Bitcoin Forum

I've seen a few people mention that the government has an ethical responsibility to provide health care to its citizens. So how much?

Let me know if you'd like me to add any more choices.

Too many choices. Cut down to two or three.

The most that any government should ever do is protect citizens against force and fraud. This means having a police system, court system, and perhaps defensive military. That's it.

It is both highly immoral and highly destructive for a government to provide healthcare. Immoral because it must steal and coerce in order to do so, and destructive because, compared to any market alternative, it will be less productive at a higher cost, meaning society is poorer for it.

Bonus question for people who didn't select "none" - why that much, not more or less?

As much as it takes to save a life, and cure or help any diseases that are not life threatening.

Ability is responsibility, if you are able to save another's life without endangering yours, and you do nothing, then you are responsible for their death.

As much as it takes to save which life? A dehydrated infant, or an ancient cancer patient?

If I can extend my life by saving money for future medical expenses, then does spending it on someone else count as endangering my life?

It's a social contract, others are also responsible for you.

That just confused me even more. :P Is that a yes or a no?

That's a no.

I live in a capitalist country, and I'm going to assume you do too. We are bought up to be selfish and greedy, it's what drives capitalism, so the concept may sound a little strange. But, if in the future you don't have the money to pay for your medical expenses then it is the responsibility of others to pay them.

Yogi, do you think Ayn Rand should have collected Social Security?

If Ayn Rand was hungry, then I would feed her.

You weren't brought up to be selfish and greedy, you were born that way.

That is why capitalism is successful: it has a proper understanding of human nature.

That is why socialism is an utter failure: it is fundamentally flawed at its root.  It can never succeed because it depends on human beings to be angels which they aren't.  Without the incentive to produce most people won't. 

I agree, all species and individuals are ultimately selfish, and capitalism is successful because of material rewards and the incentive to survive.

However, I maintain that we are all responsible for our own decisions. If you are faced with the choice of buying a shine new car or preventing someone's slow and agonising death. You are not only responsible for the choice but also it's outcome.

Then who should buy shiny new cars?

You can buy a shiny new car if you like.

But you are still responsible for the consequences of your decisions.

Incorrect. Capitalism, properly implemented, can be effective. Capitalism, unchecked, will destroy a lot of things.


Incorrect. Actually, it is capitalism which required human beings to be angels. Socialism, properly implemented, can achieve things which require unified efforts, which capitalism is unable to achieve.

Really?

Yeah: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rXtG3vfAlA (turn the volume up)

Or, another example would be healthcare for everyone.

So despite having satellites in orbit being a clearly profitable business, no group of people would have ever gotten together to develop rocket technology (which really was first developed for warfare to begin with...)? Capitalism does not forego cooperation. I won't claim it is always the best or most efficient solution possible, but saying that groups of people working together out of selfish motives is incapable of achieving such success is kinda out there.

Satellites?

I showed you something that goes way beyond the concept of satellites, and it happened over 43 years ago. Sure, capitalism can achieve things, but it will always be well behind a hugely concerted and unified effort. Furthermore, capitalism is divisive, both physically, and socially.

Oh, and watch the video. Turn the volume up. It's quite a meditation.

That video and the ones that follow it are the most impressive things I've ever seen. Why do we need to force people to pay for that?

I hope to still be around when medicine figures out how to keep prolonging my life indefinetly so i can eventually live in a society with so much technological and cultural advancements that the need for having a "job" will cease to exist; people will not have jobs, they'll have hobbies, and even people that only do things that no one else would pay for would still be able to live in the highest standards of living without taking anything away from anyone. So, my answer to the question posed here would be the government should assist the wellbeing of everyone as much as we (the society) can afford; but obviously, carefully weighting the benefits in short, medium and long terms, no point in living like a king for a day if that will make you rot dead the next day.

Interesting statement. I tell you what. It would be interesting if you did some historical research to find out the level of protest back then regarding the endeavor vs. its general support. The idea being to truly discover if all monumental government funded projects in general create a large feeling of people feeling violently coerced. Or perhaps, some things transcend such feelings.

That would be interesting. I agree.

I don't even trust any government to render first aid.

That reminds me of the joke about the hunters: http://www.funnies.com/redneck911.htm