Sorry it took so long for me to reply: finals week.
post: I don't remember who's post I was responding to but I apologize. Feel free to repost if you want to explain your position again. I couldn't understand what you were trying to say the first time.
We all agree that their is an inherent value to human life, that it is wrong both to kill or let someone die when we could prevent it. Correct?
I agree that life has inherent value. It is wrong to kill someone without cause. I don't necessarily agree it is always wrong to prevent someone from dying if it can be prevented.
1) I am in favor of capital punishment (but let's not discuss that in this thread)
2) I belive killing enemy soliders in a war is justified
3) I believe it is justifiable to kill to defend your life or the life of your family
4) There may be cases where saving one person's life requires the sacrifice of many more lives. If those sacrificing their lives have not consented then it isn't moral to save the first life.
So to the extent your following arguments rely on agreement on this point we may disagree at a fundamental level.
The comparable alternative to taking someone's car with health insurance is to incarcerate or kill people, and if you agree with my statement above this is unacceptable as well as unconstitutional, and at least the later of the two alternatives is also a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
Several things to refute.
1) I have not argued for taking away people's health insurance. I've argued for making having it mandatory, and for helping those who can't afford it to buy it.
2) Not having health insurance isn't the same as being dead, or America would have about 35 million less citizens than it does
3) Killing people isn't unconstitutional or else Tookie would still be alive
4) Killing people isn't unacceptable in all cases (see above), although I'd agree that the killing you're referring to would be immoral
5) I'm not sure what the Geneva convention has to do with anything. It doesn't apply to how America treats it citizens, it applies to prisoners of war.
I do not believe any sane person believes it is acceptable for the state to actively kill or seek out for incarceration people who do not have health insurance.
I feel you are twisting my words. I never
advocated killing people without health insurance!! That's terrible. I don't think incarceration is the right answer either. For people who have the means the government could garnish their wages and use it to pay for insurance. For those without the means they would be part of those who received subsidized insurance.
it is unacceptable for police to demand proof of insurance from a person on the sidewalk
I was thinking more like when you went to the doctor or the hospital and when you took a new job (just like you have to show proof of citizenship or green card).
Secondly, the state does not require people ensure their cars, the state requires that people pay insurance to pay for the damage they could do to someone else's car.
Not true, Washington
does and other states probably do as well.
No one else is injured by your not getting health care, society is concerned about people not having health care
Not true. The uninsured drive up the cost of healthcare for everyone else (see my earlier posts). The uninsured typically don't receive good preventative care because they have to pay out-of-pocket. Thus prolems go un-noticed until they require emergency care which is more expensive and paid for by tax dollars; if they don't have the money to pay for themselves.
... because the vast majority of people agree with what my assumption that not only actively killing people is immoral, but that allowing people to die or suffer when it could be prevented it is immoral.
This is a red herring argument. No one, especially not me, has advocated killing people. On the contrary, I'm trying to find a way for everyone to have health coverage, which should save lives, not end them. I'm looking to get people coverage so they can have a doctor help them deal with problems before they become an emergency.
Perhaps you've never lived in a state with lots of illegal immigrants (like Cali), but this is a real problem and a real issue in this state. The emergency rooms have a disproportionately large number of people in them who aren't here legally and don't have insurance.
Regarding mass transit: I agree this is a topic for another thread. Feel free to start one as I think we're in disagreement there as well.
The incentives to get off the program is the job of the private sector to create if they want those peoples business.
The private sector will create policies that people can buy. The problem is the people on the program are too poor to afford the coverage. It's not the private sector's responsibility to offer them insurance at a loss. As for faulty assumptions, here is my defense:
The assumption that "getting off the program" assumption that "getting off the program" is necessarily good is faulty for one
No it's not. People on the program are getting something they're not paying for, at the expense of everyone else. That's prima facie
unfair to those not on the program and thus desirable to stop. Forced "charity" isn't charity at all, it's theft. I'm not saying helping the less fortunate isn't a good thing. It's just when it's being done with tax money, the people receiving the aid have an obligation to try and become self-sufficient. I'm not sure how to help the poor with government money and encourage this behavior.
... is it in your mind somehow more moral to give power &/or resources to a corporation driven by money than to a democratically elected government?
I'm afraid I don't understand your argument. I'm not "giving" anything to a corporation. I'm trading
them my money for the amortization of my health risks and the associated costs. And yes, this type of willing trade is more moral than having it taken by the government, democratic or not. This is because it's my money and in the private sector I choose how to spend it. I don't get to choose how much I pay in taxes or what those taxes go for. It is decided by the majority and they have decided to appropriate more than I would willingly give and spend it on things I do not approve of.
The advantage to capitalistic systems is their efficacy, our capitalistic health care system is not efficient so what then makes it inherently better?
Our health care system is only quasi-capitalistic. A consumer-based health care market, which is ultimately what I propose, would be more capitalistic, and it would be more efficient than the status quo.
Second you are assuming that health care is a functioning market
No I'm not, as I said above. But you're right that I'm assuming a consumer-based system would be a functioning market. But this can't happen unless people are directly and clearly accountable for the medical cost they consume. As a quick example, take lasik eye surgery, which in a consumer-based system has expanded rapidly and become steadily cheaper since it was invented.
elasticity for health care is near 0, and this alone makes it a non-functional market.
Please explain. Most health care costs are electable. Especially preventative medicine. Even when not, if we had a consumer-based healthcare system people could choose what doctor to go to. The only case where this is not true would be life-saving emergency care, but that is a small fraction of total health care costs. Again, my examples regarding lasik surgery prove health care can function as a normal market as long as government stops preventing it from functioning properly.
Perhaps active competition for the public sector is what it will take to create a closer to functional health care market.
Or perhaps the public sector could get out of the way. It's sad that the invisible hand is smarter than all of congress.