Support NeoGAF

[Tommie Hu$tle]

I thought it was a pretty good discussion so I'd start it anew.

I don't disagree with your conclusion (re: increased productivity). My point was that you simply cannot have a "right" which can only see its expression through the work of others-- it's inherently doomed to failure, nor can it be logically defended (and isn't witnessed in any other sphere of life, even where rights and issues of greater import are concerned-- nourishment, shelter, water and utilities, nevermind free speech, press etc.).

Well I think it depends on your definition of "rights" and this is a probably a semantic arguement. Our society works because our rights are expressed through the works of others. The reason we don't have mass riots, rape, and pillaging is becasue we (most of us) work towards the rights of others. It's a function of having a civil society. I think that naturally our definition of what is a right should expand as technological and societal advances allow. We now as a society have the means to do such. What is a "right" in 2004 wasn't a "right" in 1004 and what was a right in 1004 wasn't a right in 4.

If we desire a healthy society, I would certainly agree that access to medical care for all citizens is imperative; I also feel, however, that to totally discard our capitalistic ethic in one sphere while singing its praises in all others is, shall we say, an instance of "selective reasoning". In case you missed it, I proposed what I feel to be a sensible health care plan in MAF's "broken ribs" thread, seen here . Further, if we truly desire a healthy society, one could quite convincingly argue that mere temperance and an eschewal of vice and unhealthy habits (things which would necessarily lead to large decreases in obesity, STD's, cancer, smoking-related ailments etc.-- our most pressing health concerns in terms of both mortality and expenditures) would also engender similar results, and at nobody's expense. In situations such as this where you would have two (or more) competing paths for arriving at similarly beneficial states, I always say to take the one that is both minimally invasive of others' rights as well as more logically sound; in this case, that would mean encouraging healthy lifestyle choices as opposed to a wholesale renovation of our medical system-- particularly when more sensible, logical, and limited measures would suffice (as seen in the thread I linked to).


Hope that made sense.

You are going to have to a combniation of many things. You can't say bam! here is a citizen funded healthcare system do everything you were doing before. It would take a education on several levels. But, I don't see how our capitalistic drive would nose dive with a national healthcare system. If anything people that work in the system could be provided benifits like the govt paying for their medical education, handling malpractice insurance for example and a host of other things to make it competitive and worthwhile.

 

[Phoenix]

I think a huge part of the problem in a capitalistic society is how you lower the cost of overall health care while perserving competition and innovation in the industry while making it possible for people who want to spend money on health care to get faster better care.

One of the things that Cannucks have always said is 'why should x get service before y' but that goes against our capitalistic undertones which say 'if I can afford to do x, why shouldn't I be able to have x whenever'. Its akin to 'why should people who preorder systems be able to get them before everyone else' in my view. If you have the ability to get something today, why should you have to sit on a waiting list for service? Sure there should be priority given to people with threat to life, but if you can afford an experimental or just expensive procedure why shouldn't you be able to undergo it? Of course, that starts to take us back to where we are now.

I think its very difficult to make a system really fair for all parties - especially if you start talking about wacky stuff like 'why should a doctor make more than a short order cook'. The changes that would lead to this type of system require huge societal change that hints of socialist leanings (and that's not necessarily a bad thing). I think this will take a long long time to accomplish because its not something that you can legislate into working well. Unless people really 'accept' it - its not going to work.