What would you want to happen to diminish income inequality in the USA

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,468
923
118
Country
USA
Again, I ask why? Why is the work worth more than the lives it saves? If you make medicine too expensive for someone, you are saying that person is not worth saving. Saying, "Just because," isn't an answer. It's a refusal to answer. You talk about compensation, but in the way Martin Shkreli did to justify price gouging. You say people could never repay the debt of their lives in the abstract sense, then expect them to die for it in the literal sense. But you don't ask why we consider that a debt, why are commodifying existence itself. Why is health not a right?
I don't expect them to die for it. I expect them to need assistance paying off the debt.

Health isn't a right because we can't give people health. People get sick and die, and nothing is ever going to change that. We do our best to delay that when we can, but we exist in a world of finite time and finite resources, and we're using people's finite time and finite resources to make that happen. Unless you have a pocket dimension of infinite resources you're not telling me about, we dedicate a lot of our finite resources to healthcare, which has a real opportunity cost whether or not you want to put a dollar sign next to it. You can't just shrug off the value of work or the impact of scarcity and say "people should have this as a right".
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
3,129
2,362
118
Country
USA
Health isn't a right because we can't give people health.
That is what medicine is by definition.

You can't just shrug off the value of work or the impact of scarcity and say "people should have this as a right".
When Jonas Salk created the polio vaccine, he declined to patent it after 7 years of exhaustive research and clinical trials. He wanted the information of how to create this medicine to belong to the people. After all, it was their tax dollars that funded the whole thing. What you say I can't do, has been done many times over because it's not as bad as you make it out to be.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,468
923
118
Country
USA
When Jonas Salk created the polio vaccine, he declined to patent it after 7 years of exhaustive research and clinical trials. He wanted the information of how to create this medicine to belong to the people. After all, it was their tax dollars that funded the whole thing. What you say I can't do, has been done many times over because it's not as bad as you make it out to be.
I bet you exactly nobody was ever treated for polio without cost to someone.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,468
923
118
Country
USA
You're deliberately missing the point, so I think we're done.
I don't think we are. You still haven't acknowledged that healthcare has costs. No matter how you pay for it, it has costs. And once you acknowledge that, you have to acknowledge some care costs more than others, and some care costs more than an average income could pay for. Even if you do single payer and take the burden off of the individual, it's still a cost that society is paying. You seem to think acknowledging that cost is bad.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,025
5,794
118
Country
United Kingdom
I don't think we are. You still haven't acknowledged that healthcare has costs. No matter how you pay for it, it has costs. And once you acknowledge that, you have to acknowledge some care costs more than others, and some care costs more than an average income could pay for. Even if you do single payer and take the burden off of the individual, it's still a cost that society is paying. You seem to think acknowledging that cost is bad.
The fact that there is a cost somewhere is, I would have thought, so obvious as to not need stating. Nobody believes medicines are conjured out of thin air.

But the fact that a cost exists somewhere and that resources aren't infinite doesn't lead inexorably to the conclusion that we must leave the burden to the individual. Why would it? If you spread the cost over the population, you create a system whereby survival is not based on sheer luck, and that access is not determined by personal wealth. And you can spread the cost over the population, as we do successfully here in the UK.

No "pocket dimension of infinite resources" necessary. The NHS is, in fact, more resource-effective than the US wealth-lottery clusterfuck.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,468
923
118
Country
USA
The fact that there is a cost somewhere is, I would have thought, so obvious as to not need stating. Nobody believes medicines are conjured out of thin air.

But the fact that a cost exists somewhere and that resources aren't infinite doesn't lead inexorably to the conclusion that we must leave the burden to the individual. Why would it? If you spread the cost over the population, you create a system whereby survival is not based on sheer luck, and that access is not determined by personal wealth. And you can spread the cost over the population, as we do successfully here in the UK.

No "pocket dimension of infinite resources" necessary. The NHS is, in fact, more resource-effective than the US wealth-lottery clusterfuck.
Have you followed the exchange back and forth? It seems so obvious as to not need stating, and yet it very much needed stating. I've spoken in support of relieving the burden of untenable medical debt, and am being challenged for even acknowledging the reality of the burden.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,025
5,794
118
Country
United Kingdom
Have you followed the exchange back and forth? It seems so obvious as to not need stating, and yet it very much needed stating. I've spoken in support of relieving the burden of untenable medical debt, and am being challenged for even acknowledging the reality of the burden.
You're not actually being challenged merely for acknowledging that medicine is costly to produce. That's obvious, and restating it doesn't get to the core of the disagreement. What is being challenged is the idea that debt relief and other existing mechanisms in the US system are sufficient to lessen the financial burden on the individual.

That dispute has been presented in terms of healthcare as a right (as if it's financially inaccessible, then it doesn't have the freedom of access that rights should have). Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be under the impression that for something to be a "right", it can't have a big cost attached, and that this precludes healthcare from being a right. But, of course, all rights have costs attached. Civilised societies tend to accept them anyway as the baseline for a reasonable existence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Buyetyen

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
Health isn't a right because we can't give people health.
In that case neither is life a right, because under the same logic we can't give people that, either.

* * *

Healthcare costs - at least to an extent - as much as a society chooses to make it cost. Much of that comes through the system by which we organise provision of healthcare. Socialised healthcare is, in essence, health insurance run by the state. It's the same principle. In private insurance, everyone pays, it all goes into a big pot which ends up only being used by the people who need healthcare. If healthcare costs go up, everyone's premiums do, too. And that's what happens with socialised healthcare, too.

The difference with socialised healthcare is that poor people's bills are de facto paid by rich people via taxation, whereas in private insurance, poor people just have to do without any insurance because no-one will pay it for them. The most interesting aspect about private insurance is someone having the freedom to roll the dice every year: a person might fancy the chances of saving themselves a few thousand a year on the hope they don't fall ill. Of course in socialised healthcare, that choice is removed. However, I suspect the vast proportion people in private systems who oppose socialised healthcare aren't people actually taking that risk.

I dare say the USA could attempt to take some measures to constrain medical costs even without socialised healthcare. However, the usual suspects (chiefly Republicans) would still block virtually all substantial measures for the same ideological reasons as normal: it's interference in the free market. And you can see their point. Healthcare might cost an arm and a leg, but that's a plus for the individual with shares in the healthcare industry, as the gains from shares will probably far outstrip his or her higher healthcare costs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Buyetyen

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,468
923
118
Country
USA
You're not actually being challenged merely for acknowledging that medicine is costly to produce. That's obvious, and restating it doesn't get to the core of the disagreement. What is being challenged is the idea that debt relief and other existing mechanisms in the US system are sufficient to lessen the financial burden on the individual.

That dispute has been presented in terms of healthcare as a right (as if it's financially inaccessible, then it doesn't have the freedom of access that rights should have). Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be under the impression that for something to be a "right", it can't have a big cost attached, and that this precludes healthcare from being a right. But, of course, all rights have costs attached. Civilised societies tend to accept them anyway as the baseline for a reasonable existence.
Healthcare being a right is a debate, but you might notice that wasn't what was presented by Buyetyen. The claim was that health is a right. You can conceptualize healthcare as an actionable right, that a nation may guarantee a person not be denied healthcare within certain parameters (for example, a doctor right now shouldn't be compelled to provide a healthy person with hydroxychloroquine), and whether or not charging someone for what they use violates that principle is debatable. Free speech is a right, but you can still be fired for the things you say, which is certainly a financial burden as well.

But that wasn't the question I was asked. I was asked why health isn't a right. And I'm inclined to debate people with the words they choose, not just assume they fit whatever caricature is most convenient (like some people do to me here every single thread). Hence the response "we can't give people health". A right is something the government can take responsibility for. A right to life is "the government won't kill you and will make it illegal for other citizen's to kill you." A right to liberty is "we won't enslave you, nor allow slavery to exist legally." You can have a right to healthcare, you can have a right to housing, say the government has to provide shelter to those without. You can have a right to education, have public schools with equal access. You can't have a right to health, that is beyond the ability of humans to give. We can encourage health, we can dedicate resources toward that end, but it's not a right if it isn't something you can put a hard line at the point it's being violated.
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
3,129
2,362
118
Country
USA
Healthcare being a right is a debate, but you might notice that wasn't what was presented by Buyetyen. The claim was that health is a right.
Really? That's what you were getting shitty with me over? Semantics?
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,468
923
118
Country
USA
Really? That's what you were getting shitty with me over? Semantics?
I'm not "getting shitty" with you. I'm arguing with you. There's nothing I can do that can't be taken the wrong way here. If I argue against what I think you meant instead of what you said, we're just talking past each other. If I stop to ask "do you mean healthcare?" I look like a condescending bastard. I choose to argue with what people say as best I can.
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
3,129
2,362
118
Country
USA
I'm not "getting shitty" with you. I'm arguing with you. There's nothing I can do that can't be taken the wrong way here. If I argue against what I think you meant instead of what you said, we're just talking past each other. If I stop to ask "do you mean healthcare?" I look like a condescending bastard. I choose to argue with what people say as best I can.
No, you were getting shitty with me. Get over yourself, man.
 

McElroy

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2013
4,573
371
88
Finland
The United States? I honestly don't know. And here in Finland income inequality is on a decent level now because we have a comprehensive welfare system (most bang for the buck and one of the most comprehensive in the world, I've heard) and a relatively huge public service sector but it obviously brings about its own problems. Anyway, they recently got the analysis done about the UBI trial they had. While it didn't improve the employment rate compared to the regular folk, it did reduce stress and improved their lives. So on this account it should be implemented if it can be done cost-neutrally.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,025
5,794
118
Country
United Kingdom
Healthcare being a right is a debate, but you might notice that wasn't what was presented by Buyetyen. The claim was that health is a right. You can conceptualize healthcare as an actionable right, that a nation may guarantee a person not be denied healthcare within certain parameters (for example, a doctor right now shouldn't be compelled to provide a healthy person with hydroxychloroquine), and whether or not charging someone for what they use violates that principle is debatable. Free speech is a right, but you can still be fired for the things you say, which is certainly a financial burden as well.
If the charge is so large as to be ruinous, and people must decide between their health and bankruptcy, then it can't be considered reasonably accessible. If we accept it's a right, then it has to be within reasonable means.

But that wasn't the question I was asked. I was asked why health isn't a right. And I'm inclined to debate people with the words they choose, not just assume they fit whatever caricature is most convenient (like some people do to me here every single thread). Hence the response "we can't give people health". A right is something the government can take responsibility for. A right to life is "the government won't kill you and will make it illegal for other citizen's to kill you." A right to liberty is "we won't enslave you, nor allow slavery to exist legally." You can have a right to healthcare, you can have a right to housing, say the government has to provide shelter to those without. You can have a right to education, have public schools with equal access. You can't have a right to health, that is beyond the ability of humans to give. We can encourage health, we can dedicate resources toward that end, but it's not a right if it isn't something you can put a hard line at the point it's being violated.
At a certain point, access to healthcare becomes interchangeable with the term "health" as we're discussing it. And the government can ensure access to healthcare (including via third parties like private companies).

Just like when you're discussing the right to life, above: you talk about how "the government won't kill you and will make it illegal for other citizens to kill you". Now, strictly, that's not giving life; that's protection from death. But within the context of this discussion we can recognise that the terms are interchangeable. The same with health: we're talking about protection from ill-health (in the form of healthcare) when we say "the right to health".

Can't give life; can't give health. Can protect from death; can protect from ill health.
 

MrCalavera

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2020
906
980
98
Country
Poland
Pestilence, plague, war, and famine.
Ah, but i wager, as a declared christian, you know those won't be solved until End Times.

More seriously: You could solve atleast one of these, by tackling income inequality, or just inequality in it's other facets.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,684
2,879
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
The United States? I honestly don't know. And here in Finland income inequality is on a decent level now because we have a comprehensive welfare system (most bang for the buck and one of the most comprehensive in the world, I've heard) and a relatively huge public service sector but it obviously brings about its own problems. Anyway, they recently got the analysis done about the UBI trial they had. While it didn't improve the employment rate compared to the regular folk, it did reduce stress and improved their lives. So on this account it should be implemented if it can be done cost-neutrally.
Sorry, 'didn't improve the employment rate'... what doee that mean?
Is a goal of UBI to lead to more employment?
 

McElroy

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2013
4,573
371
88
Finland
Sorry, 'didn't improve the employment rate'... what doee that mean?
Is a goal of UBI to lead to more employment?
It was one of the studied metrics and part of its economical aspect. Keep in mind that an unemployed person here already gets extensive welfare services, some of which are of course tied to whether or not they work. With UBI the person can accept any job for any amount of time without benefits getting taken away. So yes, in a country where the alternative already doesn't leave the person without basic necessities, people mostly want UBI to increase the flexibility of the workforce. For now it looks like that doesn't happen, but that it's a relief to not be required to apply for welfare all the time.