I appreciate you taking the time to respond and your kind accolades.
I don't have much time, so I apologize that I can't offer a full rejoinder.
Kagas appears misguided, but I'll set that aside. I support the following views:
A: Homosexuals are persons and, so, deserve the same moral consideration that persons deserve. They are not afforded that same consideration when we fail to recognize (morally and legally) their committed and vowed relationships as we recognize those of heterosexuals.
B: Climate change is clearly the theory best supported by the evidence. That climate change is in large part due to human actions is best supported by the evidence.
C: Access to health care is a basic human right. A non-universal health care system offers unequal access to health care.
Concerning A: Perhaps a compassionate person could deny A. Still, if you understand the issues involved, then you recognize that there is no good/reasonable/plausible argument to support the denial of A. Your training should show you that. Your compassion should help grasp the issue (but maybe that's just me).
Concerning B: You're right, compassion seems to play no role here. However, understanding (i) cogent vs. non-cogent inductive inferences, (ii) when to let one's skepticism subside, and (iii) the evidence offered on both sides of the debate should lead one to confirm B. Your training should show you that.
Concerning C: Perhaps a compassionate person could deny A. Still, if you understand the issues involved, then you recognize that there is no good/reasonable/plausible argument to support the denial of A. Your training should show you that. Your compassion should help grasp the issue (but maybe that's just me).
Now, more an C: You continue to misunderstand the issue. I did not claim that the health care systems in parts of Europe and Asia were capitalist. Rather, I claimed first that there are some countries in Europe and Asia who have the following attributes:
I: Capitalist economy
II: Universal health care.
Why do I point this out? To point out that it is not impossible to have both. And, since we should keep a capitalist economy, we should look at these other countries and understand their situation so that we can improve ours.
As I said, no system is perfect. But you should note that not all universal health care systems are the same. There are wait times that are similar to U.S. wait times (see Germany, for e.g.) and wait times that are better (see, e.g. Japan and Taiwan). So, just looking at Canada is not sufficient to raise this as a worry for all current forms of a universalized system.
Not all diseases are treatable at emergency rooms. Not all people who die are old. Your inability to find evidence of folks who have suffered and died due to their not being able to obtain medical insurance is strange. Also, it's not just people who are turned away but those who are responsible enough not to put further burdens on themselves or others by incurring debt for a treatment. For a start, see Frontline: Sick Around America; See Frontline: Sick Around the World.
The emergency center brings up an interesting problem for your position. Typically, folks think that 'socialized' health care means that they'll have to pay for others who either don't want to buy health care or who don't take care of themselves (either b/c they can't or don't want to, etc.). That's true, but it's also true that you already pay for these people. Health care costs (e.g. hospital fees, insurance premiums, etc.) are in large part made up by the cost of services rendered that were not paid for by the individual who received the service. So, the current system still supports free riders and many more than would plausibly exist under a universal system.
Also, you fail to adequately address the concern that people go bankrupt attempting to pay for medical services. First, Skinner et al do make a fallacious inference. They claim the following:
(F) If the view that U.S. adoption of universal health care will reduce bankruptcies primarily caused by lack of health insurance in the U.S. is true, then we should find fewer cases of bankruptcies in a country that has universal health care.
That's simply ridiculous. Of course there may be more bankruptcies. The question is whether there are more bankruptcies primarily caused by lack of health insurance in countries with universal health care. And, there can't be b/c everyone has health insurance in those countries.
It is just a fact that many go bankrupt primarily due to lack of health insurance, and a distressing one. Among other things, in a system like ours, this means your costs go up in more than just the medical arena. This also means that costs for businesses go up in more than just the medical arena.
That's right you've got to distribute wealth. Oh no! We should never distribute wealth, especially unevenly. That's just a silly claim. Wealth is distributed (unevenly) to pay for roads, sidewalks, schools, police, fire departments, parks, etc. Forcing certain folks to pay what the wealthiest pay or what the middle folks pay would simply destroy their opportunity to a good life. Forcing certain folks to pay only what the poorest have to pay would not allow us to afford those public things ultimately decreasing everyone's standard of living. It's just not practical. (And, if you look at Rawls and others we'll find that it's unjust as well...but maybe that's just the compassion speaking up again.)
So, we can't just point to the fact that something would require distribution (even or uneven) of wealth to show that it's unacceptable unless we can determine what it is about distribution that is impermissible.
The right-libertarians have some things to say here. That position seems completely untenable. And, as the left-libertarians have shown, taking up the positions advocated by right-libertarians to ground their views (property-rights-centered justice) is not incompatible with taxation and wealth distribution. Moreover, you're committed to the view that taxation is okay (so long as its a flat tax of some sort). But, taxing just is a method for collecting wealth that will be distributed to pay for stuff. So, you can't consistently maintain that wealth distribution is always impermissible.
So, you'll have to identify something else about universal health care that makes it impermissible. These claims about distribution are simply red-herrings.
Finally, Argument (R). The argument as I've said is a non-starter. So, it doesn't matter in our debate if that's a bad argument offered by some who don't realize this or do and use it anyway.
(thanks for listening to my garbage. take care)
No comments:
Post a Comment