Socialized medicine's inevitable death panels

[laklak]

At some point someone, whether it's a corporation or a panel of doctors or a government bureaucrat or your significant other or you, somebody is going to decide it's no longer a viable use or scarce resources to keep you alive. The hammer will still drop, and unless you can cough up the dosh for private, paid care you're dead. Everybody dies, the only thing under your control is how you go about that. Me, I'm going out in a blaze of gunfire. Or maybe in a bed, hooked up to a bunch of machines and on a morphine drip. Haven't decided yet.

[Seth]

As opposed to corporate death panels?

Well, if you don't like the decision your "corporate" insurance provider makes you can always find someone else or pay for the care yourself. But when the government says it's time to pull your plug because socialized medicine is the only game in town, you're going to die.

That's only because the ACA disallows rejection based on pre-existing conditions and such. Without Obamacare, once the corporate death panel hammer drops, you either die or go broke trying to survive.

Everybody dies. Some people die sooner than others. They die of accident, misfortune or bad planning, among other things. If you die because you failed to adequately provide for your potential medical needs, that's YOUR fault and the responsibility lies with YOU, not the medical provider who declines to treat you for free.

You make the mistaken assumption that the only way to get medical care in the US is through a medical care insurance company (HMO), which is completely ignorant.

If your insurance company says you aren't covered for what's killing you, two things are in play: First, you failed to read the contract, or if you did and declined to pay for coverage for what's killing you, the decision was still YOURS, and the responsibility for that decision is also yours. On the other hand, if your insurance company says it won't pay for something, there's nothing other than your own bad planning or misfortune preventing you from going around the "insurance" industry and contracting directly with a physician to treat you.

Talk about "single payer." That's true "single payer" medicine...the patient pays the doctor directly. That's how it was done for thousands and thousands of years, before FDR came along and set up wage controls during the Great Depression.

And that's exactly how I do it today. Me and millions of other intelligent, ethical, moral individuals who think and plan ahead and provide for our own medical needs rather than wasting enormous sums of money paying for "health care insurance" that we don't need and rarely use.

Someday people who object to "corporate" free market medicine are going to come to understand that there is a substantial difference between "health care insurance" and "health care." Two entirely different things, but it's amazing how many idiots cannot comprehend the distinction.

[subversive science]

It's not a matter of ethics, it's a matter of limited resources. Much of what a government does is resource distribution. Should resources be distributed based on need or wealth?

[Seth]

At some point someone, whether it's a corporation or a panel of doctors or a government bureaucrat or your significant other or you, somebody is going to decide it's no longer a viable use or scarce resources to keep you alive. The hammer will still drop, and unless you can cough up the dosh for private, paid care you're dead. Everybody dies, the only thing under your control is how you go about that. Me, I'm going out in a blaze of gunfire. Or maybe in a bed, hooked up to a bunch of machines and on a morphine drip. Haven't decided yet.

The only reason or authority anyone would have to make such a decision is if you are not using your own resources to pay for your own health care needs. But when you turn your life and health over to the government, then yes, you become a chattel of the government and the government gets to decide how much it's going to spend on you, be it for food, shelter or medical care. That's the price of being a slave; you only get what the Master decides you're worth.

Those of us who are not slaves, but are instead free men and women, get to decide for ourselves what we can and cannot have and no one can interfere with our decision to spend our own wealth any way we like, from expensive advanced experimental lifesaving medical technology in the face of an incurable terminal disease to three weeks of hookers and blow in Las Vegas to bucket-list with.

The point is that free human beings make those decisions for themselves, and they take responsibility for their own lives, for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, till death do they meet.

Slaves take what they are given and are grateful for the crumbs that fall from the Master's table, however parsimonious and unsatisfying they might be, because they have no other choice but to do what they are told and take what they are given and not complain about it.

I prefer to live, and die, a free man, responsible for myself, slave to no one, and in compliance with a strong set of morals and ethics that eschew thievery from others.

If that means I don't live as long as I might if I were to point a proxy machine-gun at society and demand that someone else pay for my needs, so be it. That's the only ethical and moral way to live. Anything else is corrupt, evil, selfish and beyond the pale of civilized human behavior. My life is not worth enslaving others to my service. Nor is yours or anyone elses.

[Tero]

We could have millions of Terry Schiavos brain dead in nursing homes.

[Seth]

It's not a matter of ethics, it's a matter of limited resources. Much of what a government does is resource distribution. Should resources be distributed based on need or wealth?

Resources should be distributed based on how hard one has labored to be able to achieve those resources. If one works hard, one should enjoy the fruits of that labor in full measure. If one does not work hard, one doesn't enjoy as many fruits. That's how people are motivated to work hard and pursue economic and social success.

Your "need" for antibiotics cannot possibly justify society enslaving me or anyone else to labor on your behalf. You may ASK for my labor to assist you, and if you are a worthy person, then I may choose to voluntarily donate my labor, or the fruits thereof, to your service. But you may not take my labor or my fruits from me against my will merely because you think you "need" to have them. That's plain old theft, and it's the same excuse every thief who ever lived used for stealing from others.

Just because you may die if you don't get antibiotics does not justify attempting to enslave me, or the seizure of my property, to potentially save your life. Your life is your life, and mine is mine. I will provide for mine and you provide for yours. I will suffer or enjoy whatever consequences or benefits that occur as a result of my decisions and labor, and you will have to do the same. You have no claim on me or my property merely because you feel you are in need. Since everyone dies, your oncoming death is not a matter of concern to me, since it's a perfectly normal and natural part of living, unless and until I CHOOSE to make it my concern, and then only to the extent that I freely and voluntarily choose to assist you with your troubles.

Demanding that I sacrifice and labor on your behalf against my will in order to make you well or ease your pain is merely your selfish personal desire to avoid the consequences of your decisions and the fate that affects us all. You cannot, nor has anyone ever been able to articulate a rational, logical argument as to why it is my responsibility to labor and sacrifice on your behalf against my will. All you can do, and all anyone I've ever debated with has ever been able to do by way of argument is to resort to ad hom and accuse me of being a vile, evil and selfish person because I do not quietly and obediently labor on behalf of others I don't know, have never met, will never meet, and have absolutely no moral or ethical responsibility for.

You cannot, nor can anyone, provide a reasoned and ethical argument in support of socialized medicine and it's inherent enslavement of society to the needs of the few.

All the arguments I've ever heard from the left in support of such things amount to nothing more than "just so" arguments. They pronounce what they believe to be an unassailable truth, and then when I demolish that strawman, they get angry and resort to personal attack because they have no other argument they can produce in support of their silly and vague notion that everybody owes everybody else free medical care.

If you cannot rationally and ethically justify my coming over to your house and fucking your daughter against your and her will because I have decided I "need" to have sex with a virgin right then, then you cannot rationally and ethically justify socialized medicine. The core concepts of individual liberty, autonomy and responsibility are exactly the same in both cases. I have no more right to demand that your daughter serve my sexual "needs" than you have to demand that I serve your medical "needs."

Your medical needs are YOUR responsibility, for better or worse, and the only ethical paths you have are to deal with those needs yourself, accept the consequences of your actions and fate, or beg for charity from others. If you can do none of those things, then you die. So what? Big deal. Who cares? You were going to die anyway. Sooner rather than later is far preferable to enslaving others to your service so that you can cling to life for another day, or month, or year. Your life is no more and no less important than theirs, and so you have no just claim on their labor or property that is superior to theirs that would ethically authorize you to enslave or rob them for your benefit.

That was the argument of the aristocrat class in the past. They had a divine right to live lives of excess and have whatever they wanted at the expense of, and by enslaving the lower classes to their service. What socialized medicine demands is absolutely no different in it's rationalization of oppression of others. All socialize medicine does is to turn the sick and unhealthy class into the aristocrat class and the healthy class into serfdom in their service. And there is absolutely no moral or ethical argument that one can make which supports doing so.

Therefore, socialized medicine is inherently evil and tyrannical and must not be allowed to flourish.

[Seth]

We could have millions of Terry Schiavos brain dead in nursing homes.

As long as they can pay for it, it's their right to spend their money keeping their body alive after their brain is dead. When they can't pay for it anymore, the plug gets pulled. That's how it's supposed to work. If you want to live longer, then work harder and save more money so you can provide better medical care for yourself.

You get what you pay for. TANSTAAFL.

[subversive science]

It's not a matter of ethics, it's a matter of limited resources. Much of what a government does is resource distribution. Should resources be distributed based on need or wealth?

Resources should be distributed based on how hard one has labored to be able to achieve those resources. If one works hard, one should enjoy the fruits of that labor in full measure. If one does not work hard, one doesn't enjoy as many fruits. That's how people are motivated to work hard and pursue economic and social success.

Your "need" for antibiotics cannot possibly justify society enslaving me or anyone else to labor on your behalf. You may ASK for my labor to assist you, and if you are a worthy person, then I may choose to voluntarily donate my labor, or the fruits thereof, to your service. But you may not take my labor or my fruits from me against my will merely because you think you "need" to have them. That's plain old theft, and it's the same excuse every thief who ever lived used for stealing from others.

Just because you may die if you don't get antibiotics does not justify attempting to enslave me, or the seizure of my property, to potentially save your life. Your life is your life, and mine is mine. I will provide for mine and you provide for yours. I will suffer or enjoy whatever consequences or benefits that occur as a result of my decisions and labor, and you will have to do the same. You have no claim on me or my property merely because you feel you are in need. Since everyone dies, your oncoming death is not a matter of concern to me, since it's a perfectly normal and natural part of living, unless and until I CHOOSE to make it my concern, and then only to the extent that I freely and voluntarily choose to assist you with your troubles.

Demanding that I sacrifice and labor on your behalf against my will in order to make you well or ease your pain is merely your selfish personal desire to avoid the consequences of your decisions and the fate that affects us all. You cannot, nor has anyone ever been able to articulate a rational, logical argument as to why it is my responsibility to labor and sacrifice on your behalf against my will. All you can do, and all anyone I've ever debated with has ever been able to do by way of argument is to resort to ad hom and accuse me of being a vile, evil and selfish person because I do not quietly and obediently labor on behalf of others I don't know, have never met, will never meet, and have absolutely no moral or ethical responsibility for.

You cannot, nor can anyone, provide a reasoned and ethical argument in support of socialized medicine and it's inherent enslavement of society to the needs of the few.

All the arguments I've ever heard from the left in support of such things amount to nothing more than "just so" arguments. They pronounce what they believe to be an unassailable truth, and then when I demolish that strawman, they get angry and resort to personal attack because they have no other argument they can produce in support of their silly and vague notion that everybody owes everybody else free medical care.

If you cannot rationally and ethically justify my coming over to your house and fucking your daughter against your and her will because I have decided I "need" to have sex with a virgin right then, then you cannot rationally and ethically justify socialized medicine. The core concepts of individual liberty, autonomy and responsibility are exactly the same in both cases. I have no more right to demand that your daughter serve my sexual "needs" than you have to demand that I serve your medical "needs."

Your medical needs are YOUR responsibility, for better or worse, and the only ethical paths you have are to deal with those needs yourself, accept the consequences of your actions and fate, or beg for charity from others. If you can do none of those things, then you die. So what? Big deal. Who cares? You were going to die anyway. Sooner rather than later is far preferable to enslaving others to your service so that you can cling to life for another day, or month, or year. Your life is no more and no less important than theirs, and so you have no just claim on their labor or property that is superior to theirs that would ethically authorize you to enslave or rob them for your benefit.

That was the argument of the aristocrat class in the past. They had a divine right to live lives of excess and have whatever they wanted at the expense of, and by enslaving the lower classes to their service. What socialized medicine demands is absolutely no different in it's rationalization of oppression of others. All socialize medicine does is to turn the sick and unhealthy class into the aristocrat class and the healthy class into serfdom in their service. And there is absolutely no moral or ethical argument that one can make which supports doing so.

Therefore, socialized medicine is inherently evil and tyrannical and must not be allowed to flourish.

If society really worked this way then the poorest among us, who work multiple back-breaking jobs, would be the richest. Instead, those who have wealth accumulate more wealth, while the poorest toil ever harder for less and less. This was the case before increased government regulations, the advent of unions, etc. The fiscal and regulatory policy of the US over the past few decades is returning us to the "Libertarian paradise" that we saw before the Great Depression by redistributing wealth to the top of the income ladder.

[pErvinalia]

So availability of care will be based on the considered opinions of experts rather than by ability to pay?

The only "experts" that are going to end up opining are the bean-counting bureaucrats two thousand miles away who have never met you and don't give a flying fuck whether you live or die, they just want to make the balance sheet come out right, and if that means cutting you off, so be it.

Sounds like an insurance company.

[Seth]

[

If society really worked this way then the poorest among us, who work multiple back-breaking jobs, would be the richest. Instead, those who have wealth accumulate more wealth, while the poorest toil ever harder for less and less. This was the case before increased government regulations, the advent of unions, etc. The fiscal and regulatory policy of the US over the past few decades is returning us to the "Libertarian paradise" that we saw before the Great Depression by redistributing wealth to the top of the income ladder.

Complete nonsense.

People get paid what their labor is worth and what they agree it's worth. If they want more, they need to learn to do more valuable work and do it better than anyone else.

[Seth]

So availability of care will be based on the considered opinions of experts rather than by ability to pay?

The only "experts" that are going to end up opining are the bean-counting bureaucrats two thousand miles away who have never met you and don't give a flying fuck whether you live or die, they just want to make the balance sheet come out right, and if that means cutting you off, so be it.

Sounds like an insurance company.

Ah, but with an insurance company you can fire them and pay for your medical care yourself and still get the best care you can afford. With government-run medicine, a la the Soviet Union, which is the quintessential example of the failure of Marxist/socialist dogma, you got what the government gave you and were glad of it, even if it didn't do anything to help you. And you didn't complain about not getting the very best care because that would just make you a PITA and much more likely to disappear into a gulag somewhere.

That's a significant difference.

Now, let me guess your response: "But Canadians and Brits and Aussies can all go outside the socialized medicine system and get private care if they want!"

Yes, they can, but they can't get the money they paid into the useless socialized medicine system back so that they can use it to get better care. No, they have to pay for both their own care from a private doctor so they can survive, AND they have to go right on paying for someone else's medical care too.

Now if socialized medicine had a "voucher" system whereby each person was issued a voucher to be used for medical care equal to what they pay in taxes, but they can spend that voucher at whatever health care provider THEY choose, we might be on to something. Socialized medicine becomes nothing more than a government-mandated personal health care savings account, which is far more acceptable to me than enslaving others.

But then again universal health care is not, and never has been the goal of socialized medicine. Power and control by the Marxist elite is the true goal, and always has been.

[subversive science]

[

If society really worked this way then the poorest among us, who work multiple back-breaking jobs, would be the richest. Instead, those who have wealth accumulate more wealth, while the poorest toil ever harder for less and less. This was the case before increased government regulations, the advent of unions, etc. The fiscal and regulatory policy of the US over the past few decades is returning us to the "Libertarian paradise" that we saw before the Great Depression by redistributing wealth to the top of the income ladder.

Complete nonsense.

People get paid what their labor is worth and what they agree it's worth. If they want more, they need to learn to do more valuable work and do it better than anyone else.

This is a Pollyanna-ish view of the way the world works. People are nowhere as mobile through the strata of society as you suggest. Inherent inequities prevent the average person from just "...[learning] to do more valuable work..." Also, work is not valued on contribution or worth, but on the money that it produces.

[pErvinalia]

[

If society really worked this way then the poorest among us, who work multiple back-breaking jobs, would be the richest. Instead, those who have wealth accumulate more wealth, while the poorest toil ever harder for less and less. This was the case before increased government regulations, the advent of unions, etc. The fiscal and regulatory policy of the US over the past few decades is returning us to the "Libertarian paradise" that we saw before the Great Depression by redistributing wealth to the top of the income ladder.

Complete nonsense.

People get paid what their labor is worth and what they agree it's worth. If they want more, they need to learn to do more valuable work and do it better than anyone else.

Yeah, coz there's no distortion in the marketplace with wealth imbalance effectively seeing people born into a life of poverty and servitude.

[pErvinalia]

So availability of care will be based on the considered opinions of experts rather than by ability to pay?

The only "experts" that are going to end up opining are the bean-counting bureaucrats two thousand miles away who have never met you and don't give a flying fuck whether you live or die, they just want to make the balance sheet come out right, and if that means cutting you off, so be it.

Sounds like an insurance company.

Ah, but with an insurance company you can fire them and pay for your medical care yourself and still get the best care you can afford. With government-run medicine, a la the Soviet Union, which is the quintessential example of the failure of Marxist/socialist dogma, you got what the government gave you and were glad of it, even if it didn't do anything to help you. And you didn't complain about not getting the very best care because that would just make you a PITA and much more likely to disappear into a gulag somewhere.

That's a significant difference.

Now, let me guess your response: "But Canadians and Brits and Aussies can all go outside the socialized medicine system and get private care if they want!"

Yes, they can, but they can't get the money they paid into the useless socialized medicine system back so that they can use it to get better care. No, they have to pay for both their own care from a private doctor so they can survive, AND they have to go right on paying for someone else's medical care too.

Not quite. You get a reduced tax levy for your healthcare if you use private health insurance as well. And the levy that remains is only a small amount (I can't remember the exact figure, but it's something like 1.5% if you earn over $50k or thereabouts). If you are poor, you don't pay for your healthcare via tax at all. You only pay if you are middle class or rich, and that's pretty much the definition of a progressive tax system. Those people are more able to pay, and as I said, it's such a small amount that it doesn't make any difference to a person's ability to afford private health care. And remember, you can still use the public healthcare as well (i.e. local doctors - there's no such thing as private only GP's in Australia, as far as I am aware; and hospital emergency services).

But then again universal health care is not, and never has been the goal of socialized medicine. Power and control by the Marxist elite is the true goal, and always has been.

I'm actually starting to get concerned that you really do believe this Marxist shit. You might need to use some of your private health care to get that looked at, man.

[pErvinalia]

[

If society really worked this way then the poorest among us, who work multiple back-breaking jobs, would be the richest. Instead, those who have wealth accumulate more wealth, while the poorest toil ever harder for less and less. This was the case before increased government regulations, the advent of unions, etc. The fiscal and regulatory policy of the US over the past few decades is returning us to the "Libertarian paradise" that we saw before the Great Depression by redistributing wealth to the top of the income ladder.

Complete nonsense.

People get paid what their labor is worth and what they agree it's worth. If they want more, they need to learn to do more valuable work and do it better than anyone else.

This is a Pollyanna-ish view of the way the world works. People are nowhere as mobile through the strata of society as you suggest. Inherent inequities prevent the average person from just "...[learning] to do more valuable work..." Also, work is not valued on contribution or worth, but on the money that it produces.

Yeah, this is simple stuff, the kind of stuff that libbo's either don't get or, as I suspect, do get but refuse to accept it as it smashes their invisible hand of the market world view.