Health Care for Everyone

[milefile]

Originally posted by westside
First of all, I don't think "health care is a necessity" is a fact, as you stated. I think that's an opinion.

Fine. I disagree.

Second, why would you have no response if someone said health care is not a necessity? You would not discuss it any further? You would not explain why you believe it is? You would not, for example, discuss the definition of health care, or necessity, or anything else to see why you disagree?

Read the last paragraph of my last post. Do you need more than that? It's a moral issue.

But more importantly, I'm trying to understand your definition of necessity. It seems like a universal principle to me, from your perspective.

Very good. That's all I've been saying all along. If you read at the link I posted above, after the post the link points to, there are several more posts that outline this so I won't do it here.

You make the argument that we have a "minimal obligation to preserve life." So then why were you earlier arguing that we should not require parents to put seatbelts on their kids?

That was sarcasm, playing devil's advocate, and before I took this discussion seriously. I have actually called the police from my cell phone because I saw a man driving like a maniac with a toddler standing in the front seat. Preserving and protecting are not the same thing, although there may be some overlap.

A basic obligation to preserve life means everyone has a right to health care. So I think you're arguing for universal health care. Are you arguing for the sake of compassion? Just pure necessity? And can you offer a real example of how this works--because who pays for the doctor, nurses, drugs, and other hospital expenses? Can you give some concrete examples of how your philosophy here works?

People who care about such things pay. Like animal shelters. People who care pay. Like any other non-profit organization, contributions pay. People who feel the need to help pay. People who are unhappy knowing they are not helping help. They need to help. To you that may seem unimportant. But to those who do it it is all-important. And there are enough of them to get it done.

Once again, government shouldn't do it because they'd screw it up anyway. The less government does the better.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by neon_duke
Ask a Christian Scientist what they think.

I dated one.

 

[Danoff]

So I want to get straight what Milefile thinks here.

You think that charitable organizations and insurance companies can take care of health care and that the government should stay out of it - That’s fantastic I couldn’t agree more. I understand the purpose of insurance companies, and why people decide to deal with them. I also love the fact that we have charities. It’s a prime example of people not needing government to force them to do good - and I love that about people.

The problem with all of that is as follows. If you don’t think the government should get involved - you have to admit that health care is not a necessity (read entitlement, right, obligation of the government). Because if you think it is a fundamental right that we all have as citizens... you must rely on the government to provide that. That is, after all the only institution that we have to protect our rights (and the purpose of that institution).

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by milefile
I dated one.

Did you ask her what she thought?

Will you answer - 'why do you believe health care is a necessity?'

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by danoff

The problem with all of that is as follows. If you don’t think the government should get involved - you have to admit that health care is not a necessity (read entitlement, right, obligation of the government). Because if you think it is a fundamental right that we all have as citizens... you must rely on the government to provide that. That is, after all the only institution that we have to protect our rights (and the purpose of that institution).

I don' t know if I would equate necessity and rights. I also don't think the government should provide anything besides security, a place for people to live free. To many sundry manifestations to list but a few would be, protection from invasion, natural disaster, crime, etc.

Freedom is not given by the government. It is allowed.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by M5Power
Did you ask her what she thought?

Will you answer - 'why do you believe health care is a necessity?'

I remember her going to a doctor at least a couple times.

 

[milefile]

I just remembered an example of necessity being very ironic, hence contradictory. You probably remember that guy who cut off his own arm while hiking in Colorado. His arm was trapped under a rock and after days of languishing he realized to survive he had to sacrifice a limb. He needed his arm. We all need our arms. That's why we're born with them. But being born at all... the life that lived through that arm ened up being more necessary. The moment that happened the arm became unnecessary, a detriment to life. So off it went. Do you see how the status of things in relation to eachother can change fundementally?

 

[1X83Z]

He was hiking in Utah, God damn it!

 

[Danoff]

the life that lived through that arm ened up being more necessary… Do you see how the status of things in relation to eachother can change fundementally?

In this example I see only that necessity for the man was to stay alive. He wanted other things, but eventually had to give them up for necessity.

Hell I’m not sure even his life was necessary.

What you’re talking about here are degrees of desire. Not really necessity. What is really necessary in the philosophical metaphysical sense? Nothing.

The man first desired that he should come out of his predicament in one piece. Then he just desired that he should come out of his predicament. The key motivator was his priorities of desire.

I think we’re getting caught up in semantics here. Desire, necessity, want…. Whatever. The point is, I don’t understand what you’re saying.

How does this mean that there are no principles in life (Eg: Justice)?

 

[westside]

I just remembered an example of necessity being very ironic, hence contradictory

I don't see anything contradictory or ironic in your example. The hiker didn't want to die, so he did what he had to. I don't know what you're trying to argue. Are you arguing that "necessity" means "do what you have to so you don't die"? How does this relate back to universal health care? What does this mean about charity? I'm not following...

 

[Cobraking]

Welcome TO GTPlanet westside

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by danoff
In this example I see only that necessity for the man was to stay alive. He wanted other things, but eventually had to give them up for necessity.

Hell I’m not sure even his life was necessary.

You don't need to be. You already know it was to him and beyond that it doesn't matter.

What you’re talking about here are degrees of desire. Not really necessity. What is really necessary in the philosophical metaphysical sense? Nothing.

This is an area where we have disagreed from the start. There is no such thing as "metaphysical." Its not demonstrable and totally untenable. So in the "physical" sense, the only sense there is, it is a decisive moment for his life, when he had no choice but to abondon something that was once necessary in favor of something that suddenly and violently showed itself as the only necessity.

It is about desire insofar as he want's to live. This is merely a natural condition of life, that it desires to continue living. It does what is necessary to ensure this, until it is impossible and the necessity of death overpowers the organism. Humans ahve many complicated and creative ways of carrying this out, but it is the same purpose as a bug. Stay alive.

When death takes over this is all irrelevant.

The man first desired that he should come out of his predicament in one piece. Then he just desired that he should come out of his predicament. The key motivator was his priorities of desire.

You say desire like it is not important. Is not the desire to live necessary in a primal sense? Again, living things need to live. That is simple.

I think we’re getting caught up in semantics here. Desire, necessity, want…. Whatever. The point is, I don’t understand what you’re saying.

How does this mean that there are no principles in life (Eg: Justice)?

I never suggested there are no principles. I stated unequically there are no permanent, universal principles. One might say it is a permanenet universal principle to not dismember yourself.

All principles have an "Unless..." or "Until..." as this situation demonstrates. Any person, or population, who would cling to principles, insisting on their permanence and universality, at their own peril... well, the ages have interpreted this in many ways.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by westside
I don't see anything contradictory or ironic in your example. The hiker didn't want to die, so he did what he had to. I don't know what you're trying to argue. Are you arguing that "necessity" means "do what you have to so you don't die"? How does this relate back to universal health care? What does this mean about charity? I'm not following...

You and danoff and neon duke are all challging me in the same way. I can't respond to all of you especially when you are echoing the same questions. Read the previous post.

 

[Danoff]

You don't need to be. You already know it was to him and beyond that it doesn't matter.

Here you assume that he was not willing to die in order to ensure that his arm stayed intact. Perhaps he was religious and part of his religion stated that if your arm is severed, you do not go to heaven. He would then be willing to die rather than save his arm. This instance refutes your following statement

Again, living things need to live. That is simple.

People decide they are willing to die for some purpose that they perceive is larger than life.

All principles have an "Unless..." or "Until..." as this situation demonstrates

How about:

You should not kill a person who has done you no great harm and who you do not have probable cause to think will do you great harm.

Or

Human beings should have the right to free speech.

Or what about

A person should not own another human being as property.


These principles are not eternal? They might possibly change in the future? How does this argument have anything to do with the guy cutting his arm off?

 

[westside]

I did read your previous post. It explains nothing about health care or charity, and it does not explain why you think there are no universal principles, or why tossing around the word "necessity" is supposed to explain everything.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by westside
I did read your previous post. It explains nothing about health care or charity, and it does not explain why you think there are no universal principles, or why tossing around the word "necessity" is supposed to explain everything.

Sorry westside, but I prefer responding to danoff because he asks questions. I don't have time to respond to your vague requests for elaboration.

 

[westside]

Let me refer you then to my previous post:

Are you arguing that "necessity" means "do what you have to so you don't die"? How does this relate back to universal health care? What does this mean about charity?

So I did ask questions. Your response was:

Read the previous post.

So then I responded by saying I did read that post and it didn't answer my questions.

Is this too vague for you? I thought you prefered abstract, vague ideas over specifics. For example, you said earlier:

Ugh. I am not arguing particulars...I am emphasizing existential or moral aspects to perspectives

Arguing "perspectives" intead of "particulars" requires some elaboration.

 

[milefile]

Here you assume that he was not willing to die in order to ensure that his arm stayed intact. Perhaps he was religious and part of his religion stated that if your arm is severed, you do not go to heaven. He would then be willing to die rather than save his arm. This instance refutes your following statement…

No it doesn’t. It would only prove he had a different definition of Life. As we know, for some the body is merely a vessel for the soul, which lives on eternally, and this eternity is more important than the temporal existence. Which is the same as what you said:

People decide they are willing to die for some purpose that they perceive is larger than life.

How about :

You should not kill a person who has done you no great harm and who you do not have probable cause to think will do you great harm.

No problems there. But had you said, “You should never kill, period,” it would be another matter altogether. That statement is only a reversal of the logic, and logic, which is mathematical (note I did not say “computational”) works in reverse, i.e. 2+5=7 but 5+2 also =7.

But logic, although useful, is very limited to begin with.

Human beings should have the right to free speech.
A person should not own another human being as property.

These principles are not eternal? They might possibly change in the future? How does this argument have anything to do with the guy cutting his arm off?

Both instances you’ve listed are symptoms of freedom, which is not a thing that can be given or taken. It can only be allowed or suppressed. Every living thing is born free. Humans are the only ones that have any problem with it. So I hope they don’t change in the future, but they could. The pendulum of freedom had swung back and forth for thousands of years. And if it were to change it would only be an example of suppression, of the application of power by some person or entity that saw a benefit in it and had the power to make it so. It happens today. But freedom is always right there, totally available to those who can receive it. So I guess freedom can be seen as a universal principle. But it is also known by other names; it limits nothing and may not always make us feel good.

The hiker was free and this brutal condition was thrust upon him. His question was both “free from what” and “free for what”, the latter taking precedence: Free to live or die. The rock was merely circumstantial; it could’ve been a car, an elephant, whatever.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by westside
I don't see anything contradictory or ironic in your example. The hiker didn't want to die, so he did what he had to. I don't know what you're trying to argue. Are you arguing that "necessity" means "do what you have to so you don't die"? How does this relate back to universal health care? What does this mean about charity? I'm not following...

Westside it seems like you've jumped on the bandwagon here. And I've been having the same argument with danoff for weeks. Suddenly having to answer to you too is pretty annoying especially since you're not asking me anything that someone else hasn't already asked me.

I'll make it quick.

Are you arguing that "necessity" means "do what you have to so you don't die"?

Yes. And not only that.

How does this relate back to universal health care? What does this mean about charity?

It means that people will do what needs to be done so live can live, even for others.

 

[westside]

If I'm asking the same questions others have asked, maybe it means you haven't fully answered them.

Yes. And not only that.

What else does it mean? Feel free to make it quick. Does it mean do what you have to do to find love? To protect your freedom? To give to charity so cancer victims might live? If so, this definition is getting really broad, and, I might argue, vague.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by westside
If I'm asking the same questions others have asked, maybe it means you haven't fully answered them.



What else does it mean? Feel free to make it quick. Does it mean do what you have to do to find love? To protect your freedom? To give to charity so cancer victims might live? If so, this definition is getting really broad, and, I might argue, vague.

It's up to individuals. People do what they have to do. I can't define necessity in its sundry manifestations. But I have described it in detail in several examples. In each the manifestations are different. Your asking me questions like you expect me to answer them with universal principles, whcih, as you know, I deny the existence of.

 

[westside]

Okay, so necessity is the only universal principle. There are other principles, but they come and go and change with time. Necessity manifests itself in many different ways, and means different things to different individuals. But it is the driving force behind all of their decisions, whether it's cutting off an arm, giving to charity, buckling up, or paying for insurance.

Is that a good summary of your perspective?

 

[milefile]

Pretty much.

 

[westside]

Okay, so "necessity" kind of means "motive"...right? if it's what drives decisions, and is different for different people...it's maybe a combination of a person's motives and priorities?

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by westside
Okay, so "necessity" kind of means "motive"...right? if it's what drives decisions, and is different for different people...it's maybe a combination of a person's motives and priorities?

Motive is reason. Necessity precedes reason. Reason attempts to organize (justify) necessity.

 

[milefile]

But priorities are somewhat different. They point to value, which is based on necessity. But priorities are no more related to motives than either are to necessity.

Please keep in mind that I am describing what is, and not what I think should be.

 

[westside]

Okay, necessity comes before reason--if there is some need, like staying alive, then that need causes a person to begin using logic or reason to figure out what to do. First there's a need, that need is recognized by an individual, and then they use their reasoning to figure out what to do, or as you said, organize and justify the necessity. That makes sense. That's actually what I meant by motive--the underlying cause, the driving force, the ultimate goal, whether it's staying alive or helping someone else stay alive.

I'm still not sure what your philosophy is, though. It's fine to give a name to what drives us. There are lots of things that drive us (as you said, different things for differnet individuals): defending freedom, protecing your health, etc, etc, we've named a lot of them. But giving one big name (necessity) to all of those things, lumping them together as what causes us to reason and act, doesn't seem to accomplish much. It just says, whatever motivated a person to act, that was necessity. The term becomes so broad it's almost meaningless.

 

[westside]

Priority and motives aren't based on necessity? I think your definition of necessity is the need/problem/goal behind someone's reasoning and eventual action. Let's say the need is helping someone else pay for cancer treatment. So the necessity here is helping someone else live--doesn't that mean you've made helping someone a priority? Doesn't it mean you've decided your money is best spent paying for their treatment, so that's your priority? I don't see how necessity as you've defined it could be unrelated to someone's set of priorities. Priorities are definitely based on value, as you said, but it seems to me that so is your definitoin of necessity.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by westside
It's fine to give a name to what drives us. There are lots of things that drive us (as you said, different things for differnet individuals): defending freedom, protecing your health, etc, etc, we've named a lot of them. But giving one big name (necessity) to all of those things, lumping them together as what causes us to reason and act, doesn't seem to accomplish much. It just says, whatever motivated a person to act, that was necessity. The term becomes so broad it's almost meaningless.

Almost. But it contains the potential for every reason. For that reason it is the place to start. It's the only way to trace decisions to their source and understand. It is called geneological thinking. The important thing is that it (necessity) precedes every known justification or reason for anything. It demonstrates that Life, which either is, or precedes, necessity, is the reason. Life only wants to live. Consciousness abstracts this and makes it complicated, so we have science, and religion, and philosophy. And more. Philosophy's aim is Truth (not correctness). However, truth is disappointing for many who expect it to be something particular, a thing, or something always the same.

Here are two true statements:

1. 2+2=4
2. I am.

One is mathematical, the other is existential. One is correct. One is true. And one will not be true someday. But the other always will be. The synthetic, man made construct will always be true, and this is why it is correctness, it does not occurr of it's own accord; "4" is meaningless without the idea. If there are four trees on a hill... this is nothing until there is a person to count them. "I am" there. Before that what happened didn't matter and freedom didn't matter, but life still happened.

 

[westside]

Okay, maybe I spotted your argument. "Life...is the reason." So prolonging life is the motive behind all actions. Even if we make it complicated, with our consciouness and abstract thinking, our philosophy and our manmade constructs of math, the ultimate origin of all action is the need to stay alive.

Is that your perspective?

If it is, I'm going to have to write back and argue with some of it.