Two updates in one day? FUCK: THE SUN IS FALLING.
Facebook has a limit on comment length, so I couldn’t adequately respond to a question there. I’ll do it here, and zomg content.
I can’t, for the record, adequately respond here either (not enough time, today’s a work day, excuse number three), but I can at least be more verbose. Verbosity ahoy:
More ground to cover than I adequately can in a facebook post [hah, I wrote that before I knew about the limit], but I expected someone among my diverse group of friends to present a counter-position (which is why it’s always good to surround yourself with people who will disagree with you on one issue or another).
[TANGENT ALERT: I highly recommend John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, especially the bits about honing your argument on opposing viewpoints, or more importantly perhaps discovering your viewpoint is busted as fuck, son. It also serves to winnow out the crap in arguments, because as Mill said, "it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied."]
Prior to the lifting of Apartheid, there were two industrialized nations that didn’t offer some form of free nationalized healthcare: the US and South Africa. Now, it’s just us. Not addressing your points [addressed to the post on facebook, you'll have to go there to read it, but the position should be clear without doing so], but it’s an indicator.
Absent a cultural change that promotes (or hell, at least embraces) health and wellness, I think it’s a civilized society’s obligation to care for its members, regardless of their issues or how they came to exist. Until we have some sort of societal value system in place that enables people to pursue more healthy lifestyles and educates them on proper nutrition and exercise, we have to care for the fallout of the system we’ve had until now.
Tobacco and junk food, as industries, enjoyed de facto government subsidies in this country until comparatively recent times (and some would argue still do). In the wake of a governing system that allowed these industries to glamorize an often lethal habit and placed “fast food” as the easiest and quickest alternative to harried citizens (and the families they are charged with providing for), we’re bound by decency to care for those suffering from the unhealthy lifestyles our government (and by extension our own lack of vigilance) essentially foisted upon them.
I don’t use the word fallout accidentally: we allowed our society to basically blow itself the fuck up with all kinds of unhealthy predilections and necessities (how many hours does the average home owner work in a week?) while simultaneously allowing it to shove cigarettes and french fries in our hungry, stressed out faces (and I write this as someone guilty of the consumption of both, at least in the past).
I’m getting (ha) long-winded, but essentially my position is: we made the mess, we have to clean it up.
In a world where we’re educated on proper nutrition, encouraged to be healthy and given the means to achieve lifelong health and well-being from cradle to grave, my feeling (care for your sick, regardless) wouldn’t change, but my argument would have to, and its defense would become much more difficult. Thankfully, we ain’t there yet (I mean that ironically: I don’t have to defend my position in that world, yet).
I think a generational cultural change would have to take place before we could really consider smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, or eating junk to be squarely in the realm of personal responsibility. It’s no more our “fault” than the various neuroses and occupational ailments we suffer because of our fucked up “richest guy wins” system.
Bear in mind that I fucking hate government. I’m basically an anarcho-capitalist in the vein of Mad Max by way of the Molly Maguires. I wouldn’t want Uncle Sam to come cuddle me out of my addiction to nicotine and fried food; I’m much more likely to favor hiring a mercenary organization to torch every tobacco field and McDonald’s in the country (or, you know, doing it myself). But we’re stuck with the hand we dealt each other, and letting our sick (and our fat and our alcoholic) die, or go broke not dying, is no more just than allowing the insurance companies to grow more and more wealthy on the tide of our suffering (and don’t even get me started on those cocksuckers).
I still believe in the right to eat, drink, smoke, snort, shoot and suppository (omg I used that as a verb) any animal, vegetable, or mineral you want to, even if it’s lit dynamite. I still think society ought to care for someone who has made himself sick by sticking lit dynamite up his own ass. It’s a difficult and dichotomous position, and one that sidles right up to the logical conclusion that a responsible society punishes those whose actions impoverish that society, which is a position I disagree with in principle (cf. eat, drink, smoke, snort, shoot, stick in ass).
I don’t have a facile argument to support that position, or time enough to develop the idea further today, but for now? Health care is an inalienable right in a society wealthy enough to provide it, as far as I’m concerned, regardless of what ails you.
I stole this from livejournal (and seriously, goddamnit, someone invent a unified theory of social networking so all this shit becomes seamless and effortless).
Vicar replied (those are two separate links):
“The other side (and note, it’s not mine but I respect some pints…I mean points):
It’s all about gambling.
1. Health care – costs money. USian health care is the pinnacle of all possible health care in the world because it is profit centered. All the socialized medicine in the world is simply riding off our gains developed solely under the profit motive. Patents intentionally give windfall profits in areas in which most expensive ventures fail – so it is absolutely necessary to ALLOW health care to be expensive.
2. Insurance – the US system is only broken because it is too forgiving. Huge numbers of people gamble with their health, and when they gamble and lose they come begging for sympathy as though they were not responsible for their loss.
a) Insurance at all – people fail to get insurance, then wonder why they can’t join the pool of risk-avoidant people when they discover they lost the health lottery. They should be held up for public view to show why and how important it is to get insured before you have an identified problem – THAT’S THE POINT. Imagine these same people trying to get cars if they had uninsured automobile accidents! Getting cancer by OOPS SURPRISE is no different w/o health insurance than driving w/o insurance.
b) Sympathy for the devil – in this country we are so weak and inappropriately empathetic that we allow the sick to receive treatment even if they can’t afford it. People who put off either getting insurance or getting health care with insurance are, BY LAW, allowed to take their self-created emergencies to hospital emergency rooms. USians then pay for the loss both in waiting longer to get their temperature down from 104 / bullet removed, and in high cost treatment by tired docs at 4am on a Saturday.
c) Long term prevention – that fast food you mention is a CHOICE. Nobody thinks that crap is good for you any more than they did cigarettes. Health has never been a secret, and it’s not fair to allow people to ignore common sense and then blame their ill health on cartoon ads. Be as fat as you like, smoke, and shoot heroin all you like – but don’t come crying to USia for help when your liver falls out in your poop. Even if you are poor, it’s still cheaper to get rice and beans from the store raw and make your own food – the health is another obvious side effect of food you make yourself. The issues are of pleasure seeking and laziness leading to poor health – why is the burden shifted to the taxpayer?
And as a final comment, NAZI! What do you mean I can’t just randomly invoke Godwin? I find taking this stance a little discomforting…I sound like someone’s dad and it’s not even mine! Ptewie!”
Outstanding points, and I hope I remember to address them when I have more time to do so.
I’ve thought about this a bit, and this is what I’ve come up with so far: I don’t think anyone (especially government) should be able to decide how deserving people are of adequate healthcare based on some kind of ambiguous moral judgment about how the person has lived their life.
I mean, if that’s the road we want to go down, why not start now with people on Medicare? If you’re 65, you can only get into Medicare if your BMI is within a healthy range. If you’re obese, too bad. You have to take care of yourself.
We don’t do that now because we as a society have decided that we believe people over a certain age should have access to healthcare. Period. The system we’ve created isn’t perfect (far from it), but we have put forth an effort to try to fulfill this ideal that the elderly should be taken care of.
I’m not usually a “no middle ground” kind of person, but I think the people of America have two choices: we either decide healthcare is a fundamental right or it’s not. It’s a really slippery slope when we start picking and choosing who has been “good enough” to get healthcare and who hasn’t.
Curse both you, Kris and, Laura for making me think and become a dang blogger!
I am not sure if I have goofed by quoting all three posts then remarking. Please get me in line if I make some blogging faux pas.
“Absent a cultural change that promotes (or hell, at least embraces) health and wellness, I think it’s a civilized society’s obligation to care for its members”
I am leery of this word cultural change. While I am with you in spirit, I want more concrete terms.
“until we have some sort of societal value system in place that enables people to pursue more healthy lifestyles and educates them on proper nutrition and exercise,”
Once again the phrase, ‘societal value system’, is not solid enough for me. However, to the extent that I am aware of it, or that we agree up what this value system is I would posit that our society does value healthy LOOKING people (a “good” BMI gets positive attention) and some healthy behaviors are lauded as well (marathoners and athletes in general are held in high esteem). Is there really anyone who doesn’t know that eating veggies and exercising is good for your health?
“…governing system that allowed these industries to glamorize an often lethal habit and placed “fast food” as the easiest and quickest alternative to harried citizens”
I don’t have a problem with the governing system allowing these industries to prosper, but I think here is where we get to some possible socialist answers. As you said in your later post, tax the hell out of companies that sell things which are known to cause illness.
“I wouldn’t want Uncle Sam to come cuddle me out of my addiction to nicotine and fried food; I’m much more likely to favor hiring a mercenary organization to torch every tobacco field and McDonald’s in the country”
Uncle Sam cuddling me out of anything is abhorrent to me, as is torching legal businesses. But if I want him to insure my lazy, fat, drunken ass should I be able to get that benefit with no responsibility on my part?
I wouldn’t want either solution, but I love your hard-ass anarchist views.
I still think society ought to care for someone who has made himself sick by sticking lit dynamite up his own ass.
Which is addressed below in the other thing you posted.
I agree with you, and the US does care for that nut ball. Sadly, I am sure some US emergency room Dr. has such a story, and you can bet the guy with the dynamite in his ass was uninsured. Yeah, you know it was a man, women don’t do that shit.
“BY LAW, allowed to take their self-created emergencies to hospital emergency rooms. USians then pay for the loss both in waiting longer to get their temperature down from 104 / bullet removed, and in high cost treatment by tired docs at 4am on a Saturday.”
I love that this guy uses the word USians. We are indeed USians as North, Central, and South America hold MANY countries. The US is just one of, um, er, ah, a bunch! And I don’t think the US should throw those unfortunates on the street with no care. And, I am certain the govt can save money by preventing that 104 fever rather than waiting for it to become an emergency room issue. I wish I knew exactly how, I don’t. But I am certain that it’s cheaper earlier on.
“Health has never been a secret, and it’s not fair to allow people to ignore common sense and then blame their ill health on cartoon ads. Be as fat as you like, smoke, and shoot heroin all you like – but don’t come crying to USia for help when your liver falls out in your poop.”
I really only quoted that for the poop line which cracked me up. But then again I do agree that health has never been a secret, and that no one in the US should be able to blame their ill health on anything other than their own behavior.
“adequate healthcare based on some kind of ambiguous moral judgment about how the person has lived their life.”
I am with Laura in spirit. However, I don’t think it’s ambiguous at all to say that cigarette smokers can expect to get lung cancer and a host of other ailments. The more they smoke the greater the chance of all the associated health problems. Nothing ambiguous nor judgmental about it, just a fact.
I do think you are right Kris, tax the hell out of ciggy’s, booze, and put that money towards caring for the illnesses they cause. I’d go one step further, abolish the DEA, legalize all drugs, tax the hell out of them to pay for even more health care.
Let’s face it, humans want to be intoxicated on substances including alcohol and nicotine (let’s not forget sugar and fat, mmmmm, food as a drug) . We love that shit. However, there is a steep price to pay for it in the long run medically. So legalize normal human behavior, and have taxes levied against those who profit from those activities pay the medical price. Ultimately the profiteers will pass the cost on to the user and then it seems the user is actually paying for their behavior.
I think Laura is ultimately right when she says, “either we decided health care is a fundamental right or it’s not”. However, with over 300 million people in the mix, man, how to do it. While I do think taxing unhealthy behaviors to pay for the resulting illness is logical, I am not sure how it would work out in reality, or how to incorporate that with the private system so many USians cherish.
You guys are great, this is a fun thread, but dang it takes up some time. I am going out to get some healthy exercise now, so when big brother comes to insure me, and checks my BMI, I will get a big fat tax credit.
Taking another comment from livejournal, Jerfry says (after trying to embed a video three or four times):
“Hm. Doesn’t seem to want to embed in a response, but here’s an interesting video that might counter a few of these statements.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17512-the-scientific-arguments-for-us-healthcare-reform.html”
I’m a little too burnt out (work, not this conversation) to reply to the comments at the moment, but I will soon. Tomorrow, Monday.
Jose, i would never compare your attitude with the Nazis’…theirs was much kinder.
but in all seriousness:
the problem with the “mr-ashtray-breath shouldn’t get tax-dollars for what he brought upon himself” (essentially classic Libertarian) argument, is that it, like many fundamentalist viewpoints, does not take present circumstance into consideration, and tries to force the clothes to fit, so to speak.
If we were the true free country that the Founding Fathers set out to create,(and even with variations on our modern interpretations, i feel that we are not, and that our rights to happiness and liberty are threatened by outlandish corporate license, wrongheaded international policies and use of military, and twisted drug laws, just to get started), then the idea of a national tax to cover health care would, perhaps, seem out-of-place…and i say “perhaps” quite meaningfully, because they were individual men, and also because research into old debates often reveals positions contrary or otherwise unexpected with respect their corollary modern problems.
So…who could have known that the cost of simply having a roof over your head would become so volatile? or that employers would somehow be tasked with the responsibility of providing healthcare? That the country would be torn apart by a civil war, or that out of it would come an impoverished South and four million landless refugees? That the Industrial Revolution would put enormous wealth and power into the hands of a few, while virtually enslaving so many?
On a completely different note, i approve of universal healthcare for a couple of selfish reasons. One, i wouldn’t mind us not spending over five hundred dollars a month ($260 for each of us) to “be responsible” and self-insure. Yes, that’s how much it costs if you aren’t covered by your employer…if your are under a certain age and don’t have any preexisting conditions, that is. (And by the way, not all employers are required to offer health insurance, depending on how mnay employees they have, most don’t have to offer it to part-time employees, many will dick around with hours to exclude employees from full-time status [and who can blame them in a way, with it being so expensive?], not everyone can garner full-time employment, insurance often doesn’t kick in until you’ve been there for months, etc etc…)
another selfish reason, if indirectly so: i don’t want to live in a country of medically marginalized people because i don’t want to get sick from someone else who can’t afford to be well. Germs know no economic boundaries, and outbreaks of some pretty heinous shit can often be traced to compressed, poor communities. TB still exists…i used to know a volunteer fireman who was about the most responsible guy in the world, but it didn’t keep him from catching it when he was rescuing in a “bad” neighborhood.
so i went off my main point there, but just to sum it up, yeah…there is just wayyyyy to little of a net under way too many people no matter how hard they work simply because the wide open lands and seemingly unlimited resources from which we thought we could reap eternally just don’t exist anymore. It’s easy for all people to be truly equal when, if you don’t like your current situation, there’s another opportunity down the road if you are willing to cut down your own trees.
…annnnd it’s quite another when all of the trees have been cut down.