|
No Money, No Care Policy: morally permissible?
Link |
by
on 2010-07-22 04:22:04 (edited 2010-07-28 11:11:18)
|
|
hi everyone. im currently writing an essay about the good and bad points of the resolve "no money, no care policy: morally permissible?" (in the no money no care policy, health care is non existent to those who cant afford the treatment or to patients who are below poverty line) can u please share ur insight on this? pls state whether u affirm or oppose to this. thank you! :) i really appreciate it. 
 |
|
Re: No Money, No Care Policy: morally permissible?
|
| I don't think at all it's morally permissible. Everyone has a right to medical care, it might not be the best in the world, but some sort of treatment; that's even on the Declaration of Human Rights of the UN, article XXV, 1. It's frankly impossible to imagine that sort of policy today as decision by a gov't. |
|
Re: No Money, No Care Policy: morally permissible?
Link |
by
on 2010-07-28 06:22:19 |
|
Every person has the right to any care especially concerning health. I think the Government also provides budget for this certain case. Of course, when we speak of the poor, they really can't and will not afford care as compared to the rich. Though they can have medical care, if the government will provide discounts, lower the price of medicines and the like. What I'm saying is that in this case, the government has a part in helping citizens, so not caring for them even a little is against the law. Especially with a democratic one XD In totality, I go with Samsonov XD  |
|
Re: No Money, No Care Policy: morally permissible?
Link |
by
on 2010-07-28 11:13:37 (edited 2010-07-28 11:30:26)
|
|
I see 2 issues here: 1. A "Right" is a thing that you can't take away from a person. It's something a person possesses by virtue of being. Medical care is a service. A person has no "Right" to expect other people to serve their needs. Food is as critical to life as medical care, but we don't have a right to a free lunch! 2. Morality is something we decide and, hopefully, can agree upon. If you're a doctor, and you have the ability to help someone, you have a moral obligation to do so. Of course, if you only have time/energy/resources to help 1 person, and 2 people need your help, you have to chose. Since you have to take care of yourself to continue to help people, a doctor needs to get paid. Within this restriction, it takes only a little imagination to come up with a workable system. @samsonov: You cited Article 25, Bullet 1: Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. This UN article is a wish list, not a reflection on reality. What if I claimed everyone had the right to eat food? How do you actually measure that? Or make it happen? Similar with health care, food is a relative concept. Everyone has access to a band aid, but some people have access to MRI machines. Health care is relative to the quality, which varies in proportion to the expense! Saying health care is a right ignores the reality that it is as empty a proclamation as saying everyone has the right to eat food. I mean, say you're hungry. What are you going to do, yell at the guy next to you eating a Subway sandwich, "hey, I'm hungry, and it's my right to eat food, so gimme your sandwich!" No, that's retarded. That's not what a "right" is. Article 2 is a good example of an actual right. 
|
|
Re: No Money, No Care Policy: morally permissible?
Link |
by SomeFatMan
on 2010-07-28 17:07:08
|
|
My post from earlier today seems to have disappeared so I will repost it. It falls in line with what Gendou said, though I had posted it earlier than him. I think such a policy make sense. Healthcare is a commodity. NO one has a right to medical care, just as no one has a right to any other commodity (computers, televisions, cars, etc). There is a limit to the number of doctors and surgeons and tools. Limitations in supply mean that economics, and not morals, are needed to exaime the situation. The point were the supply curve meets the demand curve is the price at which a commodity is sold. If you can not afford the commodity then you are not able to purchase the commodity. Over time the price of production comes down through breakthroughs in science or an increased pool of doctors, and so too does the price drop. Economics has and always will be the study of unlimited wants and limited resources. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are limitless. They exist in a vacuum, devoid of societies and other people. Commodities represent the fruits of society, they do not exist without others to provide them. Some will try to wrap healthcare into "life" but healthcare does not grant life, it may prolong it but it is just delaying death. Eveyone dies, but since time immemorial people have lived and done so without healthcare in the modern sense. Now none of this is to say that you CAN NOT get treatment if your poor. Most hospitals have emergency rooms where anyone who is in a medical emergency will be treated. They have, in their budgets, set aside funds to cover such procedures/treatments. Also many hospitals operate free clinics where anyone can be treated for free. Charity, in the form of free enterprise, is always better than government intervention. And charity does not oppose anything I stated above. The procedures are still commodities, they are still paid for. If you mean a that such a No Money, No Care policy would be opposed to charity work, then I would be against it. But I am reading your question in the context of the recent/current debate in America over Government Healthcare. |
|
Re: No Money, No Care Policy: morally permissible?
|
|
Right isn't something you can't take away from a person. If it's something you can't take away, it'd make it an absolute right, and that doesn't exist. In many occasions that can be taken away, regardless of the justice of it. Life, for instance, isn't there death penalties or justifiable homicide causes everywhere in the world, being life the essence of a being? In the case of health care it's about securing the very minimum to everybody, it might include MRI, it might not. It's to make sure to every citizen that you can expect some sort of treatment. In the case of food, it's about securing the minimum for that person to live, subway sure isn't something basic for a person, but 1 kg of rice is, and that what is protected by food security laws. If believing that health care isn't a right to every person, but it is a commodity, there are some quite important issues to think. It all started basically in germany, with the profound changes brought by industrial revolution, when the gov't realized it had to do changes to avoid social unrest. And let's remember that germany at that time, a bit after its unification, wasn't much of a democracy. Keeping that in mind, that's very same reason countries with large numbers of impoverished citizens provide health care to some degree to them. would charity work alone provide health care for let's say 400 million in Latin America [100 million alone in my country], or 60 million on the Philippines? I don't think so. A case that's quite similar to health care is education. it's on the declaration of the UN, article XXVI. And you can also say it's a commodity, everyone of us, whether it was a public or a private institution, had seen the costs of it. But nevertheless the State provide many years of education, the compulsory education. Even in the US, a believe the State provides basic education to their citizens, though "since time immemorial people have lived and done so without" education. But now, what have all the investment on education, public education had done to the US, Korea, China, Taiwan and so many others. If education is that important for a State, why not health care? |
|
Re: No Money, No Care Policy: morally permissible?
Link |
by SomeFatMan
on 2010-07-29 13:25:27 (edited 2010-07-29 14:10:10)
|
|
Actually, id be in favor of a fully private school system - one with merit pay and no unions. The real reason that schools are important to a state is because an educated voter is far more useful than an uneducated one, hence the reason not everyone was enfranchised in America when the country was founded. The difference between educated and uneducated is a drastic difference that would effect everyone. The lack of healthcare (and lets be honest healthcare really means insurance) would only effect a small number of people who have chronic issues. Normal medical care could be found, and emergencies would be treated. Can the government provide anything to 400 million people? Efficently? Even if charity cant, the government would have no more chance. To quote Gendou: "Of course, if you only have time/energy/resources to help 1 person, and 2 people need your help, you have to chose." The healthcare system becomes a waiting list. You still need to determine how to distribute limited resources amongst unlimited wants. To assume that government can provide healthcare to all of the poor is to assume that the current resources are not being untilized to their fullest extent. Such an assumption is horribly flawed since no one would waste their wealth by not preforming procedures when they could. Doing nothing with a doctor/MRI/etc is more wasteful then selling the services even if they are not covering all the costs. This is because firms are willing to operate so that they cover their variable costs (tests, wages, etc) while not effecting their fixed costs (the purchase of the equipment etc) |
|
Re: No Money, No Care Policy: morally permissible?
Link |
by angel_of_stone
on 2010-07-30 02:27:26
|
|
It is absolutely morally permissible. As has been mentioned, everything has a cost at some point in the game. The patient either has to pay directly for the care, or indirectly through taxation. Either way you will have to pay. To not contribute to the system currently in place and still reap its benefits is morally wrong. In my opinion, about the only thing that everyone has an irrevocable right to is air. Everything else has to be earned through some form of work. Food and water must be gathered (or purchased), clothing and shelter must be constructed (or purchased), medical supplies must be made (or more likely purchased)... Education is not free either, taxes pay for it. Seriously, everything in life (including life itself) needs to be earned through effort. To say something is morally permissible is simply saying that it is not wrong. By refusing service due to lack of funds is not wrong, and one should not be shamed in doing so. To directly kill the person with a knife is wrong. There is a difference. Besides, this is just another proof that life must be earned. The one who needs the service could always ask for a loan, take a second job, or rob a bank. All of which take effort and will have the earned benefit of being able to afford the service.
"But as Deepak Chopra taught us, quantum physics means that anything can happen at anytime and for no reason." -Prof. Hubert J. Farnsworth
"I don't have any opinions anymore. All I know is that no one is better than anyone else, and everyone is the best at everything." -Seymour Skinner "...if I got trapped by an evil wizard then I did enough cool s**t in my life to be content with it ending. " -Wolf |
|
Re: No Money, No Care Policy: morally permissible?
Link |
by
on 2010-07-31 06:58:11 |
|
I don't find the idea of denying someone health care because they don't have the money "morally permissible." The idea that there are only 3 basic human needs functions in a static sense. To maintain yourself you need food, water and shelter. But, once you start interacting with your environment (dynamic) you have to tag on too more needs: education and health care. If you get off your rock and a guy comes by and lops your arm off, you need health care or you will die. Would it be "morally permissible" to let someone die because they can't pay for health care?
Asobi ni Iku yo! is my K-ON.
|
|
Re: No Money, No Care Policy: morally permissible?
|
|
It may seem harsh, but health care is one of the things in life that cannot--and should not--be provided for by the government. One reason for this is that under such a system, the impoverished people who ordinarily would not afford health care suddenly get all the benifits of it, without having to pay for it. But, where does the money come from?? It comes from the people who can actually afford it, but once they decide "hey, we want free health care too", the whole system collapses when no one pays for health care anymore. Secondly, most human beings are capable of--and have hte ability ingrained into their DNA--acheiving goals in life, for example getting a job so they can afford health care. So if it (achievment) is ingrained in our very genes, wouldnt it be wrong for us to deny our mosr basic instinct? |
|
Re: No Money, No Care Policy: morally permissible?
Link |
by SomeFatMan
on 2010-07-31 17:26:34
|
|
"Would it be "morally permissible" to let someone die because they can't pay for health care?" Your question adds nothing to this discussion because you have simply rephrased the topic. But to directly answer you: Yes it is. If you are a doctor, then no - hippocratic oath and all, but the average person, yes. As I pointed out earlier, When they say healthcare they mean health insurance. Insurance is an after the fact measure. A hospital will, I repeat WILL, treat a dying person. Insurance is for non-emergancy medical problems though it will also cover emergancy procedures. Your dynamic environment explains no reason why two more rights are added to the list. Why does the environment require an education? Did humans before the late 1800's not interact with the environment? Why does the enviroment require healthcare? Your "guy [who] comes by" is the dynamic portion of the equation. And who provides the healthcare to your person with a lopped off arm? Should this medical worker die from earning no money? Or, where should the money that does pay this worker come from? Money does not grow on trees as I am sure you have heard. You may reply the rich, but why is the person with the lopped off arm entitled to the rich person's money? It is illegal to steal a man's wallet, so too should it be illegal to steal his wages. |
|
Re: No Money, No Care Policy: morally permissible?
Link |
by
on 2010-07-31 18:22:06 |
|
I think it adds a lot to this discussion. The original scenario presented by the Vis was the idea of a health cares system that does not treat the patient unless the patient has the money to pay for the treatment. This has nothing to do with the way the current health care system is setup, government intervention, money, or insurance. So, I asked the question, "Would it be 'morally permissible' to let someone die because they can't pay for health care?" As far as I know, according to current human morals it's not OK to let someone die because they can not afford medical attention. As you said, SomeFatMan, "A hospital will, I repeat WILL, treat a dying person." I'm not talking about human rights, I'm talking about human needs. If you drop a baby into the woods it's eventually going to run out of the food and water stored in it's body. If it doesn't know how to get food or water (education) or has anyone to provide for them (health care), the baby will die.
Asobi ni Iku yo! is my K-ON.
|
|
Re: No Money, No Care Policy: morally permissible?
Link |
by angel_of_stone
on 2010-07-31 23:57:27 (edited 2010-08-01 00:00:41)
|
|
Ok, I'll simplify it all for you guys: "Is is morally PERMISSIBLE to passively allow someone to die?" First off, definitions. Morally Right - An act that is morally right is an act (usually a selfless one) that will incur praise and benefits one or more parties. i.e. Diving into a pool of sharks to save a child. Morally Permissible - An act that is morally permissible is an act (can be selfish) that does not necessarily incur any blame. i.e. Not diving into a pool of sharks to save a child (even though you can swim well) because you don't want to put yourself in danger. Morally Wrong - An act that is morally wrong is an act that will incur blame and will be an active detriment to one or more parties. i.e. Pushing a child into a pool of sharks. Now then into the main discussion. Should someone be blamed for passively killing someone? Where passively killing someone simply involves neglecting to treat them. Lets make a hypothetical situation: You are walking home after having just bought a first aid kit when a guy runs by holding a pair of scissors, trips, and stabs himself in the lung. If his wound is untreated he will die. Now then, you are standing there holding a first aid kit so you have the tools to treat him. The Morally Right thing to do would be to go over and use your first aid kit to treat him (actively saving him). He would probably thank you. However, it would also be Morally Permissible to say "Sorry, I bought this first aid kit for myself just in case I ever stab myself with scissors." and then walk away (passively killing him). He could respond with "I'll buy your first aid kit off you." or he could just curse at you and eventually die. Now then, imagine the same situation but you didn't have the first aid kit and neither you or he had any money to buy one. In this situation the man will die regardless of what you do. However, you have still observed the event and in doing so are a part of it. Are you to blame for being unable to help him, whether you want to or not? No, you are not. There are simply 2 morally permissible acts and no morally right act. You could permissibly walk away, or permissibly keep him company until his death. For the sake of comparison, the Morally Wrong act in the above situations would be to walk over and stab the guy to death with his scissors for no other reason than to stab him to death (actively killing him). The point of this discussion is that the "No money, no care" policy IS morally permissible. It isn't a system that should be praised, but the people who put it in place also shouldn't be blamed for the passive deaths of people who can't afford the care. In D&D terminology, it is a True Neutral system.
"But as Deepak Chopra taught us, quantum physics means that anything can happen at anytime and for no reason." -Prof. Hubert J. Farnsworth
"I don't have any opinions anymore. All I know is that no one is better than anyone else, and everyone is the best at everything." -Seymour Skinner "...if I got trapped by an evil wizard then I did enough cool s**t in my life to be content with it ending. " -Wolf |
|
Re: No Money, No Care Policy: morally permissible?
Link |
by SomeFatMan
on 2010-08-01 05:49:24
|
|
"As you said, SomeFatMan, "A hospital will, I repeat WILL, treat a dying person."" You take my statement and use it to apply to more people than I do. As I earlier had said "Yes it is [okay to let someone die]. If you are a doctor, then no - hippocratic oath and all, but the average person, yes." A doctor takes an oath that compels them to actions above and beyond the average person. A hospital, a place where one finds doctors, would give treatment because of that oath. It becomes wrong for them to refuse treatment because they would break their oath not because the lack of treatment is morally wrong. But everyone else, the people who would be expected to fund a "No Money, Free Care Policy", are not held to the same standard. It would be wrong to kill the person but it is not wrong to not help the person. "If you drop a baby into the woods it's eventually going to run out of the food and water stored in it's body. If it doesn't know how to get food or water (education) or has anyone to provide for them (health care), the baby will die." But no one would ever expect a baby to provide for itself. The people who are wihout healthcare in this discussion are the poor - people we expect to provide for themselves and for whatever reason cannot. They have an active hand in their own predicament. It is morally right to hold them responsible for their lives. No one who believes it is not morally permissible has addressed how it is permissible to take money from one person and give it to another. That is stealing. Is it okay to mug someone so you can pay for your doctors visit? Healthcare is a commodity, it is analogus to money. There will always be haves and have nots. |
|
Re: No Money, No Care Policy: morally permissible?
Link |
by
on 2010-08-01 06:54:53 |
|
@SomeFatMan You keep bringing your political opinions into this discussion. There are only two parities in this argument: those who provide health care and those who need it. Like I said this has nothing to do with money, insurance, economy or government. The question is, "Is it morally permissible for those who provide health care to deny treatment to those who need it because they can not afford it." The question is not, "Is it morally permissible to use other people's money to pay for health care." What if in a "No Money, No care" system, the health care industry for whatever reason decided it was in their best interest to raise the price of health care so high that only the rich upper class could afford to pay for it? Only 10% of the total population. What if we abolished money? What do you suppose we do then? @Stoney I concede.
Asobi ni Iku yo! is my K-ON.
|
|
Re: No Money, No Care Policy: morally permissible?
Link |
by SomeFatMan
on 2010-08-01 14:24:46
|
|
"What if in a "No Money, No care" system, the health care industry for whatever reason decided it was in their best interest to raise the price of health care so high that only the rich upper class could afford to pay for it? Only 10% of the total population." Then only the rich would have healthcare. I am not sure what the point here is? Is it to make me feel bad because I would then not have healthcare? My point stands, those that can afford an item can buy it, those who cannot don't. I don't think the way I do because I am not the one negativly impacted. I would live to a point and then die. If I could afford a way to increase my lifespan beyond natural amounts I would buy it, if I could not I would die. "What if we abolished money? What do you suppose we do then?" Seeing as abolishing money would end society as we know it, healthcare would be the least of our worries. But, assuming we reached the current level of science and technology using a barter system (which we could not) then we would be giving 600 cows and 500 pigs for our medical treatments. A medical provider would still need a way to subside from his/her profession. In the end the question does boil down to "Is it morally permissible to use other people's money to pay for health care." Medical providers would stop providing care if they could not live preforming their profession. A system where providers are morally obligated to provide care free of charge with no payment from anyone they would not beable to survive. If were are talking about someone paying for the poor, I ask who? If we are not talking about payment, I ask how? |
|
Re: No Money, No Care Policy: morally permissible?
Link |
by
on 2010-08-05 13:07:06 |
|
You're still bringing in personal opinion. It is possible to have a society without money (see gift economy). It is possible to use a barter system. And it is possible for doctors to survive. With the risk of veering off from the subject too much, I'm going to say Stoney is correct and leave it at that. Sorry for the belated reply.
Asobi ni Iku yo! is my K-ON.
|
|
Re: No Money, No Care Policy: morally permissible?
Link |
by
on 2010-08-05 14:48:59 |
|
agreed.
|