After posting the piece about Nurses traveling to Germany and reading the feedback. I would like to open up a debate on this BB about "Universal Health Care" or "Single Payor Systems"
In doing this I hope to learn more about each side of the issue. I do not want to turn this into a heated horrific debate that ends in belittling one another as some other charged topics have ended, but a genuine debate about the Pros and Cons of proposed "Universal Health Care or Single Payor systems" I believe we can all agree to debate and we can all learn things we might not otherwise have the time to research.
I am going to begin by placing an article that discusses the cons of Universal Health Care with some statistics, and if anyone is willing please come in and try to debate some of the key points this brings up. With stats not hyped up words or hot air. I am truly interested in seeing the different sides of this issue. This effects us all, and in order to make an informed decision we need to see "all" sides of the issue. Thanks in advance for participating.
Michele
I am going to have to post the article in several pieces because the bulletin board only will allow 3000 characters.So see the next posts.
Who is John Galt? Well, he is a character in the "philosopher" and writer Ayn Rand's book, Atlas Shrugged. Ayn Rand was an objectivist.
What is an objectivist? Objectivism is the philosophy of rational individualism.
Nobody here has mentioned objectivism but you. I reject the concept. Like the social welfare state, objectivism is immoral. For the same reasons. Both ideas (objectivism and the social welfare state) take what is essentially a moral belief of its adherent, and runs it through the filter of immorality. Atheism in the case of objectivism, Secular humanism in the case of the social welfare state.
You don't get morality by filtering it through immorality. No matter how hard you try.
"Who is John Galt" is a line about a character in the book, "Atlas Shrugged". It is a story about the relationship between the producers, the looters, and the moochers in society. The looters and the moochers can only do what they do IF THE PRODUCERS COOPERATE. But, what if the producers went on strike? What if Atlas shrugged?
"Who is John Galt", in the story, is a phrase that comes to embody the effects of the rampant mooching and looting off society. In effect, as the nation watches their liberty and their standard of living decline, they use the phrase to mean something along the lines of a cynical "What are you gonna do?"
I HAVE quoted Rand before. I have NOT quoted objectivism. You have spent an entire page debunking a belief system that hasn't been raised in the discussion. I stipulate that objectivism is an immoral philosophy. Your observations are valid: remove morality from the equation of a moral idea, and the idea loses its morality. But. This is why you can never sway me with moral appeals in favor of social welfare; by your SAME definitions, social welfare is immoral.
You HAVE very correctly defined the flaw in objectivism. Simultaneously, if you look, you will discovered the same flaw in its immoral twin, the social welfare state.
But, it is an appeal to the most base form of charity; it's for 'your fellow man'. Because it isn't charity, it flunks any concept of 'truth in advertising'.
This is why the concept is a failure. It offers a promise it cannot fulfill. It cannot be the moral thing you want it to be PRECISELY because, administered by government, it's amoral, if not outright immoral.
Health care is a very moral concept. If you concede to remove YOUR choice in such a thing, you better darn well hope that the trust you place in someone else is moral enough to take your best interests into account. I would trust that awesome responsibility to my spouse.
I would NOT trust it to government.
Why not?
By definition, the gov't utterly lacks the morality to do the job.
Nobody here has mentioned objectivism but you. I reject the concept. Like the social welfare state, objectivism is immoral. For the same reasons. Both ideas (objectivism and the social welfare state) take what is essentially a moral belief of its adherent, and runs it through the filter of immorality. Atheism in the case of objectivism, Secular humanism in the case of the social welfare state.
You don't get morality by filtering it through immorality. No matter how hard you try.
"Who is John Galt" is a line about a character in the book, "Atlas Shrugged". It is a story about the relationship between the producers, the looters, and the moochers in society. The looters and the moochers can only do what they do IF THE PRODUCERS COOPERATE. But, what if the producers went on strike? What if Atlas shrugged?
"Who is John Galt", in the story, is a phrase that comes to embody the effects of the rampant mooching and looting off society. In effect, as the nation watches their liberty and their standard of living decline, they use the phrase to mean something along the lines of a cynical "What are you gonna do?"
I HAVE quoted Rand before. I have NOT quoted objectivism. You have spent an entire page debunking a belief system that hasn't been raised in the discussion. I stipulate that objectivism is an immoral philosophy. Your observations are valid: remove morality from the equation of a moral idea, and the idea loses its morality. But. This is why you can never sway me with moral appeals in favor of social welfare; by your SAME definitions, social welfare is immoral.
You HAVE very correctly defined the flaw in objectivism. Simultaneously, if you look, you will discovered the same flaw in its immoral twin, the social welfare state.
~faith,
Timothy.
Who wrote "Atlas Shrugged", what principles were used in describing the nature of John Galt the hero, the "atlas"? Ayn Rand, the objectivist, the atheist, the egoist, the narcissist. Some of the ideas and arguments you have used are filled with Rands philosophy. You say you are not an objectivist, but some of your arguments seem to come out her her books. I say I am not a socialist, yet some here may say my liberal arguments are socialistic. To be fair, I think some may lean towards Randism and some may lean toward Marxism, but if either lean too far, we will all fall.
Specializes in LTC, assisted living, med-surg, psych.
I'm so confused now that I don't know whether to scratch my watch or wind my butt :trc::sstrs: Could we get back to the topic so we non-philosophers can participate? Please?
I'm so confused now that I don't know whether to scratch my watch or wind my butt :trc::sstrs: Could we get back to the topic so we non-philosophers can participate? Please?
SORRY, I know all this side argument stuff is ridiculous, but I was trying to make a point with a certain poster who writes lengthy epistles using his own philosophy to argue why UHC is morally WRONG. I was trying to poke a hole in his argument, but I think that sometimes the bricks are laid really tightly. I dont know why I continue to bother :selfbonk:, I think this argument whether its morally right or morally wrong is getting to be like :deadhorse .
Back to the REAL argument of why we all need UHC.:doh:
Oh its you Marla, I got thrown my your new user name!!:rotfl:
Laxk of economic mobility is a real issue especially when you consider that those with low incomes are more likely to have inadequate health coverage.
Over 40 million jobs in the United States-about 1 in 3-pay low wages ($11.11 per hour or less) and often do not offer employment benefits like health insurance, retirement savings accounts, paid sick days or family leave. These low-wage jobs are replacing jobs that have historically supported a broad middle class. This report provides a clear and sobering picture of the low-wage labor market through analysis of labor market data, including: downward wage trends over time, poor work conditions, largest occupations, and declining mobility. The authors used a social inclusion definition of low-wage work that allows for comparison among jobs in the United States.
A fifth topic that I will mention briefly is health care costs. Per capita health care expenditures in the United States already exceed $7,000 a year, or $28,000 for a family of four. In just over a decade, per person costs are projected to exceed $15,000 a year. There is no way that even a middle income family can pay these sorts of health care costs and still have enough money left over to sustain a reasonable standard of living.
It is essential that health care be reformed in a way that contains costs. The United States is the only country in the world that faces such out of control costs. Other wealthy countries pay less than half as much per person for health care and enjoy longer life expectancies. Surely, we can find a better way to run our health care system.
I dont know why I continue to bother :selfbonk:, I think this argument whether its morally right or morally wrong is getting to be like :deadhorse .
:nono:
ZASHAGALKA, RN
3,322 Posts
Nobody here has mentioned objectivism but you. I reject the concept. Like the social welfare state, objectivism is immoral. For the same reasons. Both ideas (objectivism and the social welfare state) take what is essentially a moral belief of its adherent, and runs it through the filter of immorality. Atheism in the case of objectivism, Secular humanism in the case of the social welfare state.
You don't get morality by filtering it through immorality. No matter how hard you try.
"Who is John Galt" is a line about a character in the book, "Atlas Shrugged". It is a story about the relationship between the producers, the looters, and the moochers in society. The looters and the moochers can only do what they do IF THE PRODUCERS COOPERATE. But, what if the producers went on strike? What if Atlas shrugged?
"Who is John Galt", in the story, is a phrase that comes to embody the effects of the rampant mooching and looting off society. In effect, as the nation watches their liberty and their standard of living decline, they use the phrase to mean something along the lines of a cynical "What are you gonna do?"
I HAVE quoted Rand before. I have NOT quoted objectivism. You have spent an entire page debunking a belief system that hasn't been raised in the discussion. I stipulate that objectivism is an immoral philosophy. Your observations are valid: remove morality from the equation of a moral idea, and the idea loses its morality. But. This is why you can never sway me with moral appeals in favor of social welfare; by your SAME definitions, social welfare is immoral.
You HAVE very correctly defined the flaw in objectivism. Simultaneously, if you look, you will discovered the same flaw in its immoral twin, the social welfare state.
~faith,
Timothy.