@Khethil,
Khethil;91270 wrote:Brightnoon,
I don't quite know what to tell you; I've seen this argument go round and round with the same pitisome arguments; all which go nowhere. We stand on these ideals - all of us - and pit one against the other. I won't engage in the silliness; this is a philosophy forum, so let's keep it on the philosophical level.
I believe my original post adressed such substantive issues in an attempt to explain the unreasnably high cost of health care, and thus, based on that explanation, make an argument against more insurance, especially publicly funded, state operated, insurance. What specifically is silly about it?
Are my statements silly because they do not correspond to what you believe?
Quote:I think it speaks of our inability to come to grow, it reflects our dissatisfaction and displaces angst and inner mirth towards people and ideas not the true source of our dissatisfaction; it also creates an 'enemy': those people who want something for nothing. Does it need to be illustrated how flawed this is?
Again, who said anything about the people receiving subsidized health care? When did I express any anger with them? I am dissatisified, but not with those people; I don't blame them in the least for wanting something for nothing. Who doesn't? I am dissatisifed with the public policy which provides for such desires. I don't blame the welfare recipient, I blame the welfare state. And I want to abolish the welfare state. You seem to be attempting to make any opposition to socialized health care sound like its based on emotion and prejudice, and thus that its irrational and can be dismissed as such. Why? Where in anything I've said have I appealed to any emotions or prejudices? If you believe that all opposition to statism is based on irrationality, but that all support for statism is perfectly reasonable and principled, then you Sir are the one with the prejudice. both there are unreasonable, unthinking people on both sides of the argument, as there are reasonable thinking people on both sides.
Don't you see the irony in founding your argument against the opposition on the claim that they make emotional appeals rarther than arguments? Though I'm sure you have some arguments, thus far you have been making emotional appeals exclusively.
Quote:Most of what you responded with appears to be just an expression of angst against someone who seems to not share your view; which is understandable.
I believe that angst is otherwise known as
disagreement.
Quote:Yet it fails to address the philosophical issues I brought up: Healthcare for profit is a bad idea -and- That much of the opposition to installing basic healthcare for all citizens comes from inner disatisfaction/disillusionment and manifest by the incessent bray of "It's not fair!!".
Firstly, where is 'the incessant bray of "It's not fair!"?' Who has said that other than you? Secondly, merely stating that health care for profit is a bad idea is not an argument. It is a statement. If that is the sort of discoure you desire, I would simply respond with, no it isn't. That's absurd. You've made your claim, now provide arguments to justify it. Thirdly, I've already adressed your mischaracterization fo the opposition. Again, no doubt there are people whose motives are as you described. I am not such a person. So what is your point? You cannot discount a principled argument against socialized health care on the ground that other people who oppose socialized health care do so for non-principled reasons. Otherwise, I could say that much of the support for healthcare comes from unthinking people who simply like the idea of cheaper healthcare, and have no further logic behind their support, and that therefore, because you too support it, you have no further logic. Again, make your argument or we can only assume that you haven't got one. And I'm sure you do, you'd just rather make ad hominem attacks at the moment.
Quote:Government is too big - but if government is going to do anything that's worthy of my tax dollars, I'd think keeping us all alive is something I'll willingly contribute. If this is at all important - at all worthy of our hard earned dollars - then perhaps some of the other crapola we're spending it on should go.
I disagree. In breif my opinion is that, 1) the purpose of the state is to prevent the violation of individual rights, not to provide for the general welfare, 2) that besides being inappropriate by that principle, universal health care is dangerous, in that it grants government tremendous potential authority over the minutia of personal life (eating habits e.g.), and 3) regardless of any other, subective argument, universal health care is not feasable in the U.S. because of the cost.
Quote:Let's not wallow in arrogant supposition. My view primarily consists of those I stated a few posts ago and are underlined above. I think it's important - I think it's high-time and I think we need to let go of calling "lazy" those who can't afford medical care because of this greed-saturated culture we've built;
Again, your words. I never once called anyone lazy. What you are doing is called the
straw man argument. It is intellectually dishonest.
Quote:there are many situations that perpetuate millions of personal financial crisis, every day, because someone thought it was a "good idea" that medical attention was OK to be a For-Profit endeavor.
And, per the principle I briefly stated above, those private misfortunes are just that: private. It is not the responsibility of society to provide for such unfortunate people. Now, I have to aks the obvious question. If for-profit health care is a bad idea simply because it's for-profit, what about for-profit manufacturing, or shipping, or energy generation, or retail, or any other sector? If state operated healthcare is neccessarily better for the people because no profits are extracted, and the purpose of society is to provide for the common good, why shouldn't all enterprises be operated by the state? If you would, explain to us why health care should be public, but manufacturing e.g. should not be.
