Society For The Prevention Of medical Mass Murder

[Cheerful Charlie]

Orrin Hatch, Senator from Utah is angry that Bernie Sanders has denounced the GOP Trumpcare plans as surely going to cause many people who will lose health care under the GOP plans to die, over time.

The problem is, many experts in the health care field have declared that if passed, the GOP plan will indeed cause just that.

I see this as a moral problem on the part of the GOP and idiots like Orrin Hatch. Apparently Hatch objects to Bernie's rhetoric, but if hot rhetoric is what it takes to deter the GOP from a policy that will in fact cause many deaths, it seems to me to be a duty.

This is becoming a war of words America cannot afford to lose.

Of course this will in the end expand it's boundaries as an issue. Do Americans have a right to decent health care, or just a privileged, a privileged withdrawn if it means the rich lose tax cuts. Do Americans deserve clean air, water and food even if that takes strong regulation?

Should any political policy be examined for it's morality in this fashion? And to what extent? It is obvious that the current members of the GOP side of Congress don't care.

 

[Bronzeage]

Morality is, as morality does. One can't claim life is sacred, or has any relative value, and not act in a way which reflects that claim.

Christian scripture is fairly clear on the issue of caring for other people, and other people's problems. It is strange to see those who want to value money over life, so closely allied with the Scripture conscious.

What is even stranger, is the GOP's willingness to provide healthcare to everyone in this country, but only the most ineffective, and most expensive form of healthcare. I'm 60 years old, and in my entire life, I have never seen a dead body in a gutter. This is a country where people are not allowed to die in the gutter. Someone will come pick them up and take them somewhere. By that time it's pretty much too late to do any real good, but this person will be cared for and fed, until they actually die. This can take some time.

There was a time when untreated diabetes was a death sentence. A person had two or three years, at the most. Sooner or later, some complication would send the patient into a spiral and it would soon be over. In the "too little, too late" school of medicine, diabetes can be arrested, but usually after serious vascular damage is done. This leads to amputation of one or more legs. Now we have a person on total disability, and institutional care. There are a host of other diseases with a similar progression.

A better choice is to send a person to a Doctor a couple times a year, and with the proper lab work and drugs, this person gets to wear two shoes and work for another couple decades. A tax payer, instead of a tax burden. The GOP is happy with the TLTL system because they can't see who is receiving these benefits of little benefit.

What's really going on here is a perverse morality play. The GOP wants to make poor people suffer, so they will hate being poor, and go find a job.

 

[fromderinside]

What's really going on here is a perverse morality play. The GOP wants to make poor people suffer, so they will hate being poor, and go find a job.

Yeah. the rack and Iron Maiden were the ultimate cure for sin. Last Lewis episode was about knots too.

 

[bilby]

Morality is, as morality does. One can't claim life is sacred, or has any relative value, and not act in a way which reflects that claim.

Christian scripture is fairly clear on the issue of caring for other people, and other people's problems. It is strange to see those who want to value money over life, so closely allied with the Scripture conscious.

What is even stranger, is the GOP's willingness to provide healthcare to everyone in this country, but only the most ineffective, and most expensive form of healthcare. I'm 60 years old, and in my entire life, I have never seen a dead body in a gutter. This is a country where people are not allowed to die in the gutter. Someone will come pick them up and take them somewhere. By that time it's pretty much too late to do any real good, but this person will be cared for and fed, until they actually die. This can take some time.

There was a time when untreated diabetes was a death sentence. A person had two or three years, at the most. Sooner or later, some complication would send the patient into a spiral and it would soon be over. In the "too little, too late" school of medicine, diabetes can be arrested, but usually after serious vascular damage is done. This leads to amputation of one or more legs. Now we have a person on total disability, and institutional care. There are a host of other diseases with a similar progression.

A better choice is to send a person to a Doctor a couple times a year, and with the proper lab work and drugs, this person gets to wear two shoes and work for another couple decades. A tax payer, instead of a tax burden. The GOP is happy with the TLTL system because they can't see who is receiving these benefits of little benefit.

What's really going on here is a perverse morality play. The GOP wants to make poor people suffer, so they will hate being poor, and go find a job.

Yup.

I would have phrased that slightly differently; The GOP wants to make poor people suffer, so they will hate being poor, and choose to be rich instead.

They don't care what the mechanism is by which poor people get rich; And indeed, they don't really know how it might be achieved (although a job is probably one of the myriad options). The important error is that they are 100% certain that it is a choice. And that in their personal case, it was because they made the right choices.

It's the fundamental difference between the two wings of politics - the left wing believe that people are not in control of their circumstances, and the right wing believe that people are in control of their circumstances. Moderates (insofar as any of this endangered species remain) understand that some parts of life are under the control of the individual, and others are not.

Ego is a big driver here; The wealthy and/or successful want to think that they (and they alone) are responsible for their position, and that they therefore owe nothing to anyone else. The poor and/or unsuccessful either want to think that everything is due to circumstances beyond their control, and that they are therefore blameless and deserving of the help of those more fortunate; or they want to think that they (and they alone) are responsible for their position, and that they therefore can escape their problems, if only they try hard enough.

The wealthy see a bunch of losers with their hands out, who refuse to try to succeed; The poor either see a bunch of greedy bastards who refuse to help them out; or they see the personification of their goals.

Both are wrong; Both are also right. A reasonable person has to take a case-by-case approach to determine how much is luck, and how much is effort, in each circumstance - and that means doing a LOT of thinking. People hate thinking; It's difficult, and it distracts them from important issues, like which stars are dating, or breaking up, or have a new movie/single/TV show.

With health-care, it's a no-brainer - nobody has ever successfully avoided influenza, or defeated cancer, by a purely individual effort. But for the right to accept this as a fact would challenge their entire worldview. Fortunately, they have an escape hatch - by simply refusing to learn about how medical conditions arise, they can continue to blame the sick for their plight - He would never have gotten ill if only he had been more devout. God struck him down because of his sinful ways, and so it is entirely his own fault. This means of avoiding reality is so effective, that people even manage to believe it of themselves - I am sick because I am a sinner, and I am not getting better, because I am not praying hard enough. Lots of people genuinely believe this crap.

Opposition to science is endemic, because facts have a tendency to show that people are partly, but not wholly, responsible for their situation. This conclusion is completely unacceptable, particularly to wealthy people, who would have to accept that they might be undeserving of their wealth; and to poor people who would have to accept that they might never become wealthy, despite a lifetime of hard work and piety. The middle classes might be able to tolerate reality - but they are outnumbered, and they are shrinking. No wonder you have President Trump, and a GOP dominated legislature. No wonder 'fake news' is more popular than actual news. When the rich and the poor share a desire to ignore reality, the realists in the middle don't stand a chance.

 

[Bomb#20]

Orrin Hatch, Senator from Utah is angry that Bernie Sanders has denounced the GOP Trumpcare plans as surely going to cause many people who will lose health care under the GOP plans to die, over time.

The problem is, many experts in the health care field have declared that if passed, the GOP plan will indeed cause just that.

I see this as a moral problem on the part of the GOP and idiots like Orrin Hatch. Apparently Hatch objects to Bernie's rhetoric, but if hot rhetoric is what it takes to deter the GOP from a policy that will in fact cause many deaths, it seems to me to be a duty.

This is becoming a war of words America cannot afford to lose.

Of course this will in the end expand it's boundaries as an issue. Do Americans have a right to decent health care, or just a privileged, a privileged withdrawn if it means the rich lose tax cuts. Do Americans deserve clean air, water and food even if that takes strong regulation?

Should any political policy be examined for it's morality in this fashion? And to what extent? It is obvious that the current members of the GOP side of Congress don't care.

Since you posted this in M&P instead of PD, you presumably don't really mean for this thread to just be yet another tedious Republicans-are-evil choir preach, but an actual discussion of moral philosophy. Cool!

I take it your opinion is that Americans have a right to decent health care, not just a privilege, and their right trumps rich people's right to their property. And I take it your opinion is that if you don't have something, so you grab it from somebody else, and then when you try to grab even more from him he sees you coming and tries to hang onto what he has left instead of just letting you have it, then it's his holding onto it that's the cause of whatever problem you have that you were counting on grabbing his stuff to solve for you. Do I have that right?

Assuming I have that right, which moral theory are you relying on to conclude the former, and which theory of causality are you relying on to conclude the latter?

 

[Valjean]

The GOP seems obsessed with penalizing, even punishing, the "undeserving." They don't seem to see it as government's job to promote the general welfare. Rather, they see it's role as to enabling the extravagant lifestyles of the "economic royalists," as Roosevelt put it.

A major tenet of the GOP is that poverty is caused by laziness, and that if the indolent, social parasites would get off their asses and go find jobs, they could become prosperous. Government helps only those who help themselves.

But some people really are victims of circumstance, some really are caught in a cycle of exploitation, and many work two or three jobs just to afford a dingy room in a seedy section of town.

 

[Valjean]

Since you posted this in M&P instead of PD, you presumably don't really mean for this thread to just be yet another tedious Republicans-are-evil choir preach, but an actual discussion of moral philosophy. Cool!

I take it your opinion is that Americans have a right to decent health care, not just a privilege, and their right trumps rich people's right to their property. And I take it your opinion is that if you don't have something, so you grab it from somebody else, and then when you try to grab even more from him he sees you coming and tries to hang onto what he has left instead of just letting you have it, then it's his holding onto it that's the cause of whatever problem you have that you were counting on grabbing his stuff to solve for you. Do I have that right?

Assuming I have that right, which moral theory are you relying on to conclude the former, and which theory of causality are you relying on to conclude the latter?

People form societies for their mutual benefit. Working co-operatively, with everyone sacrificing some of their own immediate interests for the good of the whole, a higher standard of prosperity and security, at lower overall cost, can be gained for everyone.

Think of society as a co-op; a family, with everyone chipping in for the good of the whole, and everyone benefiting.

A totally free, self-centered life would likely be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short, to quote Hobbs.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Orrin Hatch, Senator from Utah is angry that Bernie Sanders has denounced the GOP Trumpcare plans as surely going to cause many people who will lose health care under the GOP plans to die, over time.

The problem is, many experts in the health care field have declared that if passed, the GOP plan will indeed cause just that.

I see this as a moral problem on the part of the GOP and idiots like Orrin Hatch. Apparently Hatch objects to Bernie's rhetoric, but if hot rhetoric is what it takes to deter the GOP from a policy that will in fact cause many deaths, it seems to me to be a duty.

This is becoming a war of words America cannot afford to lose.

Of course this will in the end expand it's boundaries as an issue. Do Americans have a right to decent health care, or just a privileged, a privileged withdrawn if it means the rich lose tax cuts. Do Americans deserve clean air, water and food even if that takes strong regulation?

Should any political policy be examined for it's morality in this fashion? And to what extent? It is obvious that the current members of the GOP side of Congress don't care.

I agree with you that Obamacare is the preferable option. But calling it mass murder is a bit much. This is a clash of ideology. That is all. Both have moral arguments they think are valid and strong.

Does a person who doesn't look after themselves deserve to be supported by others? That's basically the contention. One side says yes, because it's more complicated than that, and the other says no, because they think it isn't.

 

[bigfield]

I take it your opinion is that Americans have a right to decent health care, not just a privilege, and their right trumps rich people's right to their property. And I take it your opinion is that if you don't have something, so you grab it from somebody else, and then when you try to grab even more from him he sees you coming and tries to hang onto what he has left instead of just letting you have it, then it's his holding onto it that's the cause of whatever problem you have that you were counting on grabbing his stuff to solve for you. Do I have that right?

Assuming I have that right, which moral theory are you relying on to conclude the former, and which theory of causality are you relying on to conclude the latter?

"...Americans have a right to decent health care..."

All humans have inherent value. Everyone has a human right to health. Universal public healthcare provides a means by which a country can provide that right to its inhabitants. The USA has the resources to implement that means.

"...their right trumps rich people's right to their property."

Humans have a variety of motivations: we have fundamental, physiological needs such as air, water, food and shelter. We have a need to be safe from violence and other hazards that can kill or seriously harm us; we have psychological needs, such as social contact and peace; we also have a desire to achieve self-esteem and self-actualisation. These needs are all part of the human condition.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs represents the way in which humans tend to prioritise their needs.

The physical wellbeing is a basic need, therefore the right to physical wellbeing is a basic human right.

Humans do not have a need for property per se. The right to property exists as a means for esteem and self-fulfillment, and the rights to esteem and self-fulfillment are subordinate to the right to physical wellbeing.

 

[DrZoidberg]

"...Americans have a right to decent health care..."

All humans have inherent value. Everyone has a human right to health. Universal public healthcare provides a means by which a country can provide that right to its inhabitants. The USA has the resources to implement that means.

Empty platitude. At least you avoided saying that all humans have equal value.

A bucket off poo has inherent value, ie nothing. Just saying that something has a value doesn't imply that it is valuable, or how valuable it is.

The value of something is measured in what you're willing to give up to pay for it.

So what is it? What is it that you, specifically are willing to give up to pay for Obama care?

"...their right trumps rich people's right to their property."

Humans have a variety of motivations: we have fundamental, physiological needs such as air, water, food and shelter. We have a need to be safe from violence and other hazards that can kill or seriously harm us; we have psychological needs, such as social contact and peace; we also have a desire to achieve self-esteem and self-actualisation. These needs are all part of the human condition.

More empty platitudes. Until you put a value on those needs, measure them and list all the things we can't have if these are fulfilled, you're just talking shit.

The physical wellbeing is a basic need, therefore the right to physical wellbeing is a basic human right.

Humans do not have a need for property per se. The right to property exists as a means for esteem and self-fulfillment, and the rights to esteem and self-fulfillment are subordinate to the right to physical wellbeing.

Ehe? The point of property isn't so people can feel good about themselves. The only reason why our political system allows private property is because it's an engine to generate wealth. If it wouldn't we'd already be living in a socialist utopia.

I'm a lefty liberal. And few things annoy me as much as retarded lefty liberal arguments. It makes me look bad. Especially considering that the conservative arguments are so simplistic and dumb-ass. We can do better, don't you think?

Sorry for being such a dick. But this is a pet peeve of mine

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Orrin Hatch, Senator from Utah is angry that Bernie Sanders has denounced the GOP Trumpcare plans as surely going to cause many people who will lose health care under the GOP plans to die, over time.

The problem is, many experts in the health care field have declared that if passed, the GOP plan will indeed cause just that.

I see this as a moral problem on the part of the GOP and idiots like Orrin Hatch. Apparently Hatch objects to Bernie's rhetoric, but if hot rhetoric is what it takes to deter the GOP from a policy that will in fact cause many deaths, it seems to me to be a duty.

This is becoming a war of words America cannot afford to lose.

Of course this will in the end expand it's boundaries as an issue. Do Americans have a right to decent health care, or just a privileged, a privileged withdrawn if it means the rich lose tax cuts. Do Americans deserve clean air, water and food even if that takes strong regulation?

Should any political policy be examined for it's morality in this fashion? And to what extent? It is obvious that the current members of the GOP side of Congress don't care.

I agree with you that Obamacare is the preferable option. But calling it mass murder is a bit much. This is a clash of ideology. That is all. Both have moral arguments they think are valid and strong.

Does a person who doesn't look after themselves deserve to be supported by others? That's basically the contention. One side says yes, because it's more complicated than that, and the other says no, because they think it isn't.

If passed, Trumpcare will cause many to die who otherwise would live. A number of experts have pointed this out, yet the Republicans ignore them. So yes, it is murder. Calling it what it is may be harsh, but it is correct to do so. This all has a moral dimension, and using harsh language to avoid mass deaths that will occur because of the policies is in order. Nobody says it is easy to solve the problems. But you will not solve the medical care problem by actively sabotaging efforts to do so, which has been the GOP's policy since the beginning of ACA. So they could in the end, declare "It isn't working so we must eliminate it".

Trumps efforts to gut regulations that protect or air, water and food supply is also likewise lacking in morality because the long term effects of that foolish approach, people will suffer for it in the end. Again, the moral aspects of all that seem to get little examination.

When you divorce policy from morality in this fashion, we will reap avoidable disasters.

 

[bigfield]

Empty platitude.

Stating that 'humans have value' is a way of expressing a often-unstated value that underlies altruistic moral principles such as maximising happiness, minimising suffering etc.

Perhaps it could be called "the principle of universal altruism" or something. Pick whatever expression suits you.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Empty platitude.

Stating that 'humans have value' is a way of expressing a often-unstated value that underlies altruistic moral principles such as maximising happiness, minimising suffering etc.

Perhaps it could be called "the principle of universal altruism" or something. Pick whatever expression suits you.

So utilitarianism? The problem with utilitarianism is that is suffers from the same problem. What are you measuring, and how? How many happiness units does something generate and how many suffering units is caused? How are they compared. How do you rank types of suffering? Which is worse? It's all platitudes. Until you figure out a way to accurately measure and compare the suffering and happiness you're just talking shit.

You're just listing platitudes. Thank you for freely letting me pick bullshit platitudes that suit my non-existent needs. Or we could just stop with the platitudes?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I agree with you that Obamacare is the preferable option. But calling it mass murder is a bit much. This is a clash of ideology. That is all. Both have moral arguments they think are valid and strong.

Does a person who doesn't look after themselves deserve to be supported by others? That's basically the contention. One side says yes, because it's more complicated than that, and the other says no, because they think it isn't.

If passed, Trumpcare will cause many to die who otherwise would live. A number of experts have pointed this out, yet the Republicans ignore them. So yes, it is murder. Calling it what it is may be harsh, but it is correct to do so. This all has a moral dimension, and using harsh language to avoid mass deaths that will occur because of the policies is in order. Nobody says it is easy to solve the problems. But you will not solve the medical care problem by actively sabotaging efforts to do so, which has been the GOP's policy since the beginning of ACA. So they could in the end, declare "It isn't working so we must eliminate it".

Trumps efforts to gut regulations that protect or air, water and food supply is also likewise lacking in morality because the long term effects of that foolish approach, people will suffer for it in the end. Again, the moral aspects of all that seem to get little examination.

When you divorce policy from morality in this fashion, we will reap avoidable disasters.

Devil's advocate. People chose to take that risk of death due to their lifestyles. And now they can't afford care. Well, they should have saved. You could perhaps argue mass-suicide. But hardly murder.

 

[iolo]

The basic rule is clear: capitalism kills. If you care about humanity, get rid of the sick system.

 

[bigfield]

Stating that 'humans have value' is a way of expressing a often-unstated value that underlies altruistic moral principles such as maximising happiness, minimising suffering etc.

Perhaps it could be called "the principle of universal altruism" or something. Pick whatever expression suits you.

So utilitarianism? The problem with utilitarianism is that is suffers from the same problem. What are you measuring, and how? How many happiness units does something generate and how many suffering units is caused? How are they compared. How do you rank types of suffering? Which is worse? It's all platitudes. Until you figure out a way to accurately measure and compare the suffering and happiness you're just talking shit.

I'm not interested in chasing your goalposts. Psychology tells us that physical health is a relatively fundamental motivation for human beings, and utilitarianism works well enough, without providing a quantitative answer, to conclude that universal healthcare is a moral necessity.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So utilitarianism? The problem with utilitarianism is that is suffers from the same problem. What are you measuring, and how? How many happiness units does something generate and how many suffering units is caused? How are they compared. How do you rank types of suffering? Which is worse? It's all platitudes. Until you figure out a way to accurately measure and compare the suffering and happiness you're just talking shit.

I'm not interested in chasing your goalposts. Psychology tells us that physical health is a relatively fundamental motivation for human beings, and utilitarianism works well enough, without providing a quantitative answer, to conclude that universal healthcare is a moral necessity.

Utilitarianism couldn't work even hypothetically. Can you give an example of where it's working? And how?

If physical health is a fundamental motivation for human beings then why are so many uninsured outside Obamacare? I'd argue the other way around. People suck at assessing risk and that's why they're not buying it, when given the choice. Physical health is not a fundamental motivation at all. If that were true, nobody would drink or smoke.

A lot of people value a lot of thing above health.

If you're not going to accept the goal posts then we're not going to reach an agreement on why Obamacare is good. I agree that Obama care is good. I just think your argumentation for it is lazy and wrong.

 

[bigfield]

I'm not interested in chasing your goalposts. Psychology tells us that physical health is a relatively fundamental motivation for human beings, and utilitarianism works well enough, without providing a quantitative answer, to conclude that universal healthcare is a moral necessity.

If physical health is a fundamental motivation for human beings then why are so many uninsured outside Obamacare? I'd argue the other way around. People suck at assessing risk and that's why they're not buying it, when given the choice. Physical health is not a fundamental motivation at all. If that were true, nobody would drink or smoke.

Your objection only holds if humans are rational actors. We aren't; we choose short-term needs over long-term, which means we will choose short-term hedonistic pleasures that inflict physiological pain in the long term.

If you're not going to accept the goal posts then we're not going to reach an agreement on why Obamacare is good. I agree that Obama care is good. I just think your argumentation for it is lazy and wrong.

I never said that Obamacare is good, or argued for it. I argued the more general position that "Americans have a right to decent health care".

 

[DrZoidberg]

If physical health is a fundamental motivation for human beings then why are so many uninsured outside Obamacare? I'd argue the other way around. People suck at assessing risk and that's why they're not buying it, when given the choice. Physical health is not a fundamental motivation at all. If that were true, nobody would drink or smoke.

Your objection only holds if humans are rational actors. We aren't; we choose short-term needs over long-term, which means we will choose short-term hedonistic pleasures that inflict physiological pain in the long term.

You were the one who claimed that humans were rational and well motivated to be healthy. I poked a hole in it. But nice that you agree.

If you're not going to accept the goal posts then we're not going to reach an agreement on why Obamacare is good. I agree that Obama care is good. I just think your argumentation for it is lazy and wrong.

I never said that Obamacare is good, or argued for it. I argued the more general position that "Americans have a right to decent health care".

And then I said that it's a lazy and stupid platitude that means nothing.

What does "decent" health care mean? What are you willing to sacrifice of your own money to fund other people's health care? Until you can define that you're just talking shit.

BTW, Sweden does this, and it's a system that works great. The UK now has a similar system. France as well. I think it's the best way to do it. I'd say it's idiotic to organise health care any other way. During the last half of the 20'th century European countries experimented with a variety of systems and now it seems like we've found one that everybody loves, and one that is relatively cheap and efficient to run. It's the best bang for the buck.

Obamacare is a regulatory abomination. But so was/is Medicare. USA is a slowly evolved mess of rules upon rules upon rules. USA's problem isn't money. It's the grotesque bureaucratic machinery. No country in Europe is even close to the bureaucratic nightmare that is US health care.

Another problem in USA is that patients have too much power. So Americans are over medicated. I saw some numbers on it, and one of USA's biggest killers is complications from drugs they probably didn't need to begin with. That's a colossal waste of money, and health and doctors time.

The main problem with US healthcare isn't money. It's waste of resources.

 

[bigfield]

You were the one who claimed that humans were rational

No, I didn't.

BTW, Sweden does this, and it's a system that works great. The UK now has a similar system. France as well. I think it's the best way to do it. I'd say it's idiotic to organise health care any other way. During the last half of the 20'th century European countries experimented with a variety of systems and now it seems like we've found one that everybody loves, and one that is relatively cheap and efficient to run. It's the best bang for the buck.

Obamacare is a regulatory abomination. But so was/is Medicare. USA is a slowly evolved mess of rules upon rules upon rules. USA's problem isn't money. It's the grotesque bureaucratic machinery. No country in Europe is even close to the bureaucratic nightmare that is US health care.

Another problem in USA is that patients have too much power. So Americans are over medicated. I saw some numbers on it, and one of USA's biggest killers is complications from drugs they probably didn't need to begin with. That's a colossal waste of money, and health and doctors time.

The main problem with US healthcare isn't money. It's waste of resources.

Who gives a shit. I'm not American; I willingly pay taxes towards a single-payer universal healthcare system.

What does "decent" health care mean? What are you willing to sacrifice of your own money to fund other people's health care? Until you can define that you're just talking shit.

There are plenty of decent systems in practice. I can't set a upper limit on how much money I am willing to pay for such a system, and I can't provide minimal acceptable standards for the quality of care. Neither of those things changes my argument that people have a right to decent healthcare. Your insistence that my moral framework be quantitative is a bizarre red herring.