Miss USA: Health Care Is a Privilege, Not a Right...

[Meh Gerbil]

Is it just possible Carrikature that your answer does not hold water? And I won't answer you that way... And you know, I have a pretty good memory and I don't ever remember you offering a clear answer to this question.

I feel as if you're constantly trying to push skeptics to admit they've no foundation for a moral code.
I don't know what the win scenario is for that as I think most skeptics are aware that they've adopted society's code along with their own tweaks.

[Carrikature]

Is it just possible Carrikature that your answer does not hold water? And I won't answer you that way... And you know, I have a pretty good memory and I don't ever remember you offering a clear answer to this question.

If I didn't think it held water, I would have discarded it some time ago. I've no interest in a system that doesn't work and/or has no real foundation. I've nothing invested in having a given solution be the correct one; I'm far more concerned with making sure it is the correct one.

You say that you won't answer me this way, but you have done so in the past. You've answered me and plenty of others that way.

[Carrikature]

as I think most skeptics are aware that they've adopted society's code along with their own tweaks.

I've at least done my best to derive the code from scratch. Most are content with altruism as an explanation.

[Sparko]

Perhaps.
As long as we understand that the moral code cannot make us what God wants us to be, nor can our adherence to that code change us.

It is striving to be that person. God puts a conscience and sense of right and wrong into every person, choosing the "right" and rejecting the "wrong" is acting morally. We are fallen though so we can never reach that perfection until we are glorified.



Romans 2: 14 Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.

[seer]

That's just moronic. Strength and weakness can only enforce. They don't define. If there's any such thing as 'right', it's not dependent on any group (in power or not) saying so. The subjectivity you decry so often is never more clear than in a 'might makes right' scenario. That sort of thinking is why we have mass murders and genocide in human history. If you with to truly insist that might makes right, you give up all moral high ground simply because you DO NOT have that power. You can't claim anything is immoral unless you have the power, which you don't (and never will).

This kind of thinking is grade school bully level. They aren't 'right' and they aren't doing 'good', even if no one is around to stop them.



Enforcement and morality are orthogonal. Governments have the power to enforce. They can codify punishments and rewards. That is their power. Those codes may overlap with morality, but they could just as easily defy it. Feel free to insist otherwise. To be consistent, you'll have to stop claiming that abortion or homosexual marriages are wrong (just for example). Good luck.

You keep claiming this, so will you finally tells us what actually does define right!

[seer]

If I didn't think it held water, I would have discarded it some time ago. I've no interest in a system that doesn't work and/or has no real foundation. I've nothing invested in having a given solution be the correct one; I'm far more concerned with making sure it is the correct one.

See Carrikature, it will always come down to an opinion. Yours, the society's, the King's etc... there is nothing else. And what works is dependent on the goal that you have. And that too is subjective. How can it be otherwise?

[Catholicity]

Part of the reason our system does have outrageous prices on healthcare is that its arranged around the free market, which is both good and bad. We have the right to find whatever Dr. we like or can see, the best of the best etc....but then we have a new set of problems there, lots of drs go into the business just for the money, have a poor bedside manner etc. (Trust me I've met them) Then there is overhead, malpractice (which is why almost no dr practices solo. insurance is wildly expensive because they take the blame, sometimes for things that really are their fault and then there are some rogue lawsuits anyway in which situations could not have been prevented. When we can fix these problems (wrongful malpractice) drs that want only money, and then some of the overhead costs, we can also begin to talk about reduction in healthcare costs. Part of the problem with the US is that we chase after the almighty dollar and so things that should NEVER be about profit, become such. we'd actually have to have an entire moral revolution regarding our insane love for money.

[Carrikature]

See Carrikature, it will always come down to an opinion. Yours, the society's, the King's etc... there is nothing else. And what works is dependent on the goal that you have. And that too is subjective. How can it be otherwise?

So much for not answering me this way. Like I said: predictable.


The fundamental goals for everyone are the same. That's how you get past subjectivity. You don't even have to move out of self-interest to develop a system that applies to everyone with the best chance of success for each individual.

[Carrikature]

You keep claiming this, so will you finally tells us what actually does define right!

A moral code.

[seer]

So much for not answering me this way. Like I said: predictable.

The fundamental goals for everyone are the same. That's how you get past subjectivity. You don't even have to move out of self-interest to develop a system that applies to everyone with the best chance of success for each individual.

So the fundamental goal of a Stalin is the same as the fundamental goal of a Gandhi? How does that work?

A moral code.

Moral codes are the product of subjective minds. So we have to ask -whose moral code?

[Starlight]

Question for the non-US people: how is malpractice handled in your country?

You make a complaint to a medical board who reviews the doctor's performance, and can suspend or fire the doctor. As far as receiving financial compensation goes, there is a system of nationalized insurance where the government bans you from suing anyone for liability (includes workplace accidents, car accidents, medical maladventure, any kind of accident etc. Police can prosecute the offender for criminal negligence in serious cases, but you can't bring civil suit for liability) and instead looks up a pre-created table based on your injuries and gives you a lump sump payment which represents the amount you would have gotten had you been allowed to sue, which is funded out of taxes.

Despite Starlight's glowing endorsement of his country's healthcare system and dismissing of my hypothetical...

“The information released today is more confirmation of serious doctor shortages in our public hospitals – but the situation is even grimmer than these latest figures suggest,” says Ian Powell, Executive Director of the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists (ASMS).

Man who represents doctors, wishes there were more doctors, news at 11.

Your hypothetical had cause and effect backwards. This man is saying that the government ought to choose to employ more doctors. i.e. that they should create job positions, get applicants, and then employ the staff. You were implying a lack of willing applicants for open job positions, which is quite different, and not the reality.

Nationally, 182 of the 1014 general practices were refusing to take new patients

Not relevant. 18% of local family doctors are maxed-out... so what? Would you prefer they didn't have enough patients and spent their days twiddling their thumbs?

[Joel]

Uh...

what 'government-imposed limits'?

Some examples are:
- The government authorizing the AMA to act as a monopoly in controlling medical schools and limiting their numbers, and numbers of medical students, and establishing legal barriers to entry (e.g. via establishing licensing requirements).
- Some states restricting the creation of new hospitals. (e.g. google "certificate of need")
- FDA approval requirements
- Patents

[Sparko]

You make a complaint to a medical board who reviews the doctor's performance, and can suspend or fire the doctor. As far as receiving financial compensation goes, there is a system of nationalized insurance where the government bans you from suing anyone for liability (includes workplace accidents, car accidents, medical maladventure, any kind of accident etc. Police can prosecute the offender for criminal negligence in serious cases, but you can't bring civil suit for liability) and instead looks up a pre-created table based on your injuries and gives you a lump sump payment which represents the amount you would have gotten had you been allowed to sue, which is funded out of taxes.




Man who represents doctors, wishes there were more doctors, news at 11.

Your hypothetical had cause and effect backwards. This man is saying that the government ought to choose to employ more doctors. i.e. that they should create job positions, get applicants, and then employ the staff. You were implying a lack of willing applicants for open job positions, which is quite different, and not the reality.

Not relevant. 18% of local family doctors are maxed-out... so what? Would you prefer they didn't have enough patients and spent their days twiddling their thumbs?

nice attempt at spin. But the truth is that NZ has a serious shortage of doctors, especially in rural areas. They are even importing doctors from other countries. Anyone can just google it. I only chose a couple of the first search results.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-stan...s-hits-regions
Shortage of doctors hits regions
A quarter of the country's rural medical practices have vacancies and there appears to be no end in sight to the struggle to attract doctors to the regions.


https://www.newzealandnow.govt.nz/wo...ealthcare-jobs
Healthcare Jobs
Hospitals and practices across the country are looking for doctors, midwives, surgeons and 36 other healthcare occupations.
These skills are on the official Skills Shortages lists, which will make it easier for you to meet New Zealand's immigration requirements.

[Carrikature]

Some examples are:
- The government authorizing the AMA to act as a monopoly in controlling medical schools and limiting their numbers, and numbers of medical students, and establishing legal barriers to entry (e.g. via establishing licensing requirements).
- Some states restricting the creation of new hospitals. (e.g. google "certificate of need")
- FDA approval requirements
- Patents

Yeah, you have a lot of work to prove most of these are bad things. The primary reason I will never be libertarian is the anarchic nonsense about removing necessary regulations. I happen to work in a profession with 'legal barriers to entry' that are quite necessary, and I have enough experience with what happens when approval requirements are tossed out the window. No thanks.

[Carrikature]

So the fundamental goal of a Stalin is the same as the fundamental goal of a Gandhi? How does that work?

Pretty easily. It still traces out to "let me be free" and "treat me well". Those are the basic, fundamental goals that everyone shares.

Moral codes are the product of subjective minds. So we have to ask -whose moral code?

No, we don't. A moral code includes the definitions. It doesn't matter whose it is. We only have to deal with whose if we ask which is best.