Is withholding health insurance murder?

[bluethread]

The left is seriously making the argument that if the Republican health insurance proposal is enacted into law, then "people will die". Will those people live forever, if the Republican proposal is not enacted into law? Also, is the Republican plan really withholding health insurance, or just adjusting how it is covered?

[Bust Nak]

That turns public policy on it's head. The first government controls on medical care was on quality. The FDA was originally established to control the patent drug industry of the 1800's...

We am not talking about drug regulations though. We are talking about switching to socialised medicine, and yes that does involve turning policy on its head.

As for me, I am not calling for any particular mix. I am a believer in informed consent.

Then what's the problem with controlling price and quantity like I suggested?

How much money is one parting with when they gets "free stuff"? If stuff has no cost to you, how is it that you are parting with your money?

Via taxation. I hear income tax in Canada goes up to 33% in the highest bracket.

That is a different issue. If the gap between the rich and the poor is 2 when the poor get 10, while the gap between the rich and poor is 10,000 when the poor get 100, which is more helpful to the poor?

The latter, but that's moot since the more realistic scenario is a gap of 10,000 when the poor get 1.

You can expect whatever you want. However, when one bases the distribution of goods and services on expectations, there is unresolvable conflict, because there is no standard of exchange. One of the primary functions of a market is the establishment of a standard of exchange. Rights can not be granted in cases of unresolvable conflict. For example, property rights can be granted, because the property can be defined and assigned to an individual. Expectation rights can not be granted because expectations are fluid and vary from person to person.

That's where the government comes in, to set a general expectation level that's a good fit for most.

So, as long as everyone gets one bandage, that is fine?

No, I expect way more.

Reasonable to whom, the payer, the recipient, the bureaucrat?

All three, well two, since the payer and the recipient are the same people.

So, in your ideal society, society sets policy based on what makes the poorest comfortable in their poverty?

Well, that's a close third after security and freedom.

The question becomes how socialized medicine removes the extremes. Baby Charlie is a case in point. The extremes still exist, the government just decides who lives and who dies and imposes that decision on the citizenry.

Baby Charlie isn't an extreme case though, the money is already there for treatment. The sticking point is whether it is ethical to treat him.

In a market economy, that decision is based on the value to the citizenry as indicated through voluntary actions.

I am not happy with the market making decision on ethics.

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 26 by WinePusher]

http://www.businessinsider.com/healthie ... rld-2017-1

http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-whic ... are-2017-5

Hard nosed business types, using fact based evidence disagree with WinePusher. Healthcare is not best delivered with the consumer goods market model.

[McCulloch]

There is no such thing as "free stuff". What you are asking for is stuff at no cost to you. You have no right to that, because you can only have that stuff if it is given to you by the person who owns it. If it is given voluntarily that is charity, which is the right of the owner. If it is involuntary, that is theft, a violation of the right of the owner.

This is an oversimplification. Are all involuntary deaths murder? Soldiers killed in battle, criminals executed for capital crimes, some killed in self defence. All murder?
Similarly not all involuntary contributions are theft. Taxes are not theft.
But the point here is moot. Whether free market or single payer, doctors are being paid for their service.

That is the problem of seeing healthcare, let alone health insurance as a right. It is not a fault of the market, but a fault of expectations. Regardless of whether there are no government programs or exclusive government financed healthcare, there will always be a segment of society that will receive less healthcare than another segment of society.

Just because we cannot reach perfect balance should not mean that we shouldn't strive to make the system more fair than it is now.

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 26 by WinePusher]

Check this out: http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/ ... 0818-8.pdf

The Healthcare Access and Quality Index, based on death rates for 32 diseases that can be avoided or effectively treated with proper medical care. "Despite improvements in healthcare quality and access over 25 years, inequality between the best and worst performing countries has grown," said Christopher Murray, director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, and leader of a consortium of hundreds of contributing experts. "Furthermore", he added in a statement, "the standard of primary care was lower in many nations than expected given levels of wealth and development. … Among rich nations, the worst offender in this category was the United States, which tops the world in per capita healthcare expenditure by some measures.  "

[bluethread]

There is no such thing as "free stuff". What you are asking for is stuff at no cost to you. You have no right to that, because you can only have that stuff if it is given to you by the person who owns it. If it is given voluntarily that is charity, which is the right of the owner. If it is involuntary, that is theft, a violation of the right of the owner.

This is an oversimplification. Are all involuntary deaths murder? Soldiers killed in battle, criminals executed for capital crimes, some killed in self defence. All murder?
Similarly not all involuntary contributions are theft. Taxes are not theft.
But the point here is moot. Whether free market or single payer, doctors are being paid for their service.

You are also oversimplifying in your comparisons. Again, the argument uses a nonexistent concept. There is no such thing as "involuntary murder". That is called involuntary manslaughter and that is also not acceptable in a civil society. In war confiscation, like killing, is common. That is because, unless self imposed, there are no rules of war. The purpose of war is to establish legal authority. Once the rule of law is established the concept of murder becomes valid. The execution of criminals is not murder, because it is based on the concepts of imminent threat and deterrence. Theft is different. It is related to property. In the case of fines, deterrence is the justification, but this is not the basic principle. The justification for taxation is "the common good". It is generally agreed that confiscation for any other purpose is theft. Since, "the common good" is a rather vague concept and subject to much debate, where one stands on the nature of what constitutes "the common good" would dictate whether one would consider the confiscation theft or not. So, unless you wish to get into a discussion regarding what constitutes "the common good', I will limit myself to the term confiscation, in this discussion. In your third example, self defense also involves the concept of imminent threat, i.e. personal threat. There is no personal threat that justifies taxation. The person being taxed is posing no imminent threat to the state, let alone the one whos behalf the state is confiscation the funds. In short, the comparison of murder and state sanctioned killings, with theft and state sanctioned confiscation is not valid.

That is the problem of seeing healthcare, let alone health insurance as a right. It is not a fault of the market, but a fault of expectations. Regardless of whether there are no government programs or exclusive government financed healthcare, there will always be a segment of society that will receive less healthcare than another segment of society.

Just because we cannot reach perfect balance should not mean that we shouldn't strive to make the system more fair than it is now.

That is true, but the assertion that equality of treatment regardless of willingness or ability to pay is "fair" is hardly a given.