Insurance for Healthcare

[SteveF]

Hi Pete, as promised here are my general views. It took me a little longer to post because I had to wait in line for the home computer. It’s our company’s policy that we not post personal views through the company’s computers.

Warning: Be prepared for some “stingers”!

Like many I don’t consider myself particularly Conservative or Liberal. I consider myself a pragmatist. There are times I find myself leaning toward the Conservative position and other times I lean toward the Liberal view. I have the occasional view that neither side holds….and sometimes I find it hard to make up my mind

As I stated before, I think I’m looking through a different lens than you are. If there is a program that will provide services for the community at large and it seem prudent for it be in the public hands then I’m for it. If it can be demonstrated it would be better left in the private sector then I’m for that as well (or even a combination of public and private). I actually consider some people here in Canada to be following an ideology in regards to health care. They will not consider ways of running a more efficient health care system in fears of it being privatized. I, as a pragmatist, am always open to consider ways of improving things for the benefit of all.

In a democratic and free society everyone has a voice. Sometimes that voice is indeed squashed by the “tyranny of the majority”. I don’t consider the purchase of an EMT vehicle (Homer’s example) to be an example of tyranny. I think solid examples of tyranny would be blacks not being able to vote or a head tax law* implemented by the Canadian government that singled out Chinese people.** These people were truly oppressed. I think to use this phrase in the context of an EMT vehicle is misplaced, misguided and possibly overdramatic. To offer this up as a Christian position simply strikes me as wrong. I think this is the wrong message to send to non-Christians. It would seem strange to me if the loudest group speaking out against an EMT vehicle would be Christians. Also, consider this about Homer’s example; what if the 30% who voted “no” only voted “no” because they though they’d be stealing from the 70%. Therefore, actually 100% thought it was a good idea but 30% voted no for philosophical reasons. My position is, if you think it’s a good idea and it will help the community, go with it.

An argument is made that Christians should be taking care of healthcare, not the world. Two points:

1. Christians may be helping many people but many others are dying. The job isn’t getting done. If Christians were helping everyone we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.

2. If others decide to take up this task, why would Christians, of all people, stand in the way of it getting done? Let’s say a person is asked to paint a fence and they put it off for weeks and weeks. Finally, since the job must get done, another person is sent and starts to paint the fence. When the first person sees this he protests “Hey stop that, that’s my job”.


Something else that perplexes me is why so American Christians speak out against public health care, which saves lives, yet are relatively silent about the Iraq War. A war which was based on lies which will cost more money than health care***, and ultimately kills lives (both American and Iraqi civilian). Something seems awry to me. It just seems strange to me that of all the issues American Christians have decided to speak out against it’s something that will benefit the health of millions.


I do not have a problem with people making money… a lot of money. There are billionaires in Canada and the United States. But I do think it’s fair that the people who profit from a particular society are required to put back a certain percentage of their profit into the society (from which they profited) for its greater good.

Here’s what I think seems fair about the current system:

-If you own particularly valuable piece of property in a community it seems fair you would pay more property tax for that land.

-If you profit from a community it seems fair that you are required to contribute back into that community, while still being able to retain the majority of your profit. This also will help protect from certain individuals monopolizing to the detriment of the greater society (Think of parts of China right now). It will also ensure that others in the community have opportunity to advance as well.

-Further, the profiting individual also has a certain measure of individual determination into where his tax dollars go into society. Here’s how: If that individual makes donations to a certain charity that he personally deems is making a valuable contribution to society he will have tax money returned to him. There are limits to the amount of tax dollars than can be returned so things that are considered core essentials will not get overlooked.

Here are the pitfalls I see in our current system:

-Not everyone will agree on what a core essential is (although I think there’s almost unanimous agreement on most of them)

-An individual may find themselves on the wrong end of a stick when it comes to a public decision. For example: a community may agree virtually 100% on the extension of a road but it may mean that an individual’s house needs to be torn down and that person may not want to move!

Here’s an actual example:

My sister in law’s family lived next to a large public park in Hamilton ON (One of the largest city parks in Canada). The city was determined to build an expressway right through the middle of it essentially destroying the park. My sister in law, who is quite politically active, helped organize hundreds of protestors and produced reports showing the environmental damage it would cause. In the end, the city and the powerful developer companies won out. She, along with thousands, now lives next to an expressway.

Here’s something else to consider. If there are perceived injustices in the system there are ways that Christians (and others) can work within society to make it fairer. They can voice their concerns, vote, take things to judicial courts etc.. Here’s a real example:

In a western province in Canada (Alberta) only about 5% of children attend private schools or home school. Simply because they don’t prefer public school why shouldn’t they receive funding as well? Many would agree that it seems unfair in some way. The Alberta government now subsidizes 70% of tuitions fees and provides (I’ve heard) up to $3000 per child (per year) for home schooling supplies(if the parent decides to home school). The government recognized that this would provide choice and fairness while still putting money into public education for children who don’t have any other choice or opportunity. Is this perfect? No. But it shows there are ways to move towards fairness in the system.

How can we come up with a perfect system? I don’t know. I can say that I find your view of absolutely no government involvement more idealistic and impractical than communism is. Sorry, that’s my view.

.

As stated, my intent on posting this is not to digress into a political discussion (I know you disagree). Rather, it’s merely to help you understand where I’m coming from. I have a pretty good idea of your position but there are still some things that are not clear to me. If you think it would be prudent to post your general thoughts as well then please do so. It may help prevent us from talking past each other and understand each other better.

It’s also possible that what each of us considers the loving and just thing to do is merely a matter of conscience.


*You can read about the head tax law here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_tax_(Canada)


**I would be interested to know if you consider organizations like “Moral Majority” to be a tyranny of the majority.

***When I say the war costs more that health care, I’m only looking at this from the government perspective. Don’t forget, most are already paying for health care. The only difference is the money is going to Insurance companies instead of the government. One other thing to consider is taking away the health cost burden from companies will help them be more competitive globally. Ironically, public health care in the States would actually hurt Canada because some companies are in Canada in order to avoid huge health care costs.

[SteveF]

Pete, there's much that I could say to this

No. If everyone is in agreement that the program is good, it follows that people do not need force imposed upon them to compel them to participate.

and this

Indeed, because insurance is a product which is purchased beforehand. It might be helpful here to make an analogy to a automobile insurance. One does not wait until after they have had an accident, then at that point seek out an insurance company to pay for the expenses which had been incurred.

Perhaps, if you watched this video you would see the need for mandatory involvement and the fact that not everyone who is uninsureable had a choice in the matter.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... rica/view/

Yes, this does happen. However, in a free market an insurance company doing so will learn that doing such is detrimental to their profits. They may profit for a few cases, but as soon as the customer base becomes aware of such, they will purchase their insurance elsewhere lest they also be defrauded. Unfortunately, the US health care market is not a free market.

Question, do you consider people's healthcare to be a commodity?

Interestingly this was the lead story on CNN's website yesterday. Very sad.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/18/de ... newssearch

[SteveF]

I'd be glad to get together when the occasion permits, and I'll send you a PM if I ever make it out towards your way. For now, I'm near detroit, and I hope to move to Chicago which will be a bit farther away. Please contact me if you come out to this area.

For sure brother!

[kaufmannphillips]

Hi, Steve -

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Here, then, it is worth asking what "justice" is. And "oppression."

steve wrote:
Justice means the upholding of the rights of individuals. This means (among others) not violating a man's right to life ("Thou shalt not murder"), nor his right to the inviolability of his marriage ("Thou shalt not commit adultery"), nor his right to his honestly-gained property ("Thou shalt not steal"), nor his right to his deserved good name ("Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor").

This should not be confused with mercy....

Your characterization of justice may seem basic from some classic American sensibility. Present-day Americans are inheritors of a philosophical tradition that emphasizes individual rights. But even in America, individual rights are understood to have limits. A classic example: the individual’s legal right to freedom of speech does not entitle them to unnecessarily cry “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. In such a circumstance, the potential harm outweighs the potential significance of individual freedom of speech.

From my perspective, individual rights are fundamentally circumscribed according to their impact upon a holistic right state of being. To insist on individual rights to an extent that is detrimental to a holistic right state of being would be myopic. Indeed, at such an extent these “rights” would cease to be right – and thus would cease to be rights.

Accordingly, then, I will characterize “justice” as that which accords with and accrues toward a right state of being. And for what it is worth, this characterization of justice is seemingly in line with biblical diction – q.v., the tz-d-q triad (see link1, link2). When one considers tzedaqah (cf. link1, link2, Deuteronomy 24:13) and what it means to be a tzaddiq (see Psalm 37:21/25f., Proverbs 21:26, cf. Daniel 4:27), one may consider that the ethos of justice involves more than merely abstaining from conventional notions of harm.

Incidentally, in Jewish tradition tzedaqah came to be the conventional term for charity (link1, cf. link2). Even in antiquity, the translators of the Septuagint often rendered tzedaqah with eleemosune, a Greek term based upon eleeo (mercy).

steve wrote:
[Justice] should not be confused with mercy, which means one man voluntarily and graciously surrendering his rights to his own property (in the case of assisting the poor) or his rights to exact revenge (in the case of forgiving an offender). Both justice and mercy are Christian duties. However, the government's duty is to enforce justice, not mercy. This is because justice can (and should) be forced upon an unwilling subject, but acts of mercy cannot be externally forced, without the commission of an injustice.

I fail to see why the government would have the province to make people act rightly by abstaining from evil deeds, yet would not have the province to make them act rightly by performing good deeds. In either case, the individual’s heart might not be in accordance with their activity; in either case, potential detriment to others would be avoided; in either case, the individuals’ behavior would be directed into a healthier practice, which could in turn affect their mind/heart and the minds/hearts of those who dwell with them.

As for “commission of an injustice” - if an individual should be giving to support the needy, how would it be an injustice to dispossess them of something that should not have remained in their possession?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
And shall the sheep with thick wool bleat because those with thin wool get equitable feed and care?

steve wrote:
What has this to do with this discussion? Am I a sheep with thick wool objecting to my surplus being used to help others? No, I happen to be one of the sheep with thin wool, who nonetheless takes delight in sharing a large percentage of what I have with others who are even less fortunate than myself.

It is disingenuous to trade clear-headed analysis of justice issues for ad hominem slurs on the motives of your debate opponents. A large percentage of Americans who object to socialized healthcare do so upon conscience principles, and are not among those who would personally be required to foot the bill. My own circumstances have absolutely zero impact upon my analysis of this issue, since I already give more of my inclome to the poor voluntarily than any system of taxation would require of me. What I am opposed to is injustice as injustice. Your comments give the impression that you cannot fathom such a concept.

My metaphor is relevant to the discussion. What place have the most productive to complain when the caregiver of all society thinks not only of their interests, but of their compatriots' interests as well? The caregiver is responsible for the whole society, and not merely the big producers.

You have neglected my point that the king was a shepherd. The role of the shepherd, of course, is not merely to protect and discipline sheep, but also to see that their needs are provided for. You were concerned here to vindicate your motives, but apparently you were not so concerned to engage a point that might challenge your assumptions about the role of governance.

Now, personally, I am not above an ad hominem jab. You and I both know the art of rhetoric, Steve, and the blade has its flat, its edge, and its point. Sometimes a whack with the hilt or pommel may even come into play. One might even complain of a slur on personal motives, while in the same breath painting their opponent as disingenuous. Or one might caricature their opponent as unable to fathom a simple concept. Of course, such maneuvers might be less advantageous rhetorically, if they were packaged together with a lament against ad hominem tactics.

I do not know your innermost motives, Steve. That being said, you have a strong concern to protect people's ownership of stuff. I have a strong concern to provide for people's quality of life. One may ask, then, which concern is preeminent in terms of justice.

( ** Here's a worthy question: is protecting people's ownership of stuff about providing for their quality of life, or is providing for their quality of life about protecting their ownership of stuff? )

steve wrote:
The charge of "greed" in this discussion would rightly be brought against those who want the government to take away other people's honest earnings in order to deliver services to themselves. I am against this, in principle, even though I am not one of those who would have things taken from me, but one of those who would qualify to receive the stolen goods. I am not interested in receiving such, and do not respect the character of those who would desire for the government to do such things for them.

You may have given inadequate consideration here for what constitutes rightful possession. The simple ability to acquire wealth by conventional/legal means does not yield a right of possession. This is because everybody does not have the right to acquire unto themselves everything that they can lay hold of by way of their talents.

Let us entertain a parable. There are one hundred smoots living in a forest. Every year, the cosmic guardian of the forest provides that ten thousand smootberries will ripen in the fall. Each smoot depends upon these berries to sustain them through the ninety-eight days of winter, eating one smootberry a day.

But then, one golden autumn, Dexter Smoot designs a smootberry harvesting machine, with which he can pick ten smootberries for every one that his fellow smoots are able to harvest. Dexter builds four machines and forms a partnership with three other smoots; and at the end of autumn, the remaining ninety-six smoots find themselves with only seventy-three or so smootberries in their pantries.

Dexter Smoot and his partners are thrilled with their success; since they each have seven hundred-plus smootberries, they proceed to paint their huts smootberry-red, and dye their caps in smootberry-juice, and take up the sport of smootberry-dodgeball, which is gratifyingly splattery.

What then will the other ninety-six smoots do, in the face of their shortfall? If this were a Grimm’s fairytale or a historical narrative, chances are they would rush the four colleagues, seize their smootberries, and play dodgeball with their ignominiously-removed heads. But in this parable, they resort to Elder Smoot, who intervenes to help the four partners see the wrongness of their ways, paving the way for redistribution of the remaining resources.

In our world, as in the smoot forest, it is possible for individuals to acquire more than their rightful share of the limited resources that have been provided. When this happens, and such individuals fail to distribute their excessive resources in a rightful way, then it is the fair province of a government to bring about a rightful distribution of these resources.

Now, a government might not always intervene successfully to bring about voluntary distribution, based on repentance; it might have to impose a rightful distribution. But the fact that this is forcibly imposed does not make it robbery. An individual cannot be robbed of something that was never rightfully theirs to possess.

steve wrote:
But then, I am burdened with the affliction of a theistic, not a humanistic, worldview. I believe there is a God who has the prerogative of ending any man's life at any time He may choose, and who will sustain a man's life as long as He wishes. He wishes for us to make every responsible and honest effort to steward our health and longevity, but not to resort to committing injustice against others in order to prolong our earthly lives. Given the choice of dying (on one hand) over against that of prolonging my life by stealing from you, murdering you, or committing any other crime against you, my choice would be clear. Why is this not obvious?

One more parable. Susan has three children, to whom she has given respectively various toys and tools. Regrettably, Susan’s children tend to show disrespect for the toys and tools that belong to their siblings. Therefore, Susan directs them not to touch each others’ things.

One afternoon, the youngest sibling falls into a well. She can barely swim, and the water is very deep. The middle sibling is nearby, but he cannot swim well either, and is too far away from anybody else to obtain their help in time to save his sister. Sadly, she drowns.

When Susan comes upon the scene, her middle child is gazing forlornly down the well. She takes him into her arms to comfort him, for she knows he could not swim well enough to save his sister. But over his shoulder, she spies his older sister’s jump rope lying in the grass. In shock, she asks why he did not throw one end of it down the well to save his sister.

In reply, he says “You told us not to touch each others’ things.”

And then Steve Gregg walked up and said, “Be ye comforted, ma’am – if G-d had wanted your daughter to live longer, he would have made it happen.”

Stewarding a person’s life is not equitable to stewarding a person’s belongings. Why is this not obvious?

[SteveF]

I agree that in Lev 19 God is ordering giving. The difference I see is that God did not here authorize one man (e.g. a magistrate) to utilize force against another when someone fails to obey this type of command.

Pete, I've been thinking about this and trying to see if I'm missing something since you responded with the same answer. I was showing that the principle of sharing wealth was in God's law. Then you said God didn't authorize a secular magistrate to impliment the principle. Should we not try to glean principles from God's law ? After all, God's laws were written in the context of a theocracy. I'm not aware of God authorizing Capitalism in a non-theocratic state either. Actually two of Capitalism's core principles don't sound very Christian:

-The economic system works best if each person pursues his or her own self-interest, ie, the greatest profit.

-The profit motive drives economics. The only basis for making economic decisions should be what brings the greatest monetary profit.

Just in case you're wondering, I'm not calling for the end of all Capitalism, just trying to make a point.

Steve

[kaufmannphillips]

kaufmannphillips wrote:
In order to have the privilege of participating in the township, its constituents have agreed to subordinate their personal preferences to the determinations of the township as a corporate entity.

thrombomodulin wrote:
What exactly does "participation" include or exclude? Is it your opinion that any direct or indirect exchange of goods or services between any pair of consenting individuals constitutes a valid pretext for government to claim absolute authority over them?

"Participation" is conceivably any level of involvement that constitutes a part in the life of the society. That being said, given Homer’s scenario, it should be apparent that anybody who participates effectively in an effective election is participating in the electing society.

Any direct or indirect exchange of goods or services with a member of a society has the potential to impact the broader society; and thus the government, as the agent of that society, has valid grounds for regulating the exchange.

kaufmannphillips wrote: In order to have the privilege of participating in the township, its constituents have agreed to subordinate their personal preferences to the determinations of the township as a corporate entity.

thrombomodulin wrote:
When, where and how does this agreement happen? Speaking for myself, I cannot recall any prior personal experience where my township came to me and asked if I would or would not be willing to surrender everything I have to them in exchange for certain benefits of participating.

The agreement happens when the individuals choose to become constituents of the township. For some this happens actively when they move into the township; for others, it happens passively when they reach an age of personal responsibility and choose not to move out of the township.

Now if one wishes to complain that there was no formal contract for participation – well, I be lovin’ the parables lately: One fine afternoon, Pierre feels hungry. He comes upon a restaurant, Stromboli & Sons, and enters. Inside, he finds a pasta bar and a beverage dispenser, so he loads a plate with penne rigate and pours himself a Diet CokeTM. After satisfying his hunger, Pierre wipes his mouth and leans back from his table.

Then one of the Stromboli sons comes up to the table and hands Pierre a bill for $20 (tip included). Pierre declines to pay. He says, “Nobody came and asked me if I would be willing to pay this amount! And why should I include a tip? I dished up my own pasta and poured my own drink!”

The Stromboli son stares at Pierre for a moment. Then he says, “You walked into our premises. You took our food and our beverage. You did not come and ask anybody if we would accept the amount you would prefer to pay, and you did not ask if you could serve yourself. If you were unwilling to meet our terms of operation, you should have inquired, and you could have gone elsewhere. But you chose to eat and drink without negotiation, and now you shall pay without negotiation.” And the Stromboli son and his muscular brothers walk with Pierre to the nearby ATM.

When one does not negotiate special terms for participation in a society, then by entering into participation one implicitly agrees to the standard terms that the society has set.

Or let us consider another parable: Pedro is a fine athlete, but since moving to Vancouver he has not been very active due to the weather. So when Pedro sees a flyer in the student union for indoor football intramurals, he gets excited and shows up.

On the first day of intramurals, Pedro is aghast to find that the rules of play bear little resemblance to what he grew up with as futbol. But when he objects over the use of hands, his teammates say, “Dude – this ain’t soccer. This is football. Either play it or don’t.”

In this scenario, one could argue that Pedro’s futbol is the better game. But once Pedro runs onto the indoor football field, his responsibility is to either play football or bow out.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Group "B" has demonstrated its acceptance ... by its participation in the electoral process.

thrombomodulin wrote:
They have not. First, one does not become party to an illegitimate expansion of government power by voting in such a way as to oppose that expansion. Second, they will be unjustly subjected to the outcome of the electoral process regardless of whether or not they participate.

The premise of democracy is that every elector has their vote, and agrees to defer to the majority. By participating in the electoral process, Group “B” is accepting this as the mechanism for determining societal policy. Their acceptance may be grudging or it may be enthusiastic, but it is acceptance nonetheless. A person who does not accept a practice does not participate in it.

The exception would be a case where a party participates duplicitously – say, a person who votes with no intention of deferring if the outcome does not go their way. In such a case, the person is a false dealer, who should not be afforded a part in determining societal policy. When such a party loses an election, they are not being robbed of their rights when its decision is imposed upon them; they not only have deferred their decision to that of the majority, per the standard premises of their participation, but they have vacated their claim to making such a decision by their fraudulence. But we have no reason in Homer’s scenario to imagine that Group “B” is comprised of such knaves.

Now, when Group “B” is subjected to an electoral decision, its constituents can hardly complain. Had they won, and their policy been imposed upon Group ”A,” would they have objected?

As for the likelihood that the outcome of an election will be imposed, such may influence one to grudgingly accept the status mundi and attempt to work within the system. This is still acceptance.

[thrombomodulin]

kaufmannphillips,

What happens in your idealized democracy when the majority of citizens do not vote, for any reason at all?

What happens in your idealized democracy when the majority of citizens do not vote, for the reason that they deny Caesar has any authority over the matter which is being voted on?

Peter

[kaufmannphillips]

thrombomodulin wrote:
What happens in your idealized democracy when the majority of citizens do not vote, for any reason at all?

When we were discussing Homer's scenario, of course, this was not at issue. Group "B" were voters.

But if the majority of citizens do not vote, this makes little difference. Constituents who do not actively resist a societal construct are accepting it.

You need not be too hung up on "[my] idealized democracy." Social contract theory is not limited to democracy as a political form.

thrombomodulin wrote:
What happens in your idealized democracy when the majority of citizens do not vote, for the reason that they deny Caesar has any authority over the matter which is being voted on?

When citizens "deny that Caesar has any authority over the matter which is being voted on," such makes little difference unless they do something about it. Only active resistance qualifies as rejection of the social contract.

When active resistance is pursued, generally it will result in either: (a) the societal structure (= contract) being revised; or (b) the social structure (= contract) not being revised, with the resisters being quelled or being removed from the society.

[thrombomodulin]

I wanted to make a short note about my delayed reply: This past week I more or less sold my home, and my employer needed an unusually lengthy work week. I've got a reply about 60% written for SteveF, and some more questions fro Kaufmannphillips, but its going to take me some time to get the replies done as I am working towards my goal of moving at the end of October.
Peter

[kaufmannphillips]

Thanks for checking in, Peter.