Obamacare

[LordFred]

From Leonard Peikoff:

Most people who oppose socialized medicine do so on the grounds that it is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical; i.e., it is a noble idea—which just somehow does not work. I do not agree that socialized medicine is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical. Of course, it is impractical—it does not work—but I hold that it is impractical because it is immoral. This is not a case of noble in theory but a failure in practice; it is a case of vicious in theory and therefore a disaster in practice. I want to focus on the moral issue at stake. So long as people believe that socialized medicine is a noble plan, there is no way to fight it. You cannot stop a noble plan—not if it really is noble. The only way you can defeat it is to unmask it—to show that it is the very opposite of noble. Then at least you have a fighting chance.

What is morality in this context? The American concept of it is officially stated in the Declaration of Independence. It upholds man's unalienable, individual rights. The term "rights," note, is a moral (not just a political) term; it tells us that a certain course of behavior is right, sanctioned, proper, a prerogative to be respected by others, not interfered with—and that anyone who violates a man's rights is: wrong, morally wrong, unsanctioned, evil.

Now our only rights, the American viewpoint continues, are the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. That's all. According to the Founding Fathers, we are not born with a right to a trip to Disneyland, or a meal at McDonald's, or a kidney dialysis (nor with the 18th-century equivalent of these things). We have certain specific rights—and only these.

Why only these? Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want—not to be given it without effort by somebody else.

The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree.

To take one more example: the right to the pursuit of happiness is precisely that: the right to the pursuit—to a certain type of action on your part and its result—not to any guarantee that other people will make you happy or even try to do so. Otherwise, there would be no liberty in the country: if your mere desire for something, anything, imposes a duty on other people to satisfy you, then they have no choice in their lives, no say in what they do, they have no liberty, they cannot pursue their happiness. Your "right" to happiness at their expense means that they become rightless serfs, i.e., your slaves. Your right to anything at others' expense means that they become rightless.

That is why the U.S. system defines rights as it does, strictly as the rights to action. This was the approach that made the U.S. the first truly free country in all world history—and, soon afterwards, as a result, the greatest country in history, the richest and the most powerful. It became the most powerful because its view of rights made it the most moral. It was the country of individualism and personal independence.

Today, however, we are seeing the rise of principled immorality in this country. We are seeing a total abandonment by the intellectuals and the politicians of the moral principles on which the U.S. was founded. We are seeing the complete destruction of the concept of rights. The original American idea has been virtually wiped out, ignored as if it had never existed. The rule now is for politicians to ignore and violate men's actual rights, while arguing about a whole list of rights never dreamed of in this country's founding documents—rights which require no earning, no effort, no action at all on the part of the recipient.

You are entitled to something, the politicians say, simply because it exists and you want or need it—period. You are entitled to be given it by the government. Where does the government get it from? What does the government have to do to private citizens—to their individual rights—to their real rights—in order to carry out the promise of showering free services on the people?

The answers are obvious. The newfangled rights wipe out real rights—and turn the people who actually create the goods and services involved into servants of the state. The Russians tried this exact system for many decades. Unfortunately, we have not learned from their experience. Yet the meaning of socialism is clearly evident in any field at all—you don't need to think of health care as a special case; it is just as apparent if the government were to proclaim a universal right to food, or to a vacation, or to a haircut. I mean: a right in the new sense: not that you are free to earn these things by your own effort and trade, but that you have a moral claim to be given these things free of charge, with no action on your part, simply as handouts from a benevolent government.

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

From Leonard Peikoff:

Most people who oppose socialized medicine do so on the grounds that it is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical; i.e., it is a noble idea—which just somehow does not work. I do not agree that socialized medicine is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical. Of course, it is impractical—it does not work—but I hold that it is impractical because it is immoral. This is not a case of noble in theory but a failure in practice; it is a case of vicious in theory and therefore a disaster in practice. I want to focus on the moral issue at stake. So long as people believe that socialized medicine is a noble plan, there is no way to fight it. You cannot stop a noble plan—not if it really is noble. The only way you can defeat it is to unmask it—to show that it is the very opposite of noble. Then at least you have a fighting chance.

What is morality in this context? The American concept of it is officially stated in the Declaration of Independence. It upholds man's unalienable, individual rights. The term "rights," note, is a moral (not just a political) term; it tells us that a certain course of behavior is right, sanctioned, proper, a prerogative to be respected by others, not interfered with—and that anyone who violates a man's rights is: wrong, morally wrong, unsanctioned, evil.

Now our only rights, the American viewpoint continues, are the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. That's all. According to the Founding Fathers, we are not born with a right to a trip to Disneyland, or a meal at McDonald's, or a kidney dialysis (nor with the 18th-century equivalent of these things). We have certain specific rights—and only these.

Why only these? Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want—not to be given it without effort by somebody else.

The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree.

To take one more example: the right to the pursuit of happiness is precisely that: the right to the pursuit—to a certain type of action on your part and its result—not to any guarantee that other people will make you happy or even try to do so. Otherwise, there would be no liberty in the country: if your mere desire for something, anything, imposes a duty on other people to satisfy you, then they have no choice in their lives, no say in what they do, they have no liberty, they cannot pursue their happiness. Your "right" to happiness at their expense means that they become rightless serfs, i.e., your slaves. Your right to anything at others' expense means that they become rightless.

That is why the U.S. system defines rights as it does, strictly as the rights to action. This was the approach that made the U.S. the first truly free country in all world history—and, soon afterwards, as a result, the greatest country in history, the richest and the most powerful. It became the most powerful because its view of rights made it the most moral. It was the country of individualism and personal independence.

Today, however, we are seeing the rise of principled immorality in this country. We are seeing a total abandonment by the intellectuals and the politicians of the moral principles on which the U.S. was founded. We are seeing the complete destruction of the concept of rights. The original American idea has been virtually wiped out, ignored as if it had never existed. The rule now is for politicians to ignore and violate men's actual rights, while arguing about a whole list of rights never dreamed of in this country's founding documents—rights which require no earning, no effort, no action at all on the part of the recipient.

You are entitled to something, the politicians say, simply because it exists and you want or need it—period. You are entitled to be given it by the government. Where does the government get it from? What does the government have to do to private citizens—to their individual rights—to their real rights—in order to carry out the promise of showering free services on the people?

The answers are obvious. The newfangled rights wipe out real rights—and turn the people who actually create the goods and services involved into servants of the state. The Russians tried this exact system for many decades. Unfortunately, we have not learned from their experience. Yet the meaning of socialism is clearly evident in any field at all—you don't need to think of health care as a special case; it is just as apparent if the government were to proclaim a universal right to food, or to a vacation, or to a haircut. I mean: a right in the new sense: not that you are free to earn these things by your own effort and trade, but that you have a moral claim to be given these things free of charge, with no action on your part, simply as handouts from a benevolent government.

In a modern society, citizens have an obligation to protect and care for those unable to do so themselves. Enshrined in our Declaration and in the hearts and minds of the Founders, if referencing them should serve any purpose, is a commitment to unity and equality. The unfathomable ability of a government to coordinate these programs hundreds of years ago does not exclude their viability - never make that mistake.

[Son]

Pepsi... I am under no obligation to help others. Even the government agrees on this otherwise I would be in prison for not giving hitch hikers a ride or giving money to the beggers. People need to get off their butts and look for work... Even if it is "beneath" them. Too often around where I live I see people, who could work, just looking for the freebies.

However, I am not totally against this idea of a healthcare system, just on how it was put in place. This administration should have been able to get this system up and running without all of these tech problems. Now we are paying how many millions to unfubar the site.

Oh and just so you dont think i am a selfish prick (at least not all the time); I donate to different charities, help out at the neighborhood food pantry, and have even hired some of those beggers when they are truly looking for work. Oh... And I also try to donate at least one deer that I shoot each year.

[MATTHEW'S_DAD]

Thank you for the post LordFred. I don't know if you wrote it or copy and pasted it, but either way, it's well stated. Some just won't get it and that's a shame for them as they are missing out on the principal behind what makes this country great and unique.

[MATTHEW'S_DAD]

In a modern society, citizens have an obligation to protect and care for those unable to do so themselves.

No they don't. You are 100% wrong.

[11_Panama_]

In a modern society, citizens have an obligation to protect and care for those unable to do so themselves.

No they don't. You are 100% wrong.

Pepsi, you perhaps meant "in a civilized society".. which we are nowhere near at being.

[CommanderOtto]

I think that politics has become involved in this, that people are just looking at it the wrong way. If people don't want socialized healthcare, ok, it's their country. No problem.

This is just my opinion, but I think that the only solution is to apply some reason into this by using economics. Healthcare is very similar to a monopoly when it comes to the effects on the Economy. For example, when there is a company with complete control over a product or service, they can basically charge whatever they want to the maximum point as to how much people are willing to pay for it. If a product is "Inelastic" that means that an increase in price will not change the quantity being demanded. Oil, for example, is very inelastic. It does not er how expensive it gets, you still need it to fuel your car. Gasoline has increased so much in price over the years but you still pay a lot for it, even though is AMAZINGLY cheap to extract from the ground because oil companies know you will pay a lot to continue to use a car.

Healthcare is inelastic. It does not er what price someone will put on a surgery... people will pay anything to save their lives. So, increase in prices does not reduce the quantity of surgeries demanded per year.

When you study economics, you then see that in cases like these there is only one solution: healthy regulation. Unfortunately, many people who don't know anything about economics think that "regulation is bad" or that "regulation is against capitalism" or something like that. Yes, sometimes regulation is indeed bad for the economy (it depends on the situation)... But in cases like these, regulation is necessary, just like the regulation of energy companies in your city. They can win a profit, but they can't profit all they like. Otherwise they would charge you for water and electricity 3 or 4 times what you currently pay for. In the case of healthcare, you can only imagine the vast amounts of money hospitals and health insurance companies are making, because they know that having Life is actually priceless. I would put some graph of microeconomics here, but they are complicated to explain (even I have a hard time with them). Anyway, I hope my explanation made sense... That way, capitalism is still working as it should and no socialist healthcare takes place. People keep their rights, companies make money and idealists aren't angry.

However, that will never happen, because as Paul Krugman put it, there are too many people who read the newspapers and read Time magazine or Forbes and think they know about economics. Things are much more complicated than how the news puts it.

[Duel of Fates]

Pepsi... I am under no obligation to help others. Even the government agrees on this otherwise I would be in prison for not giving hitch hikers a ride or giving money to the beggers. People need to get off their butts and look for work... Even if it is "beneath" them. Too often around where I live I see people, who could work, just looking for the freebies.

However, I am not totally against this idea of a healthcare system, just on how it was put in place. This administration should have been able to get this system up and running without all of these tech problems. Now we are paying how many millions to unfubar the site.

Oh and just so you dont think i am a selfish prick (at least not all the time); I donate to different charities, help out at the neighborhood food pantry, and have even hired some of those beggers when they are truly looking for work. Oh... And I also try to donate at least one deer that I shoot each year.

Exactly. Well said. I would also like to point out that we had the best healthcare in the world. People flew from their socialized medical healthcare countries to our country to obtain the best doctors, the best medicine. They sure as hell didn't travel to the old Soviet Union for excellent medical needs.

Were there problems? You betcha. But instead of coming up with solutions that would work to solve these problems, we let progressive politicians (Democrats and Republicans) push through an ideological agenda that has ballooned into this behemoth. My whole problem with this law is that it is unconstitutional and anti-American to Force people to buy a product that they do not need, at higher prices and higher deductibles, or face hefty fines. That is as unconstitutional as you can get. What if the next president decides that having auto insurance is a right for all citizens? Can he/she push for a law that requires all citizens to pay for car insurance, even though many do not drive or own a car? Can he/she put into that law conditions that force insurance companies to drop you as a client by driving up the costs and then turn around and say, "see, your insurance is crap, join the government auto insurance."? Politicians created the problem and then came up with Obamacare to "save" us all. It is a freaking joke.

In a modern society, citizens have an obligation to protect and care for those unable to do so themselves. Enshrined in our Declaration and in the hearts and minds of the Founders, if referencing them should serve any purpose, is a commitment to unity and equality. The unfathomable ability of a government to coordinate these programs hundreds of years ago does not exclude their viability - never make that mistake.

Citizens do not have an obligation to help freeloaders and laziness, corruption, or fraud. The Declaration of Independence says that "all men are created equal". There is nothing regarding how you end up. Those that work hard, save money, and become productive members of society will attain more than those that sit on their ass and spend their money foolishly on things they do not need. That is the biggest misconception of the Founders' intent. They did not create a socialist utopia, they created a Representative Republic. If they intended for a socialistic society, socialists of today would not have to circumvent, ignore, or bastardize the Constitution to meet their needs. It would have already been written into it.

Oh, and I too donate money to charities that I feel are deserving. I do not donate to politicians or any political parties. I donate to March of Dimes, Wounded Warrior Project, and some local hospices. I do not do it because some government told me to, or some Obamawannabe urged me to. I do it because I think it is right and moral. Now if we were to be forced by the government to do it, it would no longer be a donation, it would be a tax. Free will is still the best way to go.

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

All of you assume that those receiving aid are not in need, or, worse, do not deserve the help they are entitled to. Veterans injured while fighting for American freedom, disabled individuals with no hope of work, /children/ with parents who cannot/will not work but should starve according to you are all very much indicative of the need for a societal safety net. Is there waste in the system? Yes, but this is preferable to a society where those who cannot care for themselves are left to die in the streets.

[Bryant]

All of you assume that those receiving aid are not in need, or, worse, do not deserve the help they are entitled to. Veterans injured while fighting for American freedom, disabled individuals with no hope of work, /children/ with parents who cannot/will not work but should starve according to you are all very much indicative of the need for a societal safety net. Is there waste in the system? Yes, but this is preferable to a society where those who cannot care for themselves are left to die in the streets.

The problem is that there is more waste than help, more spending than earning, more about saying your helping than actually caring about people.

Healthcare is inelastic. It does not matter what price someone will put on a surgery... people will pay anything to save their lives. So, increase in prices does not reduce the quantity of surgeries demanded per year.

Healthcare is inelastic, but that doesn't give the whole picture. While the demand for the number of surgeries does not change, the distribution of services among hospitals can change. This can create a kind of elasticity among individual businesses assuming that the 'customer' can reach several locations. See this article that I posted earlier - about a hospital that is taking an aggressive approach to pricing, so much so that it can be cheaper to get a plane ticket there than to get the surgery locally:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/12/free-market-at-work-okla-city-hospital-causes-bidding-war-by-posting-surgery-prices-online/