore, plenty of governments around the world run their health care systems and they get better care for less money than Americans do.

Right, modeling health care as it is in the U.S. based on capitalistic concepts doesn't work. It simply isn't setup as a simple supplier-consumer relationship.

Disagree? Quick! Who's the supplier and who's the consumer in the present system? It's not the patients.

You know what's sad? You made very intelligent points, but people who feel the way they do are just going to glaze over them or write them off. Personally, I'd like to see original poster address those points, but too often these things are more emotionally held views than really thought out. I doubt you'll get a reply, and I doubt the original commenter changes his mind.

1. Because when you are healthy and not lazy the society provides you with enough of opportunities to obtain your own food, water and electricity. Some may even argue than a healthy and armed individual can take care of his/her own protection (debatable), but if you're ill you're done: you are 100% dependent on the society you're a part of. And it is scary to be an ill American.

2. Yes it is barbaric to pay for medical care yet I realize that doctors need to get paid, this is why I mentioned my taxes. Perhaps I should have said that it's barbaric to run for-profit businesses that capitalize on people's illness, especially when businesses don't actually treat people, i.e. like insurance companies.

3. The decoupling of supply and demand has already happened: this is why you don't see Cuban and Indian doctors on H1bs diagnosing influenza and stomach flu for $50. This decoupling is also the reason why the same drug/med. equipment costs significantly more in US than anywhere in Europe.

Lastly, I want to confess that usually I don't get much into politics but I've posted my previous comment under influence of circumstances: I am self-employed, I pay $920/mo for good health insurance for my family, yet when I got pneumonia two weeks ago, they still took $120 out of my pocket which went towards 20 minutes interacting with medical personnel and 1 pack of antibiotics. This is insane, absolutely insane.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com