Sunday, June 04, 2006

Why Socialized Medicine Is Bad

Part One of Two:

Whenever people discuss a problem and a solution, the entire exercise should be looked at from two positions, moral and correct.

First and foremost, the discussion presupposes that if a moral and ethical solution is sought, one side will be a moral one and the other side will not as there are gray areas in all of life except in morals and ethics since they are rule based by definition.

The correctness of an outcome may be debatable as to its being “the” right or wrong solution, if we are only looking at the result to judge the actions. This is KEY!

Let me begin by explaining the difference between three words; Correct, Moral, and Ethical as it applies to the word “outcome.” The understanding of the difference is about the old saying that "The end does not justify the means."

Correct outcome could be viewed as “the outcome was an or the desirable one, irrespective of the actions used being moral or not.”

Moral outcome could be viewed as “the outcome was based upon whether the actions used followed rules based upon an accepted set of guidelines that followed the concept of conscience as typified by what is known as The Golden Rule.”

Ethical outcome could be view as “the outcome was based upon whether the actions used followed rules based upon a professions' set of guidelines or a cultures' set of guidelines, irrespective of the actions used being moral or not.”

Let me give an example of an Ethical action, that is not a Moral one:


A group of Cannibals eat a visitor from America. Was this Ethical? Yes, because it followed rules of the Culture. Was it Moral, No, because it violated the principal of the Golden Rule since the people being murdered/eaten would not do that to the Cannibals.

People have a habit of confusing and falsely interchanging the above three words and can therefore arrive at a conclusion that is gray because they wrongly conclude that we don’t know if the outcome was a correct one, instead of focusing on whether each of the actions were moral or not.

Let me give another example: “A person must lie in order to save the life of another person.” Was the outcome a moral one?” No, but the outcome was a “correct” one, while the lie, (an action used to get the desired outcome), was an immoral one. By definition, lying is immoral.

People will wrongly assume that since the outcome was a correct or desirable one, then the actions taken might be gray. Wrong! The actions must be judged on their own if the judgment is whether the actions were moral or not.

So, when discussing right and wrong as they apply to morals instead of an outcome that might be right or wrong as it applies to correct or desirable, we need to be careful as we do not want to be lulled into believing that a combination of actions might be gray with respect to morals.

Judge the actions individually and the outcome separately. Whenever we look at a solution, it is important to look at the actions taken, since it is better to arrive at a solution by moral methods or actions than by immoral ones.

I cannot emphasize enough the importance of looking at the core or foundation of solutions. Were the actions used moral or not?

Now, with that background, lets talk about the morality of Socialized Medicine.

We could discuss the infant mortality; the money being spent on the solution being greater in this country than it is in countries that have socialized medicine, but all of that is irrelevant if the actions used to fix the problem could be moral ones instead of immoral ones.

Suppose that you lived in a neighborhood and some in your neighborhood were poor and were in need of healthcare. Which is the best solution to taking care of the health of your neighbors, hiring a person to go from door to door and with a gun force them all to contribute, or to depend upon the charity of the neighbors to do it?


Now, before you jump off and say that the analogy is not fair or correct, please first answer which one would be best if the analogy was correct. Because if your assessment of the situation is wrong and in the end the analogy is correct, you will be beating yourself up for not being able to discern the truthfulness of the situation.

But, those will argue that taxing people is legal, and therefore it is moral. I say, that taxing people is only moral, (Golden Rule); if all of the people being taxed believe it is the right thing to do for the particular use of the tax money being “taken” as to the proper role of government. Others will argue that since the “outcome” is correct or desirable, then that trumps everything else.

Nope, there are many of my neighbors who object to Welfare, which is what Socialized Medicine is by any other name, and therefore based upon the Golden Rule of morality, it is morally wrong.

One could argue that there are only a few things specifically outlined in the Constitution that describes the “proper role of government” as it applies to their taxable powers, and surely a government that is powerful enough to be a provider, is powerful enough to be a tyrant.

If the Government exceeds its charter of protecting it’s citizens and uses the taxing power of government to “rob from Peter to help Paul” then they might as well be a gang of robbers. In fact one religion has a book that talks about these very people and it calls them “Gadianton Robbers.” They were socialists! It is morally wrong to use the police power of the state to redistribute the wealth of individuals.

Socialists rob from Peter to help Paul by way of using the taxing power of the state to “take from one who has earned it and give it to another who hasn’t” by way of saying that all taxes are moral and legal.


No, they may be legal, and that is debatable, but they are not moral just because they are legal or they might achieve some peoples sense of “social justice”, but I submit that the only moral way to help our neighbors is through voluntary charity given freely from the heart, not help given from the taxing power of government. For if the individual helps, God will reward him, but if he leaves the help up to the government, God will ask, why did you use robbery to help your brethren? Did you not know that some taxes violate the Golden Rule?

Taxes used to secure your life, liberty and property are moral, but most all others are not as they violate the justice of not plundering your neighbors property.

Perhaps "use" taxes are moral because those who use it are those that are paying for it and as long as we have a choice to not use it, then "use" taxes may also be moral.

One could argue the moral aspect of certain taxes and with the legality of them, but since there are usually two very good sides to most discussions, (there needs to be opposition in all things), I leave it to one’s conscience and hope for prayerful thought, and say that I respectfully disagree and that this is my humble opinion and that this, (the morality of the solution), should be the focus of all Socialized, (Welfare), Medicine debates.


In my next post, Part Two, I will show why Welfare Medicine does not work from a tactical and practical point of view, as far as being level-headed and efficient goes.





16 Comments:

At 10:04 AM, Blogger Stalin the Shark said...

Your argument collapses in the face of dead people. Lack of health coverage kiils thousands of people yearly, and considering lower overall measures in terms of life expectancy and infant mortality, is the single biggest killer in America.

Universal healthcare is the only moral, ethical and practical answer.

:-), StS

 
At 10:59 AM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

StS,

I tried to admit that Infant Mortality, and Life Expectancy were secondary to my premise.

Would you not agree that if Charity would work, then more welfare would be your second choice?

Isn't Singapore the best as far as those two items and they do not have Welfare Health Care?

FAR.

 
At 11:03 AM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

That is to say that Singapore has the lowest mortality rate of any nation and they have only privatized health care, unless my memory fails me.

FAR.

 
At 11:58 AM, Blogger Stalin the Shark said...

Wait a minute.

Infant mortality and life expectancy were secondary to your premise in what is supposed to be a moral agument?

What's moral about that?

And no, charity is not better. This because it leaves coverage gaps, which are per se and intrinsically immoral. We need a system that covers everyone. That's the only practical and the only moral position, sorry. How exactly that's done is beside the point; the issue here isn't socialism versus the free market, it's coverage.

:-), StS

 
At 2:33 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

StS,

I only mentioned Singapore because you touched upon the Infant Mortality, in your first Comment.

I guess we will have to disagree on this one because I think that you cannot have a moral outcome if you use immoral actions to acheive them, and as you know, I believe redistribution of wealth by third parties to be intrinsically immoral.

I doubt I will ever be able to sway you and vice versa.

I do see your point and am fully understanding why you want to see no gap in coverage, it is again where the "devil is in the details."

I don't think the end justifies the means, and again you may think that redistribution of the wealth by third parties is O.K., but I think it is a kin to theft.

Just philosophical differences.

Just my Libertarian Side coming out I guess..

:)

FAR.

 
At 6:40 PM, Blogger pappy said...

Been working in health care my whole life and never met anyone that couldnt get health care. Just visit the er
I take care of people everyday that dont have coverage and there care is no different then the one with the best.the high incidince of low birth weight babies and babies with congenital defects is what results in our high infant mortality rate. And what causes low birth weight and congenital defects? In the vast majority of cases, it is expectant mothers who neglet good nutrion, snort cocaine, shoot heroin, get drunk, smoke, and contact sexually transmitted diseases. The cause is not,thatis, deficiencies in medical care, but in social behavior beyond the control and influence of any health care system

 
At 6:42 AM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

Hey Pappy,

Thanks for stopping by and good comment.

I knew there was a good reason for us having a high infant mortality rate that wasn't associated with "US" being bad care takers.

As usual, the problem is that when you have a high degree of freedom, you have a high degree of misuse of that freedom, (misuse of guns, drugs, cars, etc), one of the unintended consequences of liberty, (which we are fast loosing!)

FAR.

 
At 10:52 AM, Blogger Intellectual Insurgent said...

Pappy,

You do emergency medicine, right? What about people who need care for cancer or heart problems? Do they have the same access to quality treatment?

FAR,

Putting aside the issue of infant mortality, how do we address the issue of the high correlation between bankruptcies and medical crises, which exist not just for the uninsured but the underinsured as well? Charity sounds well and good in theory, but who is going to fund the charities? Don't we, as a society, have an interest in keeping our fellow citizens healthy so that they do not infect the rest of the population?

I suppose the question lies in what you believe the proper role of government is, but since you think government is supposed to have a say in common morality, then why shouldn't it have a role in common health? What good does it do if we're a whole bunch of moral beings suffering from malaria or cancer?

 
At 5:51 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

ii,

I think my Libertarian side still thinks that "robbing from Peter to help Paul" is wrong morally.

Which is the greater sin, to steal something to help someone else, or to ignore the plight of the sick?

This is the great question that I expected others to ask, but didn't.

Frankly I sometines am suprised by your stance because they sometimses appear liberal instead of Libertarian.

I have an opinion on the above question of the greater sin, but I will wait to see others answers.

Thanks for stopping by.


FAR.

 
At 8:44 PM, Blogger pappy said...

ANY PT COMMING IN WILL BE SEEN.
CANCER PT COMES WITH PAIN THEY WILL BE TREATED. DO THINK CANCER PTS WITH OUT INSURANCE DONT GET SEEN. VISIT MERCY SAN JUAN HOSP. ONOCOLOGY FLOOR. HEART PTS GO TO THE HEAD OF THE CLASS REGARDLESS OF STATUS.

 
At 1:26 PM, Blogger Intellectual Insurgent said...

FAR -

I posed questions, not opinions and the questions remain unanswered. Should charities be responsible for healthcare and, if so, who funds it?

If you say yes and say the citizenry will fund it, that's fine.

But then I want to understand why you accept the principle that government should be permitted a role in my spiritual/moral health, but not on my physical health? Are they not related?

If you say government's role is to encourage morality, then I can't understand how you don't accept that government has a role to play in health. The contradiction is inescapable.

 
At 12:33 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

ii,

As usual great questions. I will attempt to answer.

First: "Should charities be responsible for healthcare and, if so, who funds it?"

Yes. The local governments, (govt closest to the problem usually works best), should have a "coordinator" who takes a list of people who have signed up for govt assistance, and then work with the local churches to fund the list.


Next, "But then I want to understand why you accept the principle that government should be permitted a role in my spiritual/moral health..."

I am not sure that I understand the vehicle used to "permit a role", could you give an example?

I think the most "justice" is done by having the govnt do the least to interfere in the lives of those who authorize the govt.

"The government that governs the least, governs the best" - Author Unknown to me?




FAR.

 
At 12:37 PM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

Ah,

"That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves." -
Thomas Jefferson

 
At 9:47 AM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

ii,

After thinking about your question more, let me see if I know what you are asking and try to answer it.

First, can we the people as a government do wrong/bad things?

In other words, should the government be moral?

When we transfer rights to the government to act in our behalf, can we transfer any power that we do not have as individuals?

If the answer is no, and I believe with all my might, mind and soul, then the government should not be involved in gambling, counterfieting, and stealing.

Now, some could argue that it is not ivolved in all of those areas, but I believe it is.

In order to see this slight of hand, (organizations being amoral), lets think about the scenerio of the neghborhood test.

If each of us had to vote per neighborhood for our local tax collector to come by and take money from each of us and give it to one of our neighbors, then we might be able to see more clearly.

But, as it is the money collected from us just goes into a pool and is not necessarily "earmarked" and thus the morality of organizational actions become obscured.

When we have wicked people in power, then we the people will get what we deserve because we elected them.


FAR.

 
At 1:08 PM, Blogger Intellectual Insurgent said...

Using your neighborhood example, if one of my neighbors, or even two of them, thinks that some aspect of my lifestyle is immoral, does that give government the right to make me conform my life to the sensitivities of my neighbors?

 
At 11:09 AM, Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

ii,

Absolutely not!

Anybody's right to do whatever they wish is only limited to not infringing upon other's rights.

Now, sanctioning is a different stroy.

While there needs to be seperation of church and state, there should not be seperation of morals and ethics of the state.

This is the correct motto:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars…” - George Washington

According to one of our Founding Fathers, and I am convinced, many others of them, to be patrotic and good stewards of our special charter of this nation, we should not get rid of religion and morals.

We already hold up our Congressmen to Ethical and Moral standards individually, why not collectivly?

If A Congressman lies, we may not be able to take him to jail, but we sure let them know about it.

Both sides complain about that one..."Bush Lied, kids died." and "Clinton is a skillfull lier, while Gore is a pathetic one."

"I never had sexual relations with that woman!"

Here is the Key:

How do you know if the government or people are doing wrong, i.e, harmful things, that is harmful to society but not individuals?

If we we say someone is unethical, we usually can find a set of guidelines to look to, but if when it comes to morals, we leave it up to each individual, well we have no standard to use as a measuring stick and then nobody is held accountable for their actions.

If we said that anyone can do whatever they want as long as they believe it is moral, we whould have liers and unfaithful spouses in far greater numbers, than we do now because of some, and I repeat some, who have integrity and honor their wedding vows, (rule book.)

I am sure that most people who cheat on thier spouse, convince themselves that it must be O.K., because it "feels good" and/or "everybody does it" so it "must be O.K."


FAR.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home