Seventy percent of Americans support 'Medicare for all'

[homersapien 11,362]

38 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

It's absolutely NOT a basic human right. 

Which is why it isn't in the Bill Of Rights.

Nothing that requires another citizen to provide it for you is a basic human right.

Noted.  You do not consider compassion or caring for fellow humans as a natural human characteristic, much less a moral obligation. 

I think you are scientifically and morally wrong, but you have the right to be so.

 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 338]

Just now, homersapien said:

Noted.  You do not consider compassion or caring for fellow humans as a natural human characteristic, much less a moral obligation. 

I think you are scientifically and morally wrong, but you have the right to be so.

 

And you see, I only think you have the right to be wrong to the degree that you do not harm anyone else or interfere with his or her rights.  So I believe in a limit to your right to be wrong.

As for the rest of your straw man, "natural human characteristics" do not define human rights.  It's as much of a natural human characteristic to be selfish as to be compassionate.  I would argue more so, actually.  So should we conceptualize human rights based on that?  

I'm very curious to know how science is relevant to any of this discussion, and philosophically I would also like to know upon what transcendent moral authority you are basing your assessment of what is and is not a moral obligation.

[homersapien 11,362]

44 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

There's a big difference between deciding as a civil society that we would LIKE to provide certain services for all citizens and claiming that citizens are OWED those services simply for existing.

I prefer to think of it as acknowledging all citizens are human beings with basic natural rights as fellow citizens, the right to receive healthcare for example.

[homersapien 11,362]

19 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

And you see, I only think you have the right to be wrong to the degree that you do not harm anyone else or interfere with his or her rights.  So I believe in a limit to your right to be wrong.

As for the rest of your straw man, "natural human characteristics" do not define human rights.  It's as much of a natural human characteristic to be selfish as to be compassionate.  I would argue more so, actually.  So should we conceptualize human rights based on that?  

I'm very curious to know how science is relevant to any of this discussion, and philosophically I would also like to know upon what transcendent moral authority you are basing your assessment of what is and is not a moral obligation.

Natural human characteristics refers to the natural, basic traits that define us as a species. 

Science comes into play since science is the way we define and describe nature.  We have evolved as a social species.  Social species typically exhibit traits - such as altruism and collective effort - that transcend simple individual competition.  That is true even for social insects such as ants.

Selfishness is a defining character for non-social species and it still exists more or less in social species as a background, precursor trait.  But it is mitigated - if not transcended - by social values by social species.  Not necessarily on an individual basis - as you demonstrate - but certainly on a collective basis.

Altruism is a defining characteristic resulting from the evolutionary process.  Belief in a super-natural authority is not really a requirement to understand that, but it doesn't hurt if one chooses to do so. (Considering the tenents of most modern religions, I don't think that's a strong position for you to be taking.)

I don't see the "straw man" analogy. You'll have to explain that. 

[homersapien 11,362]

15 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

And you see, I only think you have the right to be wrong to the degree that you do not harm anyone else or interfere with his or her rights.  So I believe in a limit to your right to be wrong.

 

Do you feel paying taxes interferes with your rights?  Are you being harmed by doing so, or is their a compensating benefit?

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 338]

51 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Quote

Natural human characteristics refers to the natural, basic traits that define us as a species. 

Then they must be unique characteristics, yes?  If not, how are they definitive? 

Belief in divinity?  As far as we know, that is a unique characteristic.  Not necessarily on an individual basis—as you demonstrate—but collectively.  What else?  What other traits are unique to human beings?  Not altruism.  We see that demonstrated by mothers and offspring in hundreds, if not thousands of species.  Not collective effort.  Packs and analogous social units are likewise common in the animal world. 

Quote

Science comes into play since science is the way we define and describe nature.

Two things about that.  One, if we're discussing human beings in the context that we are, in fact, discussing them, unless you are referring to unique chemical, mathematical, or biological traits that human beings exhibit, the authority to which we're deferring is some branch of social science, which is, as science goes, about the softest science possible.  If one defines science as being, among other things, observable, testable, and repeatable, it's hardly deserving of the moniker "science."  

Two, science is hardly the only way we define and describe nature.  Art and religion are other ways, and yet and still, much closer to the aspect of HUMAN nature this discussion calls for.  If we want to know how much oxygen a 100 pound person is likely to consume and convert into C02, fine.  But we are talking about human behavior, human emotions, and human psychological constructs.  A "human right" does not exist in nature, to be weighed, measured, or divided by a constant.  It exists only in our concepts (if no transcendent authority exists to provide it with a corresponding transcendent reality.)

Quote

Selfishness is a defining character for non-social species and it still exists more or less in social species as a background, precursor trait.  But it is mitigated - if not transcended - by social values by social species.  Not necessarily on an individual basis - as you demonstrate - but certainly on a collective basis.

Hmmm...I would say that your position demonstrates your (snide) example just as well as mine.  You see, your framing of this case is that the "moral" position is one that requires some individuals to be compelled to give up resources so that others may receive benefit.  In none of your other examples are individuals of a species compelled to do so...or if there is such a phenomenon, I have never heard of it.  They participate by choice.  (Really, they have no choice, but participate by instinct.  According to your philosophy so do we, but if I point that out it undercuts your morally superior smug satisfaction even further, as there is nothing noble about holding a position that you have no choice to hold, and I wouldn't want to take that away from you.)

You say it is selfish of me to advocate that individuals retain the choice to allocate their property as they choose.  Really?  That's selfish?  I look at your assertion that you get to decide what happens to my resources at the point of a gun as being selfish.  So this is not as simple as you would have us all believe, is it?  

Quote

Altruism is a defining characteristic resulting from the evolutionary process.

Two things—define altruism, please.  And two, depending upon what your definition is, how would altruism increase survival value for a species?  Be careful in your answers, because they are likely to lead back to the unavoidable conclusion that what you call altruism is actually selfishness.

Quote

 

 Belief in a super-natural authority is not really a requirement to understand that, but it doesn't hurt if one chooses to do so. (Considering the tenents of most modern religions, I don't think that's a strong position for you to be taking.)

I don't see the "straw man" analogy. You'll have to explain that. 

 

A straw man is an argument that you frame that your debate partner never made.  You construct a faulty argument that no one made, then have fun knocking it down.  There is no need to return to the section you asked about, as you just did it again.  I never claimed that a super-natural authority was necessary to understand anything, yet you just claimed I did.

 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 338]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Do you feel paying taxes interferes with your rights?  Are you being harmed by doing so, or is their a compensating benefit?

As with most things in life, the answer to that question is a matter of degree.  As taxes stand now, the compensating benefit is not sufficient to offset the harm to me as an individual.

[homersapien 11,362]

4 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Quote

Natural human characteristics refers to the natural, basic traits that define us as a species. 

Then they must be unique characteristics, yes?  If not, how are they definitive? 

Not necessarily.  Many similar value characteristics exist in other species but the total package is unique to our species, just as for physical characteristics.  The total package - along with whatever is considered a species differentiator - is what makes us unique.

 

Belief in divinity?  As far as we know, that is a unique characteristic.  Not necessarily on an individual basis—as you demonstrate—but collectively.  What else?  What other traits are unique to human beings?  Not altruism.  We see that demonstrated by mothers and offspring in hundreds, if not thousands of species.  Not collective effort.  Packs and analogous social units are likewise common in the animal world. 

Excuse me but are you saying altruism is not characteristic of our species?

 

[homersapien 11,362]

5 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

 

The full quote system is not working or perhaps you overloaded it.

I am having to cut and paste everything for which I have limited patience.

Please try to keep your responses short, even if you have to make more of them.

[homersapien 11,362]

Quote

Science comes into play since science is the way we define and describe nature.

Two things about that.  One, if we're discussing human beings in the context that we are, in fact, discussing them, unless you are referring to unique chemical, mathematical, or biological traits that human beings exhibit, the authority to which we're deferring is some branch of social science, which is, as science goes, about the softest science possible.  If one defines science as being, among other things, observable, testable, and repeatable, it's hardly deserving of the moniker "science."  

I can assure you that Anthropology is a "hard" science which is what I am actually referring to.

You don't really know much about science, do you?

 

 

 

Two, science is hardly the only way we define and describe nature.  Art and religion are other ways, and yet and still, much closer to the aspect of HUMAN nature this discussion calls for.  If we want to know how much oxygen a 100 pound person is likely to consume and convert into C02, fine.  But we are talking about human behavior, human emotions, and human psychological constructs.  A "human right" does not exist in nature, to be weighed, measured, or divided by a constant.  It exists only in our concepts (if no transcendent authority exists to provide it with a corresponding transcendent reality.)

 

Sorry, but science is the ONLY way to describe PHYSICAL nature.

Science doesn't address all that "mysticism" s*** - with the possible exception of cutting edge quantum physics. 

The rest of that was "blah blah blah". (See "Anthropology")

[homersapien 11,362]

Quote

Selfishness is a defining character for non-social species and it still exists more or less in social species as a background, precursor trait.  But it is mitigated - if not transcended - by social values by social species.  Not necessarily on an individual basis - as you demonstrate - but certainly on a collective basis.

Hmmm...I would say that your position demonstrates your (snide) example just as well as mine.  You see, your framing of this case is that the "moral" position is one that requires some individuals to be compelled to give up resources so that others may receive benefit. 

BS.

My case is that motivation to help others in our tribe when they are in need is one of the things that is part of our evolutionary development.  In other words, humans are hard wired to be empathetic to injured tribesmen.  With the obvious personal exceptions - we are in general wire for compassion. I consider that an essential part of being a decent human.

You can set your own morals as you wish.  Lord knows that's been done by plenty of human "tribes" in the past.

 

 

In none of your other examples are individuals of a species compelled to do so...or if there is such a phenomenon, I have never heard of it.  They participate by choice.  (Really, they have no choice, but participate by instinct. 

Well the ones that don't work are probably eaten.  They are very efficient.

 

According to your philosophy so do we, but if I point that out it undercuts your morally superior smug satisfaction even further, as there is nothing noble about holding a position that you have no choice to hold, and I wouldn't want to take that away from you.)

If that's how you want to describe my support of universal health insurance, that's fine by me.

 

You say it is selfish of me to advocate that individuals retain the choice to allocate their property as they choose.  Really?  That's selfish?  I look at your assertion that you get to decide what happens to my resources at the point of a gun as being selfish.  So this is not as simple as you would have us all believe, is it?  

Man, that's a little cray cray. 

No offense, right?

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 338]

So first of all, I couldn't care less how you would prefer me to reply to your posts.  Even less so (if it were possible, which I already claimed it wasn't) what you have patience for and what you don't have patience for.

Secondly, you try to come off as measured, thoughtful, and intellectual, but your dealing with my challenges are anything but.  You offer almost nothing of substance when challenged, ignore most of what I asked you to address, and subsist instead on snide attempts at insults and glib dismissals.  

I was looking for intelligent discussion.  Instead I got a typical materialist/leftist pseudo-intellectual who is afraid to engage in defending the positions s/he takes.  IME that's either usually due to one of two reasons:

1.  The person in question has never really been challenged on premises they falsely assume are unchallengeable.  I see this a lot with college professors.  And millennials.  And of course, the worst are millennials who teach college.  The person in this case exists in a bubble, and worse, one of the bubble's primary functions is to reinforce the idea to those inside that they are superior to those outside the bubble.  So these people develop a logical blindness akin to the fish who lives in the ocean and denies the existence of water.  He's immersed in it to the point that he doesn't realize it exists.

The best example I can give is the smug, self satisfied type like yourself who brays on one hand theories of materialism and evolution as though they are the only theories possible, and on the other hand seethes with self-righteousness indignation when anyone dares have a different political opinion than they, and puffs out their chests with pride at being "progressive" and "evolved."  It's pretty obvious that if those people are correct about the first set of blusters, any sort of moral high ground is impossible.  In other words, you're morally no better than Donald Trump.  Not if you're right about your first set of assertions.  It would be logically impossible.  And there's no moral value or significance in being more "evolved," as there's no significance in survival beyond the completely subjective preferences of the person  or persons in question.  Either for a species or an individual.  The first type of person who avoids these realities does so because they haven't thought about it enough yet to realize the logical problems with it from their point of view.  They haven't had to...everyone around them conforms to the same set of assumptions.

2.  The second type of person I have encountered who refuses to engage in these questions is the person who is a little smarter than the first.  That person avoids those challenges because s/he has thought it through and KNOWS that there's no escape from it.  S/he knows they can't have their cake and eat it too, logically speaking.  But ego and identification with being "evolved" and "progressive" keep him or her from resolving these problems logically.  The person would have to give up some self-identification that s/he s definitely not emotionally able to give up.  So s/he acts as though the contradiction does not exist.

I don't know which of these you happen to be, although I have my suspicions.  In any case, if at any point you'd like to grow up a bit and actually address these logical questions instead of sidestepping them while attempting to maintain your self-perception of superiority by attempting insults, I might be inclined to participate.  Until then, have fun telling yourself you are morally superior to other who disagree with you while also espousing a philosophy that makes moral superiority impossible on your own.  One day I hope you get out of sophomore level philosophy.

And...no offense.  Right?

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 338]

Third Party Pay.

One entity receives a service.  One entity provides the service.  A third entity pays for it.

Obviously this is a warm, wet Petrie dish for escalating costs and deteriorating care.  Regardless of whether we are talking about the 3rd entity being the government or BC/BS (although the government is worse since there's no alternative).

The customer is the person who pays the bill.  If the government or BC/BS pays the bill, who is the customer?  Not the patient.  That's not who the doctor works to satisfy.  The doctor now works to satisfy the payor.  That's who he asks "How high," when they say, "Jump."  And they do say "jump."  When they deny payment.  Or request records.  Or dictate care.

But the good news is that they pay the bill, once all the stepping and fetching has been carried out.  And they pay according to some arbitrary scale, not on what the patient is willing to pay, so if it's commercial insurance it's almost guaranteed to be more than the patient would be willing to pay (escalating costs).  So the stepping and fetching is worth it usually.

I trust I've made my point. 

Not to mention, health "insurance" is not insurance at all.  You are guaranteed to use it, at least for non-catastrophic situations.

There is a way to reduce both health care costs and health insurance costs.  Relegate insurance to catastrophic situations only.  Routine care would be cash.  Fees would plummet.  Instead of paying $1500 a month for health insurance you might pay $300.  With the savings you could easily pay cash for services rendered.

But what about the poor people?

As I have said before, a universal health care model founded upon an insurance model would be the very worst of all worlds.  That doesn't mean there couldn't be a solution, though...the average person is just so brainwashed that insurance HAS to be part of the solution.  This is why the politicians have trained us all to think health care = health insurance.

We (supposedly) educate our entire population through a system of both public and private schools.  If we are committed to providing universal health care, emulating this model is the only model that has any chance.  Private hospitals and clinics and public hospitals and clinics.  Partial nationalization of health care.  Just like education.