Why people are afraid of universal health care

[Toni]

Ummm... the argument that fetuses are not people, and are therefore disposable on demand, is actually a pretty newfangled idea.

Ummm... the argument that infants are people, and are therefore not disposable on demand (and are likely to survive even if you really, really, want them to) is actually a pretty newfangled idea.

During the Early Middle Ages in Europe, the History of European Morals (1869) by Irish historian William Lecky mentions that infant exposure was not punishable by law and was practiced on a large scale and was considered a pardonable offense. In the 8th century, foundling hospitals were opened in Milan, Florence and Rome, among others, to help reduce the deaths of newborns who were subjected to exposure. Church authorities were in charge of these hospitals until the 16th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_exposure

If you want to get into it, then let's discuss how newfangled an idea it is that anyone other than (white)males who owned property counted under the law, or that women were not considered fully competent adults and let's talk about the history of black people, and indigenous people in USA and Australia and how much of a person a black person or an indigenous person was considered to be.

 

[Elixir]

Ummm... the argument that fetuses are not people, and are therefore disposable on demand, is actually a pretty newfangled idea.

Ummm... the argument that infants are people, and are therefore not disposable on demand (and are likely to survive even if you really, really, want them to) is actually a pretty newfangled idea.

During the Early Middle Ages in Europe, the History of European Morals (1869) by Irish historian William Lecky mentions that infant exposure was not punishable by law and was practiced on a large scale and was considered a pardonable offense. In the 8th century, foundling hospitals were opened in Milan, Florence and Rome, among others, to help reduce the deaths of newborns who were subjected to exposure. Church authorities were in charge of these hospitals until the 16th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_exposure

If you want to get into it, then let's discuss how newfangled an idea it is that anyone other than (white)males who owned property counted under the law, or that women were not considered fully competent adults and let's talk about the history of black people, and indigenous people in USA and Australia and how much of a person a black person or an indigenous person was considered to be.

Actually I would be interested in the supposedly traditional belief that fetuses are people.
What culture has thought that to be true up until recently? Is Emily fabricating?
(Looking for pearls to clutch)

I don’t believe such a radical view as “fetuses are people” ever existed prior to the advent of the 99+ percent infancy survival rate.

 

[Toni]

Ummm... the argument that fetuses are not people, and are therefore disposable on demand, is actually a pretty newfangled idea.

Ummm... the argument that infants are people, and are therefore not disposable on demand (and are likely to survive even if you really, really, want them to) is actually a pretty newfangled idea.

During the Early Middle Ages in Europe, the History of European Morals (1869) by Irish historian William Lecky mentions that infant exposure was not punishable by law and was practiced on a large scale and was considered a pardonable offense. In the 8th century, foundling hospitals were opened in Milan, Florence and Rome, among others, to help reduce the deaths of newborns who were subjected to exposure. Church authorities were in charge of these hospitals until the 16th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_exposure

If you want to get into it, then let's discuss how newfangled an idea it is that anyone other than (white)males who owned property counted under the law, or that women were not considered fully competent adults and let's talk about the history of black people, and indigenous people in USA and Australia and how much of a person a black person or an indigenous person was considered to be.

Actually I would be interested in the supposedly traditional belief that fetuses are people.
What culture has thought that to be true up until recently? Is Emily fabricating?
(Looking for pearls to clutch)

I don’t believe such a radical view as “fetuses are people” ever existed prior to the advent of the 99+ percent infancy survival rate.

I’m linking a brief description of how a fetus is considered under Talmudic (Jewish) law:

https://www.ncjw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Judaism-and-Abortion-FINAL.pdf


 Does Jewish law assert that it is possible to murder a fetus? No, Jewish law does not
consider a fetus to be alive. The Torah, Exodus 21:22-23, recounts a story of two men who
are fighting and injure a pregnant woman, resulting in her subsequent miscarriage. The verse
explains that if the only harm done is the miscarriage, then the perpetrator must pay a fine.
However, if the pregnant person is gravely injured, the penalty shall be a life for a life as in
other homicides. The common rabbinical interpretation of this verse is that the men did not
commit murder and that the fetus is not a person. The primary concern is the well-being of
the person who was injured.

 

[bilby]

Ummm... the argument that fetuses are not people, and are therefore disposable on demand, is actually a pretty newfangled idea.

Ummm... the argument that infants are people, and are therefore not disposable on demand (and are likely to survive even if you really, really, want them to) is actually a pretty newfangled idea.

During the Early Middle Ages in Europe, the History of European Morals (1869) by Irish historian William Lecky mentions that infant exposure was not punishable by law and was practiced on a large scale and was considered a pardonable offense. In the 8th century, foundling hospitals were opened in Milan, Florence and Rome, among others, to help reduce the deaths of newborns who were subjected to exposure. Church authorities were in charge of these hospitals until the 16th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_exposure

If you want to get into it, then let's discuss how newfangled an idea it is that anyone other than (white)males who owned property counted under the law, or that women were not considered fully competent adults and let's talk about the history of black people, and indigenous people in USA and Australia and how much of a person a black person or an indigenous person was considered to be.

I don't particularly want to get into it, and I am aware that all of these are novel ideas that would have seemed bizarre to many people from even the quite recent past.

My point is that Emily's suggestion, that "the argument that fetuses are not people, and are therefore disposable on demand, is actually a pretty newfangled idea" has a bearing on the morality or ethics of abortion, is absurd; That if we took her implication that novelty implies error, and applied it more broadly, it would lead us to conclusions she hates, as well as to the particular conclusion she likes, and to which she was appealing with that suggestion.

"the argument that fetuses are not people, and are therefore disposable on demand, is actually a pretty newfangled idea", is a stupid irrelevance even if true. How new an idea is is irrelevant to how true, how useful, or how valuable that idea is.

Her claim is probably false; And certainly irrelevant.

 

[Elixir]

Her claim is probably false

Her claim falls just short of demonstrably false, only due to our inability to exclude the possibility that somewhere there exists a culture that has always thought fetuses were people, members of their community, and worthy of the same treatment afforded to people.
Oh, AND that Emily was born into that culture and is therefore not fabricating her “newfangled” characterization, just as she fabricates others’ thoughts and feelings as a tactic of argument.

 

[Jarhyn]

Her claim is probably false

Her claim falls just short of demonstrably false, only due to our inability to exclude the possibility that somewhere there exists a culture that has always thought fetuses were people, members of their community, and worthy of the same treatment afforded to people.
Oh, AND that Emily was born into that culture and is therefore not fabricating her “newfangled” characterization, just as she fabricates others’ thoughts and feelings as a tactic of argument.

Watch how quickly the "feminist" goes from supporting women's rights to their own body to doing their best "Handmaid's Aunt" impersonation.

 

[Toni]

Her claim is probably false

Her claim falls just short of demonstrably false, only due to our inability to exclude the possibility that somewhere there exists a culture that has always thought fetuses were people, members of their community, and worthy of the same treatment afforded to people.
Oh, AND that Emily was born into that culture and is therefore not fabricating her “newfangled” characterization, just as she fabricates others’ thoughts and feelings as a tactic of argument.

Watch how quickly the "feminist" goes from supporting women's rights to their own body to doing their best "Handmaid's Aunt" impersonation.

There is more than one way to be a feminist. My own feelings about abortion have changed, evolved, devolved(?) depending on how you look at it. I very well understand the hard line about no abortion or no abortion after the second trimester. I’m older now, and, as they say, I’ve seen some stuff, been through some stuff. I try very hard not to judge and to trust people to make their own decisions.

The fact is, late term abortions are exceedingly rare and exist only by the availability and willingness of someone to perform them. Right now, I trust those guardrails: that physicians have codes of ethics and do not terminate a late term pregnancy for trivial reasons. Few, if any, women would terminate their own pregnancy for trivial reasons.

I try hard not to judge—which is either deeply ironic or deeply hypocritical because over the last week or so, I’ve been judging the hell out of a lot of people who made a different decision than I did.

 

[Jarhyn]

Her claim is probably false

Her claim falls just short of demonstrably false, only due to our inability to exclude the possibility that somewhere there exists a culture that has always thought fetuses were people, members of their community, and worthy of the same treatment afforded to people.
Oh, AND that Emily was born into that culture and is therefore not fabricating her “newfangled” characterization, just as she fabricates others’ thoughts and feelings as a tactic of argument.

Watch how quickly the "feminist" goes from supporting women's rights to their own body to doing their best "Handmaid's Aunt" impersonation.

There is more than one way to be a feminist. My own feelings about abortion have changed, evolved, devolved(?) depending on how you look at it. I very well understand the hard line about no abortion or no abortion after the second trimester. I’m older now, and, as they say, I’ve seen some stuff, been through some stuff. I try very hard not to judge and to trust people to make their own decisions.

The fact is, late term abortions are exceedingly rare and exist only by the availability and willingness of someone to perform them. Right now, I trust those guardrails: that physicians have codes of ethics and do not terminate a late term pregnancy for trivial reasons. Few, if any, women would terminate their own pregnancy for trivial reasons.

I try hard not to judge—which is either deeply ironic or deeply hypocritical because over the last week or so, I’ve been judging the hell out of a lot of people who made a different decision than I did.

Well you know I have a pretty nuanced view of the subject, based on who is imposing on whom, and in what way. The "impositional" party always loses: the fetus imposes risk on the mother, until the fetus may be born and survive; the mother imposes ongoing disability through a live birth too early wherein the fetus would otherwise survive; the mother imposes a denial of the power of others'mercy by killing something when it would otherwise survive.

I think that laws encoding this would be inappropriate, by in large, because there's too much risk involved in denying the ability to make quick decisions of life and death based on hypotheticals, but that people deserve to be educated on the logic there that ultimately boils down to "shit or get off the pot".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

According to the constitution you have to be born to become a citizen. You are nothing to the constitution prior to birth.

That's a very special pleading sort of reading.

The constitution grants citizenship to anyone who is born on US soil. I see what you're doing, and it's clearly rubbing some smoke and mirrors on the clear intention of the constitution.

Okay. So quote the parts of the Constitution that addresses the preborn. I'll wait.

The constitution doesn't address amputees, so they must not be persons...

Amputees have been recognized as persons for centuries. The same cannot be said of fetuses.

Ummm... the argument that fetuses are not people, and are therefore disposable on demand, is actually a pretty newfangled idea.

Surgical abortion didn't happen due to the danger. Chemical abortion happened. Abortion was not an issue because nobody felt they needed to prohibit it. And menstrual regulation approaches were used in some places.

Just look at the bible--the distinction between an accidental injury that causes a miscarriage and an injury that ends up killing the woman. Whoever wrote that most clearly did not consider the fetus to be a person.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You know, you're ignoring what I've said over and over and over until I'm blue in the face... and focusing on this bit of conversation that was related to only one element of my position.

Be honest Toni - do you genuinely think that because I am discussing what does and does not constitute viability for an infant in this specific interaction where the context is that the mother's life is not at risk, that I have entirely abandoned my repeated call for risk to the mother's health to be an element of consideration?

And you still see "viability" as a binary. It's not. It's a probability. And if the probability of survival is meaningfully less than 100% the probability of severe damage is high. At the edge of viability severe damage is approximately 100%.

I don't see it as binary

On the other hand, I DO see it as falling into the heap fallacy. Prior to some number of items, the collection isn't a heap. Beyond some other, greater number of items, the collection is clearly a heap. We can't specify the exact number of items that makes it a heap, but that doesn't mean that it's never a heap. Same thing here. Before some particular length of development, it's an embryo and not a baby. After some other longer length of development, it's a baby. Just because we can't put an explicit number of days to it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. We can pick a threshold somewhere toward the bottom end of that "It's a baby" range and stick with it, because it's a reasonable and caring thing to do - PROVIDED WE ALLOW FOR EXCEPTIONS WHEN THEY'RE NEEDED.

1) You have never addressed the fact that applying your standards to reality produces a very different result than what you're arguing for.

2) They clearly are not interested in exceptions when needed. Texas is now up to sacrificing three women on this altar with no hint of a consideration that that means something is wrong. (And they weren't even late term, no choice between woman and baby.) That's why we would much prefer the choice to rest with the medical community than the politicians.

 

[Emily Lake]

1) You have never addressed the fact that applying your standards to reality produces a very different result than what you're arguing for.

What very different results are produced?

As far as I can see, every complaint against my position is pointing to the negative consequences that happen with a strict no-exceptions ban in place. On the other hand... nobody has come forward with the slews of dead women that happened when RvW was still in place as it had been throughout the vast majority of my life. So... I don't see that there's anything to address.

 

[Torin]

I don't remember how far back.

There was a conservatives propaganda campaign to discredit Canadian socialized health care. The guy who orchestrated eventually fessed up and said he was wrong.

Trump like conspiracy theories. Fear mongering that socialized health care in the USA would lead to socialism-communism and loss of freedoms. One of the old conservative arguments against social programs.

The privatized Medicare insurance programs are a good model.n for national health care It is all those Medicare Advantage insurance ads on TV.

The government gives Medicare money to private insincere companies who have to provide at keast the basic Medicare benefits. Insurance companies compete by adding benefits like dental care.

I have had Medicare Advantage for over 10 years, works fine.

You are a thoughtful poster, so I thought I would pick your brain a bit.

My concern about universal health care is that it seems morally wrong. I hasten to say that I do not intend to accuse you, personally, of being immoral, even if you're taking advantage of similar programs. I do not see how to reconcile universal health care as a political policy with moral principle, though.

The basic issue I perceive is that you are advocating taking money from one person, by force, and giving it to someone else to pay for their medical care without compensation.

The principle underlying that proposal can only be that we do not have any right to our property if someone else needs it, which they always do. Even if this specific policy does not take away too many rights (by whatever standard you're using), it is based on the principle that we have no rights against the government. "We're taking your stuff because we own you" is not a moral stance.

I do not expect you to agree with me. I just wanted to indicate briefly how I think about this topic, so that I could understand your thinking in turn.

Thanks.

 

[Gospel]

The basic issue I perceive is that you are advocating taking money from one person, by force, and giving it to someone else to pay for their medical care without compensation.

The principle underlying that proposal can only be that we do not have any right to our property if someone else needs it, which they always do. Even if this specific policy does not take away too many rights (by whatever standard you're using), it is based on the principle that we have no rights against the government. "We're taking your stuff because we own you" is not a moral stance.

Your argument implies that all taxation is morally equivalent to theft. If that's true, how do you propose funding public goods like roads, police, or national defense? Does your position hold that all government functions based on taxation are illegitimate?

Do you believe it is morally acceptable for someone to die or face unnecessary suffering simply because they cannot afford care? If not, how should society address these cases without redistribution?

Do you disagree that allowing people to die because they cannot afford care would have a collective impact?

 

[Elixir]

Your argument implies that all taxation is morally equivalent to theft.

Seems to imply that nothing should ever be communal. Everyone should own, be responsible for, and levy tolls as they will, on the street (if any) in front of their house.
To do otherwise is to steal from low use residents and give to high use ones.

 

[Emily Lake]

The basic issue I perceive is that you are advocating taking money from one person, by force, and giving it to someone else to pay for their medical care without compensation.

The principle underlying that proposal can only be that we do not have any right to our property if someone else needs it, which they always do. Even if this specific policy does not take away too many rights (by whatever standard you're using), it is based on the principle that we have no rights against the government. "We're taking your stuff because we own you" is not a moral stance.

Your argument implies that all taxation is morally equivalent to theft. If that's true, how do you propose funding public goods like roads, police, or national defense? Does your position hold that all government functions based on taxation are illegitimate?

Do you believe it is morally acceptable for someone to die or face unnecessary suffering simply because they cannot afford care? If not, how should society address these cases without redistribution?

Do you disagree that allowing people to die because they cannot afford care would have a collective impact?

There's a nuance in here, but it's not a bright line by any means.

On the one hand, there are public goods, where all people benefit from them by more or less the same amount. Not exactly the same, but the variance is relatively small. Everyone benefits from roads. Even if one person doesn't drive, they still benefit from the existence of those roads, because they're used for all shipping and transport, to move necessary goods around the country. Sure, there might be a few hidden hermits up in the hills who hunt and grow their own food, who build their own house, and live entirely off the grid... but chances are those hermits also aren't paying taxes, so while they're not benefitting from those roads, they're also not hurt by them.

Many of our tax-funded systems are very similar to roads. It's a collective good, because pretty much everyone who is pitching in for it benefits from it.

On the other hand, there are other programs that are forced charity (for lack of a better term to get my point across). These are programs that only benefit a very few people, but are supported by those who are NOT benefitting from them. Many of these, like school lunch programs, EIT, etc. are acceptable to most people because they're fairly inexpensive to administer. In the grand scheme of things, it's a very small amount being collected from a large number of people, in order to assist a very small number of people. Most of the time, most people are happy to help out someone in need as long as it doesn't hurt them to do so.

Health care is on the gripping hand. It's very, very expensive... but that expense is driven by a relatively small number of people. Speaking as a health actuary with 25 years of experience, it's been demonstrated over and over again that 80% of the cost of health care is generated by 20% of the people; 50% of the cost is generated by 5% of the people. We're not all benefiting more or less the same. But it's also not a small immaterial amount of contribution. Average cost per covered life for employer sponsored coverage is creeping up on $1000 per month. Most people don't incur $1000 of costs in an entire year.

Now the kicker is that most people are already contributing to those health care costs, even if they don't realize it. People purchasing coverage through ACA at least see the actual cost, and they're paying directly (along with subsidies from the government which cover a lot of it). Employees frequently have no idea how much their employer pays on their behalf though, they only ever see their payroll contribution, which can be extremely small. I pay $20 per month for my husband and I... but I also know that the average cost at my employer is over $1000 per person - so my company is paying $920 per person on our behalf every month.

At the end of the day, however, we all have the right to opt out of coverage - we're not forced to participate. That would change if it were universal health care.

Arguments can be made from a premise of morality for either side of this argument. Personally, I don't think morality is the foundation on which this should be built. But that's just me, other people have different perspectives.

 

[bilby]

Health care is on the gripping hand. It's very, very expensive... but that expense is driven by a relatively small number of people.

Sure; But they are not grifters, freeloaders, or theives - they are lottery losers.
Nobody chooses to be one of the expensive few; Nobody plans yo be; Nobody expects to be, until suddenly they are.

So in fact, healthcare benefits everyone.

If you are very lucky, you will not need it; But if your number does come up, it's there for you - and what you pay for is NOT your own expensive care (you couldn't afford it); What you pay for is the assurance that care will be available, IF you need it.

Which is always the case with insurance.

Also always the case with insurance is that the larger the pool, the better.

And in the case of medical insurance, opting out, and then having your unlucky number come up, is NOT a problem for you alone. Even in the unlikely event that you want to refuse care, others are harmed by your refusal. Whether because you are spreading your untreated infection, or because they need to clean up your vomit or blood, or just because they care about your plight.

It's not immoral to require people to pay taxes that they don't want to pay, if those taxes prevent them from (non-financially) imposing on their neighbours, friends, or family.

The idea that by opting out of health insurance, a person harms nobody but himself, is fallacious.

Mandatory health insurance for citizens, like mandatory third party insurance for motorists, is morally and ethically fine, even if we accelt tbe highly dubious premise that taxes are a transfer of property from an individual to the state. Money isn't property, and the issuer that money taking (some of) it from people is not theft.

If a referee disallows a touchdown, he isn't stealing the penalised team's points. Points in the game are not property. Nor is money.

 

[bilby]

At the end of the day, however, we all have the right to opt out of coverage - we're not forced to participate.

As long as by "we all" you mean ONLY the ~5% of people who are US residents. This is not an Americans Only discussion board, and apart from the US, most OECD residents do NOT have that option - and most do not want it, either.

 

[laughing dog]

Health care is on the gripping hand. It's very, very expensive... but that expense is driven by a relatively small number of people.

Sure; But they are not grifters, freeloaders, or theives - they are lottery losers.
Nobody chooses to be one of the expensive few; Nobody plans yo be; Nobody expects to be, until suddenly they are.

So in fact, healthcare benefits everyone.

If you are very lucky, you will not need it; But if your number does come up, it's there for you - and what you pay for is NOT your own expensive care (you couldn't afford it); What you pay for is the assurance that care will be available, IF you need it.

Which is always the case with insurance.

Also always the case with insurance is that the larger the pool, the better.

And in the case of medical insurance, opting out, and then having your unlucky number come up, is NOT a problem for you alone. Even in the unlikely event that you want to refuse care, others are harmed by your refusal. Whether because you are spreading your untreated infection, or because they need to clean up your vomit or blood, or just because they care about your plight.

It's not immoral to require people to pay taxes that they don't want to pay, if those taxes prevent them from (non-financially) imposing on their neighbours, friends, or family.

The idea that by opting out of health insurance, a person harms nobody but himself, is fallacious.

Mandatory health insurance for citizens, like mandatory third party insurance for motorists, is morally and ethically fine, even if we accelt tbe highly dubious premise that taxes are a transfer of property from an individual to the state. Money isn't property, and the issuer that money taking (some of) it from people is not theft.

If a referee disallows a touchdown, he isn't stealing the penalised team's points. Points in the game are not property. Nor is money.

I agree but you are dealing with USAers!!!

 

[Toni]

I don't remember how far back.

There was a conservatives propaganda campaign to discredit Canadian socialized health care. The guy who orchestrated eventually fessed up and said he was wrong.

Trump like conspiracy theories. Fear mongering that socialized health care in the USA would lead to socialism-communism and loss of freedoms. One of the old conservative arguments against social programs.

The privatized Medicare insurance programs are a good model.n for national health care It is all those Medicare Advantage insurance ads on TV.

The government gives Medicare money to private insincere companies who have to provide at keast the basic Medicare benefits. Insurance companies compete by adding benefits like dental care.

I have had Medicare Advantage for over 10 years, works fine.

You are a thoughtful poster, so I thought I would pick your brain a bit.

My concern about universal health care is that it seems morally wrong. I hasten to say that I do not intend to accuse you, personally, of being immoral, even if you're taking advantage of similar programs. I do not see how to reconcile universal health care as a political policy with moral principle, though.

The basic issue I perceive is that you are advocating taking money from one person, by force, and giving it to someone else to pay for their medical care without compensation.

The principle underlying that proposal can only be that we do not have any right to our property if someone else needs it, which they always do. Even if this specific policy does not take away too many rights (by whatever standard you're using), it is based on the principle that we have no rights against the government. "We're taking your stuff because we own you" is not a moral stance.

I do not expect you to agree with me. I just wanted to indicate briefly how I think about this topic, so that I could understand your thinking in turn.

Thanks.

All insurance is about spreading risk ( and costs) among a pool of covered individuals. By spreading the risk and cost amongst all members of the pool—who pay to be in the pool, individuals are better able to manage the cost of health care. This means they can better afford routine health care and preventative care that will likely help mitigate or even avoid more costly care that will result from ignoring incipient or underlying health care needs in the future, just as a healthy lifestyle helps mitigate health care needs and costs.

The reality is that absolutely any one of us could develop an unexpected serious medical condition that will be extremely expensive to treat or manage if we can, more so if the entire cost falls on any one individual. And the fact is that some of us absolutely will—and a few of us have such conditions.

I absolutely reject the canard about being ‘forced’ to pay into a system. The notion that we are all independent agents whose welfare is entirely our own responsibility is a lie that is simultaneously arrogant and ignorant. I cannot even suggest it is naive as such a world view must be based on hubris.

We all of us pay into the system, whatever system that is. We are not islands not independent agents nor have we ever been nor is it desirable that we be so.

Untreated and under-treated medical needs are extremely costly in terms of lost productivity, which absolutely should concern even those of us so callous that we do not care about the wellbeing of our fellow human beings.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) You have never addressed the fact that applying your standards to reality produces a very different result than what you're arguing for.

What very different results are produced?

As far as I can see, every complaint against my position is pointing to the negative consequences that happen with a strict no-exceptions ban in place. On the other hand... nobody has come forward with the slews of dead women that happened when RvW was still in place as it had been throughout the vast majority of my life. So... I don't see that there's anything to address.

Depending on exactly how your words are interpreted I get 28, 32 or 36 weeks. Not the 24 of Roe vs Wade.

And this is not situational, that's always the result.