Healthcare

[Dranzer]

A service or a human right? This debate came up at work a few weeks ago and I found it interesting, and I'm curious to see what people think. I work in the medical field in the US, but I won't pretend to be all knowing when it comes to insurance policies, medicare/medicaid, etc. I'm also unfamiliar with the healthcare policies in other countries, as this is a global board I thought it'd be interesting to hear from people across the world on this issue (or non-issue depending on the country).

I've mulled this question over numerous times, and to be honest there really isn't an easy answer. At least for me. Do I think that every human being should be able to receive the same medical care regardless of income, race, sex, insured or uninsured, employed or unemployed? Of course, I do. I've seen patients receive priority due to their insurance (or lack thereof), and in some cases priority should have been the other way around. That isn't to say that if a patient were to code in the Emergency Room (or anywhere for that matter) that CPR wouldn't be started due to insurance purposes, but then again that's a life or death scenario. I digress, in the United States healthcare is treated like a business and to be honest I sometimes don't like that I am in fact a part of that business regardless of my disagreements.

To me, having healthcare set-up in such a business like manner is almost the equivalent to putting a dollar sign on someone's life; something for which I believe there really shouldn't be a price. However, on the flip-side of things I have heard the argument that if everyone were to receive equal care a person's choice of physicians wouldn't be as adequate, the standard of care might also be affected in the same manner, and even the option of seeking a second opinion might not be an option. In short, the 'services' provided might not be quite the same.

This also brings me to the other point I'd like to bring to the carpet. As I've stated previously I'm not knowledgeable on every single facet of medicare/medicaid, and state insurances and how they differ region to region. However, I am aware of the correlation between what I chart in a progress note or the coding I use in a lab slip, and how medicare/medicaid/insurance/etc. is billed by the facility. In order for a facility (such as long term care) to receive medicare/medicaid reimbursement there is a specific way we have to code/chart certain things. For example, when a facility draws routine labs on a newly admitted patient to check their kidney function: in order to get medicare to pay for the lab work we can't code the slip to say 'routine kidney function', instead the coding we use is actually for checking the kidney function for a specific reason that isn't necessarily related to the patient (eg. dialysis for example). Otherwise, medicare/insurance won't pay for the labs, it will come out of the facility's pocket; even though routine labs are often quite necessary as some patients are admitted to rehabilitation facilities from a hospital with unknown infections. When it comes down to it, yes it's fraud, but does that make it completely wrong to 'cheat the system' when lab work is necessary, yet too expensive for a facility to pay for every patient?

As you can see, there's a bit more to discuss and/or think about on this topic other than my initial question: Do you believe healthcare should be a service or a human right? Feel free to share your opinion on healthcare reform as well as it could or could not tie into my original question. I'm interested to hear from those of you in other countries to hear what some of your policies may be and how they may differ from the US. I thought this would be an interesting topic as I'm sure we may find a broad range of opinions, views, and even policies. Remember, be respectful of one another and every individual's opinion, follow the rules and by all means share information I/we might not know.

[dustinpro]

I believe that healthcare should be a right,but until we have some method of keeping insurance and pharmauecal lobbists out of the capitol,it won't be.
More emphasis on preventative care is also a good idea (less smoking and processed foods),but those are personal decisions best kept out of gov't.

[Heartless Angel]

Nobody has any basic human 'right' to somebody else's time, money, knowledge, or skills. If I spend the thousands of dollars on the education, plus the time and effort, you'd damn well better believe I expect my paychecks to reflect that. You pay for quality. If prices are cut to put healthcare in the reach of more people, the quality goes to shit. Most people with the intelligence and skills you want in a doctor aren't going to put in that time money and effort to settle for the same pay as everybody else. It's a simple matter of supply and demand, quality healthcare providers are relatively uncommon, and are therefore more costly. Nobody has the right to the skills and knowledge of a person who took it upon themselves to go into the medical field and become a skilled doctor.

Canada has some of that amazing wonderful free healthcare for everybody that' so cool. You know when the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, Danny Williams needed heart surgery? Funny enough, he came to the states to get it. And he's not the only one I'm sure. When people can afford quality, people pay for quality. We have quality here because we pay for an adequete number of skilled doctors to do shit right and in a timely fashion.

[Order]

What you want is not universal healthcare.
What you want is marxist.
Research North Korea. They are masters of the trade.

[Sasquatch]

What extent of healthcare?

In the United States, necessary healthcare already is a right. Anybody, no matter who they are or what time of money or insurance they have (or don't), nobody will be rejected from an Emergency Room visit or a life-saving medical procedure.

We don't have a right to get any and every elective medicine ever invented so that we all live until we're 150 years old. There are many procedures and medicines that can and will prolong a healthy life, but it would be impossible to make them all affordable, or especially to make them available for "free" to everybody.

It's simple supply and demand. Let's go to an extreme here and say "new organs". I'm sure every 80-year-old would like the lungs, liver, kidneys, intestines, etc. of a healthy 20-year-old. (Hell, I'd appreciate the liver of a good 20-year-old at this point.) And it may not be too far in the future that we'll see things like lab-created organs. With the work done with stem cells, we're hearing about things all the time that would have been considered amazingly unrealistic even a decade or two ago. (And it's only embryonic stem cells, not stem cells in general, that have sparked political and moral debate.) But these entire functional organs aren't cheap to produce. Just like the best medicines and procedures aren't cheap.

(I'd imagine that breast implants would have been a better example -- they're elective, many women want them, they might help the "mental/emotional wellbeing" of many women, but they're not necessary.)

And that's only for the production or implementation, saying nothing of the development. And the vast majority of the medicine we know today was developed for one big reason: money. It wasn't to help the world, it wasn't because the inventor had a sick mother, it was because somebody realized that people would pay for it. That's one big reason cancer cures are being researched, and to say otherwise is naive at best. (Since I'm watching TV and an Enzyte commercial just came on, I'll use that as an example -- it wasn't invented to bring couples closer together, it wasn't invented to make people feel better, it was invented because men will pay plenty of money so that they can have sex again. Even though most ED medicines were "discovered" as a side-effect of cholesterol medicines, those were researched because the developer could make bank.)

So what do we do? Give everybody the very best possible medical care, for "free"? How long would that last? Even if they only costed ten grand a piece, one new organ for the entire population of the United States would cost over $3 trillion. And do you think the best medical care would only cost ten grand? It may not be much less for a healthy young adult, but for somebody with developed medical problems, ten thousand dollars would be a drop in the bucket.

So that's one choice -- give away the best medical care to everybody. Not only would this be unsustainable on an extreme level, it would also greatly lessen the quality and availability of care and medicine. As has been pointed out, what kinds of doctors would we get if they weren't compensated for their extra effort? I'm not saying that I could be a doctor -- I have the IQ, but I don't have the mind for medicine -- but if I was able and inclined, why should I spend the time and money on college and medical school if I'll make the same amount of money as some schmuck flipping burgers at McDonald's? And even if we double the number of healthcare professionals now, they would still be spread much thinner, since they would be giving care (for less money) to many, many more "patients".

The other choice would be what we're doing now. Everybody gets their necessary healthcare. If you need something to save your life, you will get it. If you'd like something extra, you'll have to pay for it. It's that simple -- everybody can eat from the dollar menu for free, but you'll have to pay extra for the double-quarter-pounder meal with large fries and a milkshake.

So we either continue with what we're doing -- which saves the lives of who knows how many people, including those who come to the United States because their country's socialized healthcare is too crappy (I'm looking at you, Canada/England) -- or move to a type of socialized healthcare ourselves, which would not only drive us deeper into debt, it would also lower the quality and quantity of our medical care. It's like driving a car with a squealing belt and cracked windshield, then getting mad because you aren't driving a new Ferrari and let your car coast over a cliff. Sure, it may not be the best, but dammit, it works, and it's better than what we could afford otherwise.

[Clint]

In the United States, necessary healthcare already is a right. Anybody, no matter who they are or what time of money or insurance they have (or don't), nobody will be rejected from an Emergency Room visit or a life-saving medical procedure.

Oh really? Nobody will be rejected from any life-saving medical procedure? Tell that to Chuck Schuldiner. Oh, that's right. You can't. Because he was refused life-saving medical treatment due to outstanding medical bills from a previous life-saving medical treatment. The doctors sent him away without ever treating him, so now he's dead. Yet you say that nobody is denied life-saving medical treatment in the United States. That is a true statement, so long as your pockets are lined with money.

And the vast majority of the medicine we know today was developed for one big reason: money. It wasn't to help the world, it wasn't because the inventor had a sick mother, it was because somebody realized that people would pay for it.

Incorrect. The people who developed the majority of medicine did so for philanthropic purposes. I realize that in today's medical environment, the Hippocratic Oath is given by a bunch of money hungry, corrupt, dumbass hypocrites, but medical development is a science, not a medical practice. Somebody is going to profit off of any innovation. People are corrupt like that. But medicine was made to help all people, not just people with money.

People shouldn't have to worry about health care. An individual's health is a right. If somebody needs medicine, or a procedure, or anything, it shouldn't be given for free, but it shouldn't cost $40,000. That's ****ing ridiculous, especially when your insurance only covers 60% of the bill, so you're stuck in debt $16,000.

Then, the next time something happens and you need medical treatment, you're denied because you have an outstanding $16,000 medical bill, and the only way to get treatment is to somehow magically come up with the money before you die in 12 hours from internal bleeding and hemorrhaging. And the people who let you sit there and die are not prosecuted for murder.

The system doesn't work. It wouldn't work if it were free, and it doesn't work how it is now. It's never worked. And why it's never worked is because some jackasses like to think that a dollar is worth more than a life.

[SOLDIER #819]

I don't think the question of whether or not healthcare is an intrinsic human right even matters. To me, it's more like car insurance. If you're a good driver, you pay less, but you still pay in case you cause an accident and total the cars of everyone involved. Likewise, if you're in good health (e.g. young), you still need to pay in. If you have bad health... well, that goes without saying.

Humans usually have morals (or would like to appear as if they do), and that includes not leaving a person to die on the street. So, hospitals in most cases will give them the operation needed to live. That does not mean a hospital should have to absorb the cost of an operation so exorbitant that only the upper echelons of society are realistically able to afford it. Unless you live in a bubble (or even if you do), your body is a living liability that's going to need medical care. You'll grow old, things will start failing, you'll need to see a doctor or have an operation or have to take some really expensive pills. Most people don't have the 25k needed for that operation on hand, but if they're paying in month after month over the course of their lifespan, then that's acceptable.

If you take care of yourself and don't catch a cold in your 100 years of life, then that's great. Your reward is that you will have lived a healthy and relatively pain-free life where you didn't have to undergo traumatic heart surgery. You're blessed to be living in a country where you can find food and shelter easily and inexpensively. And like everyone else, you should have to pay in to reap those benefits. Living is a financial risk to those around you, just like when you drive on a public road with other people. Something could happen and healthcare professionals shouldn't have to be left to shoulder the burden.

Healthcare should be a responsibility. If you don't want to pay because you're Superman, then live alone in the woods. It's free.

On a side note, I don't care whether healthcare is government-run or privatized. Whatever works best given the circumstances, and they do tend to vary. But as it stands US healthcare is pretty broken. Yeah, it's nice to know that I'll get top-notch service at a hospital if I get run over by a car and have to have surgery... but I don't see why I should have to be a citizen of Canada just to have a routine checkup without paying an arm and a leg. It's ridiculous.

[Order]

I noticed nobody pays attention when the truth is told about topics such as this. Facts which should be commonly known are commonly ignored, especially when they pertain to political beliefs.
I know there should be at least one person who read sasquatch's post and said, "Holy crap! Really?"

I've been noticing many people who have ideas about what conservative and liberal mean which are not really true. Especially on the health care thing.
I think most people would agree that the U.S. fed needs to be smaller, spend less and include fewer programs. I think most people would aslo agree that the fed needs the ability to focus more on key programs like actually paying military members or figuring out why the most wealthy public schools are also the worst.

At any rate, I'm confident that universal healthcare will be eradicated upon the results of this coming election. If you want free medical benefits, join the military. Then you'll get to enjoy all the ibuprophen you can eat and all the other problems that go with under-paid medical staff and doctors.
Better yet, quit whining about how this country could be a better place and join the military to help make it a better place. Added bonus, you'll get to live in or visit other countries and find out what the rest of the world is really like.
Spoiler:
The U.S. is actually a nice place to live, even if you have to get a job to recieve medical benefits.

[Phoenix Rising]

I think that hospitals should be required to treat emergency medical issues, but the person will have to pay for it. That being said, here are reasons socialist healthcare is a horrible idea:
1. Economics; It is not economically sustainable for the federal government to provide healthcare for nearly 400 million people.

2. Quality; If the government runs healthcare, then the quality will be greatly diminished. Under socialist healthcare, most people will suffer a massive drop in quality, while only the homeless will experience a slight increase in quality; it's not a good trade off. Just look at the VA hospital system, which is absolutely atrocious.

3. Lawsuits; In socialist countries if a doctor makes a mistake, the patient cannot sue the doctor or the hospital for it, because both of them are organs of the state.

4. Control; Once the government controls healthcare, it controls everything else. Next the government is going to start arresting people or denying them healthcare because they smoke or eat unhealthy foods or play sports or do anything else the government deems a "health risk."

5. Taxes; In order to attempt to fund the socialist healthcare system, the government will need to raise taxes massively, and even then it wouldn't be enough to fund it.

6. Dependency; Socialist healthcare would breed dependency on the government, just as all other forms of welfare do. Once people become dependent on the government, the government then has control over them, effectively turning them into a slave.

[Locke4God]

It's not a right by definition.

A right is something that can't be taken away from you which you inherently posses. Like your life.

Healthcare is something that has to be given to you. Time, money, expertise. You don't have rights to those things.

[Martin]

Dearie dearie me, I thought Dranzer asked for different cultures, different experiences? Instead all we have is a glorified argument about whether it's a right to have healthcare in the US which.. doesn't affect anyone outside of the US. Although I'll admit, reading down the posts has been educational. And it's at least been a fair mannered and I hope well informed debate - much like how ID used to be back in the day so that does count for something. How about I give you all something else to talk about? My opinion, interspersed with facts every so often, and primarily about British healthcare.

If you were raised/brought up in the UK (excluding ROI, sorry!) in the past seventy years you'll have had some dealing in some way or another with the NHS, whether it be in its English-based form, NHS Wales, NHS Scotland or Health and Social Care in N. Ireland. Some will have daily meetings with the health service as a dependency for whatever reason, and some will have fleeting occasions if they are lucky enough. Not to say that the level of care provided is bad, just if you're lucky to be healthy then it's unlikely you have need for its services.

I owe my life, my mothers' life, and the continued improving health of my eldest brother to the NHS. I owe the subsidised dental care of my nearest in age brother, and the steel pin holding another brothers' leg in place to the NHS. I have had to use NHS doctors and nurses for some of my ailments, and privately funded specialists for others (which were funded by initiatives sponsored by NHS Trusts). In my experience they have never faltered in providing as best a level of care as possible for what is in essence a free service. And yes, it is a service without a shadow of a doubt - that requires a valid form of payment for the time, effort and skill of those involved. I would never for one second claim that these highly dedicated professionals deserve their pay, and would lobby for much higher wages considering the level of responsibility and pressure they face. However, rather than contribute when necessary (i.e. when you require the service) the funding of the NHS is offset in flat taxation and a small contribution from 'National Insurance'. It's perhaps the reason why England has a proportionately high income tax but considering the needs of 62m occupants, is necessary to maintain a moderate level of care. Would I consider private healthcare if I was still living at home? Put simply no - I've had BUPA, and my own private health fund where I used to work and the end result was the same, with little discernible change in how or even where I was treated. I just paid more.

If you're questioning whether or not healthcare is a right - then I'm not sure. But then what defines a basic human right? If you take into account the definition of human rights as stated in posts above mine, well.. the human race sounds quite selfish does it not? All for one. I don't deserve the time of day from someone else, unless I find some sort of recompense to facilitate to the use of whatever said person might provide to me? That assumes an awful lot, that the person providing me with a service wanted something to return. Not all human nature is inherently self serving - I take dispute for example that medicines were developed for the sole purpose of making money. Sure, many companies (GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer) would like to make solid dollar out of human currency, but.. and perhaps it's naive. I'll admit it may be. But I'd like to think that the development of life saving drugs are facilitated by the spending of money from these companies by well-meaning scientists and researchers who genuinely seek the improvement of the health of the human race. It might be very idealistic and I'm sure my opinion will be somewhat attacked but I'm entitled to my view.

Let me ask you a question in return - do you believe in fate? Let me elaborate with an example.

A poor person is shot in the chest. He is rushed to hospital - he is bleeding profusely from his wound and his chances of survival are minimal at best, yet with adept medical intervention (and more than likely, a massive blood transfusion) the person makes an almost complete recovery. Fate would determine that said person had ran out of time somewhat. It was their time to pass on to whatever form of corporeal existence belongs outside this one. But through medical means, that thread is subverted and a new path is chosen - does this mean that healthcare is the decider of fate, should the concept truly exist? Just a curious thought.

[Heartless Angel]

If you're questioning whether or not healthcare is a right - then I'm not sure. But then what defines a basic human right?

Any right which a person must be guaranteed simply because they are human. Here's the tricky part, what makes us entitled to the things we DO consider human rights? Thing is, nobody but human beings really gives a damns about human beings. The bacteria, predators, and all other threats to our survival living and nonliving, could not care less that we are human. So in reality, outside of arbitrary human foolishness, we are entitled to absolutely nothing by virtue of existing. The world doesn't care about us in the slightest. Humanity is on its own.

If you take into account the definition of human rights as stated in posts above mine, well.. the human race sounds quite selfish does it not? All for one. I don't deserve the time of day from someone else, unless I find some sort of recompense to facilitate to the use of whatever said person might provide to me? That assumes an awful lot, that the person providing me with a service wanted something to return.

The word deserve invokes all sorts of sub-arguments, mostly rooted in foolish human ideas of morality. Again, outside of what humans think they owe one another, the universe doesn't give us a damn thing. So then, if it is humans who define what a human right is, what happens when a human disagrees?

In the case of your example, what if you believe you are entitled to having me give you the time, and I believe I am entitled to the right to ignore you and go on with my day undisturbed. These beliefs are necessarily incompatible. One of us is not going to get our way. One of us will be denied what we believe we are entitled to. Whether or not the person wants something in exchange is irrelevant. That's like saying you are entitled to free samples at the store. No, you're not, the provider is simply choosing not to charge you. In this example, I may choose to forgo what I believe is my right to be left alone and give you the time, this does not mean I had to. If I choose not to, you can't say I denied your right to me giving you the time any more than you can tell a store they denied you your basic human right to free samples whether or not they offered them in the first place.

Usually when someone or a group of someones disagrees, the politicians step in and settle things based on majority opinion. At the expense of that minority, even if that minority happens to account for say, 49% of the voters. But, hypothetically, what if exactly half of the planet thought me giving you the time was a basic human right, and the other half did not. Who's right? What possible basis could there be for an argument either way? Moral claims, normative claims, by their very nature can not be rooted in fact alone. Ideas of right and wrong are nothing more than unsupported human opinions. This leads me to my next point...

Not all human nature is inherently self serving -

I would argue that it is. Several philosophers would also argue that it is. Nobody anywhere does anything without getting something in return. That doesn't necessarily mean everyone wants money for everything. There are other things to gain from actions. Entertainment, knowledge, good feelings, we'll do things for all sorts of reasons. Apparent altruism is no different. Why do people give to charity? Some because charity is tax deductible. Most, in a more subtle way serve themselves as the give to charity simply by making them selves feel good about themselves for helping the needy. Even those good feelings have a price tag. A kind person will give a dollar to charity to feel good, sure. Those good feelings are worth more than a dollar to the giver, so they 'profit' by giving to charity. Why then, doesn't everybody give their life savings to charity? For a very simple reason. Those good feelings aren't worth your life savings. The smile I get to wear while feeling nice doesn't stand up to being poor, so giving my life savings to charity is not 'profitable'. That is human nature. We all look out for number one. Sometimes looking out for number one can involve helping others, but nobody is truly selfless in this world. All things have value, and consciously or not, we all calculate these values into our decisions making process.

I take dispute for example that medicines were developed for the sole purpose of making money. Sure, many companies (GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer) would like to make solid dollar out of human currency, but.. and perhaps it's naive. I'll admit it may be. But I'd like to think that the development of life saving drugs are facilitated by the spending of money from these companies by well-meaning scientists and researchers who genuinely seek the improvement of the health of the human race. It might be very idealistic and I'm sure my opinion will be somewhat attacked but I'm entitled to my view.

And we see it even here. These scientists developed some of these medicines because they had the desire as individuals to help the world. Helping the world was a second priority to fulfilling ones own desires. A means to an end. To believe that some people genuinely want to help others is not naive. What is naive, is to believe that there isn't always something in it for the helper. Again, it may not always be physical currency, but any man who does anything, has something to gain from it.

What is a right then really, but yet another human belief which helps us to reach the things we desire? Why do we believe humans are entitled to life? Simply because we desire life. The same is true of all other 'rights'. We say we have the right to life liberty and property, because we as individuals desire life liberty and property. We start running into problems when people start wanting different things that contradict what other people want. Such as free healthcare versus a good paycheck for being a doctor, or wanting to be free of responsibility for other people that you may better work to fulfill your own desires in life.

Let me ask you a question in return - do you believe in fate?

Not necessarily, but as a determinist, I do believe that all things are predetermined. Fate generally comes with some divine or magical connotation, I believe simply in the laws of cause and effect.

A poor person is shot in the chest. He is rushed to hospital - he is bleeding profusely from his wound and his chances of survival are minimal at best, yet with adept medical intervention (and more than likely, a massive blood transfusion) the person makes an almost complete recovery. Fate would determine that said person had ran out of time somewhat. It was their time to pass on to whatever form of corporeal existence belongs outside this one. But through medical means, that thread is subverted and a new path is chosen - does this mean that healthcare is the decider of fate, should the concept truly exist? Just a curious thought.

Why must we assume that 'fate' failed to calculate modern medicine? If fate was certain it was this man's time to die, why not shoot a more lethal point, ensuring death is instant and irreversible? One could just as easily argue that it was the man's 'fate' to be rushed to the hospital, receive a blood transfusion, and move on with his life. Fate implies that there is one inevitable outcome. Belief that our free will can determine the outcome of events is necessarily incompatible with the belief that everything is predetermined. As a hard determinist, I myself don't even believe in free will. My mental states at this time may be leading me to write this, but I can't claim these mental states as my decisions, as they were influenced by the world around me, and events that have already occurred.

[Order]

Of course private helthcare is the same quality just more expensive when federally funded hospitals are availible.
If a doctor wants to be paid well for their talents, they come to the US.
In a country with tax-funded hospitals, a private hospital will not recieve very many patients. Why pay for a doctor when your taxes already payed?

Yes, it would be nice not to have to pay a crapload to a hospital when you need treatment, but thats why most coporations in the US provide medical benefits. The advantage we have over universal health now is that a person with a degree and a good job can get full medical coverage, dental and optomitry.
The best part is, nobody else is paying for your treatments, you have already earned it through doing the job you are paid to do.
Its all about the benefits.

For those of you who know, PPO is the way to go.
$20 copay and you get whatever you need. No 1.3% tax here, .94% there additions like this bill proposes.

You socialists can have your healthcare and your taxes.

[Order]

Welp, here it is, you entitlement douche-pricks.

I served in the military for five years to earn any sort of health benefits from the fed and now I get to pay for you useless sacks of shit to have it for free. And yes, even if you are paying in too (dont lie, you probably wont) you arent earning it.

All I can say now is that Im about to activate my GI bill and skip out on the next four years of taxing. Hopefully by then, the whole thing will be declaired mulligan enough times to be cancelled.

Also, consider this, you snivveling supporter of other people paying for shit any compitent worker can earn with any major corporation:
Which hospital will your federal insurance allow you to recieve care?
The answer is this:
The one you are designated. So when you travel to another state to take vacation with your family and your son contracts strep, you will have two choices:
Pay out of pocket to get him pennicillan,
Or...
Pay out of pocket to change your plane tickets so you can check in to the federally approved medical facility which you have been designated in your home state.

And there are a thousand other ways the fed will invent in order to not have to pay your bills. Just like a real insurance company, you will have to prove you need the coverage.

The federal government gave you resession.
The federal government is spending more than ever while cutting defense budgets.
The federal government is in debt up to its ears.
The american people are worried that china might buy us, that zombies will attack, that N. Korea will attack, the general feeling is not positive.

And the answer is to take more money from us?
To spend more than ever?
To create a larger federal government with more power and control?

Do you really think these ****-bags in washington know what they are doing?
Do you think they know what life is like outside their privelleged, high salary, expense account, tax exempt, high and mighty bubbles?

No.
No, they do not.
They wont be paying for any of this. Ans as long as they are part of the machine, the bigger it gets, the bigger their pockets get.

You arent funding healthcare with this bill.
You are handing the fed one of the most profitable industries in the country, health insurance.
You are funding ad campaigns,
Public sector unions,
Limo-riding, jet-setting, quarterly meeting in Ceasar's Palace, trust fund babies.
You are funding the new jersy public school system ideology.

If you dont think its true, you havent met a politician.
Theirs is a special kind of holier than thou greed.

[Hobaginator]

Healthcare is a socialist system, designed to protect those less fortunate.

The problem is, most are less fortunate due to their own choice to be that way. The people who never learn to fly away from the nest and spend their entire lives chirp-chirping for big govt to feed them another fat juicy worm. It's an easy life, where you can stay on vacation until you waste away and die. Free healthcare is only going to serve to do one thing-- cripple the american economy. People need to learn to 'walk on their own legs', that is, accept responsibility for themselves, dedicate themselves to a proffession that will enhance their social standing and give themselves a better life... instead of using federal crutches.

Not to be all religious, but the bible says 'a man who doesn't work, shouldn't eat'. I agree with that to a degree. The problem is that all this free money is thrown at people who don't need or deserve it... they get medical benefits for nothing, food stamps for nothing, and most of them don't work because you'll fail a drug test if you apply. Druggies leech off the whole of the populace because they're allowed freedom to do whatever they want if they don't accept responsibility and duty... it's freedom they don't deserve. I believe you should get benefits if you've done something, such as military service. Now, I've never served myself, but I have tried on three separate occasions to join since I turned 17 and been denied every time. I think every single able-bodied citizen should at least ATTEMPT to join the service, and if they don't cut it, pick a duty to dedicate yourself too.

People underestimate the sheer volume of dirtbags who ride the system and leech benefits and money like parasites while contributing little to nothing compared to what they consume.

That's my take on the socialist healthcare bill.

[Rowan]

Medicine wasn't created in order to make money, healthcare was. In Australia, all healthcare is pretty much free. You need kemo? free. You break a leg? free. need surgery? free. Need to see a doctor? free. The only catch is that you go on a waiting list based on urgency or the procedure, which really doesnt matter because if you are in pain or in dire need, you go first anyway. We have private health insurance here, but its a joke. You pay to go first, but instead of getting free surgery and anethesiologists, you actually have to pay them. Its only for rich people who cant be bothered waiting and dont mind paying instead of getting treatment for free... its really stupid.

[Alpha]

Free healthcare is only going to serve to do one thing-- cripple the american economy.

I disagree. A person who has the capacity to work--but cannot afford private healthcare (insurance) that would enable them to overcome an (a hypothetical) injury (that is preventing them from working) is contributing far less to the American economy than otherwise, not to mention being less involved in their family and in their community. I support the collective provision of anything that individuals need in order to be individuals. You cannot exist in a truly meaningful way without water, food, shelter and health. You can have all the freedom in the world, but a broken leg preventing you from going to your town hall meeting/work/night class/family reunion means you are inexorably un-free. By ensuring everyone has inalienable and equal access to these things as a bare minimum, we safeguard individualism, not undermine it. That is why it is a right, and why more countries than not have a system of collective provision of healthcare.

[Sasquatch]

Medicine wasn't created in order to make money ...

You think so? You think that medicines aren't created for the same reason that everything else is created?

In Australia, all healthcare is pretty much free.

Correction: In Australia, prettymuch all healthcare is taxpayer-funded. If you were one of the ones paying much more than you needed for other people's health care, you would know better than to call it "free".

You need kemo? free. You break a leg? free. need surgery? free. Need to see a doctor? free. The only catch is that you go on a waiting list based on urgency or the procedure, which really doesnt matter because if you are in pain or in dire need, you go first anyway.

So it's a great system, and it's "free", but even you admit that they don't have enough care to go around, so they have to prioritize people in order to ration treatment. I don't want to have to go through triage every time I need to see a doctor.

This is why, in other countries with socialized healthcare programs (like the NHS), some people find themselves pulling their own teeth because they weren't high enough on the list to not have to wait two years before seeing a dentist.

We have private health insurance here, but its a joke. You pay to go first, but instead of getting free surgery and anethesiologists, you actually have to pay them. Its only for rich people who cant be bothered waiting and dont mind paying instead of getting treatment for free... its really stupid.

But apparently there's enough of a problem that a lot of people who can afford it are paying more of their own money so they can get their treatment in a timely manner. And just think about the number of people who could afford it if they didn't have money taken by force or threat of force to fund a program you consider "free".

I disagree. A person who has the capacity to work--but cannot afford private healthcare (insurance) that would enable them to overcome an (a hypothetical) injury (that is preventing them from working) is contributing far less to the American economy than otherwise, not to mention being less involved in their family and in their community.

A person with less marketable job skills might have to work longer hours, or live farther away from their job, making for a longer commute. These would both lead to being less involved in their community and family, considering that they would have to devote a greater portion of their time to working. Should taxpayers provide homes for everybody to live within thirty minutes of their job, or pay for everybody to be trained in job skills, so that nobody needs to spend any more time away from home than absolutely necessary?

I support the collective provision of anything that individuals need in order to be individuals. You cannot exist in a truly meaningful way without water, food, shelter and health. You can have all the freedom in the world, but a broken leg preventing you from going to your town hall meeting/work/night class/family reunion means you are inexorably un-free. By ensuring everyone has inalienable and equal access to these things as a bare minimum, we safeguard individualism, not undermine it.

First of all, an American with a broken leg will receive close to, if not exactly, the same treatment whether they have health insurance or not.

Second of all, why is transportation not on your list? Surely, if your car breaks down, wouldn't that also prevent you from getting to work, or a meeting, or a class, or a vacation? Why shouldn't we provide everybody with a vehicle?

Taking away from one group of people to redistribute to another, so that we can all be more equal, is exactly undermining individualism. It's not the job of a government to redistribute enough to provide for every need of every citizen -- it's the job of a government to protect its citizens from others who would seek to do them harm, whether it be physical or financial. Technically, taking your money for whatever they deem more useful is the exact opposite of what governments are put in place to do

[Order]

And so sasquach arrives just in time to explain why you are talking like a fanatical, entitled, greedy ass.
Give that man a medal. Seriously.

Anyway,
No, medicine is not free in any way.
Again, doctors pay out of their own pockets to recieve degrees and their time is worth what americans pay them.

A fed which takes in tax dollars to manage healthcare is not thinking of the individuals' wellbeing. They are thinking of their own pockets.
Clearly, they are taking in much more money than is being spent on fixing people, otherwise the system would have been undone.
Like sasquach said, it is not the job of the american fed to make you happy and healthy, the american fed is there to allow you the opportunity to make yourself happy and healthy.

America is not traditionally a "safety net" culture because there is always a ceiling which inherently comes with it. In this case, that ceiling is timely care and, strangely, contradictory to its fundamental appeal.... Financial.

The question remains, because we have already established that access to a professional's time and attention is not a basic human right,
What did you do to earn "free" healthcare?

[Rowan]

Sasquatch, do you fight for your country or do you fight for a salary? To be fair, nowadays money is motivation for almost everything. Im well aware of what my taxes go toward, but I dont have a problem that its going toward healthcare. Its comforting knowing I dont have to worry about shelling out $50,000 for some surgery I might need in future. You're right when you say im paying for everyone elses healthcare, but everyone else is also paying for my healthcare. Whether or not I'll actually need $50,000 worth of surgery in the future isnt really a concern... mainly because it wont burn a hole in my bank account. There are FAR more insane things we are taxed for in Australia that would require speculation.

[Order]

Sasquatch,do you fight for your country or do you fight for a salary?

In america, we are allowed to enlist for money and benefits. I did. I even took a bonus for a one year extension.
Im not sure what you are implying, but a doctor who does it for money can save as many lives as one who does it for ideals and one who does it for ideals can make as much money as one who does it for that reason.
On that note, anyone who believes I wasn't a model service member to the US Navy because I signed up with salary and benefits in mind, speak up and Ill tell you why you are both wrong and garbage.

Anyway, yes Rowan, we know Australia is terminally socialist and regretting it. The point of the thread is that Americans don't want to be a socialist country where those who complain the loudest are given benefits at the expense of the hardworking.

Alpha, a person who is able to work and cannot afford healthcare has one of two problems, either they lack a marketable job skill, or they are spending / have spent themself into debt.
Unsurprisingly, most people suffer from debt more than anything else.
The reason is that their money is spent before the paycheck even comes in. Especially in america we see this problem often:
People will buy a $20,000 car because the dealer says they can afford the monthly payments. They buy an Iphone because it'll help them "stay organized", they spend more money on alcohol, tattoos and weed than they do on food every year and they buy gold jewlery so they can "look legit".
Thats where their healthcare is going. Just look at facebook and there's your proof.

[Rowan]

I was just giving my opinion on what I prefer. I prefer to know that I wont be out 3 years worth of salary (apprentice wages) because I need surgery. I think the reasons why Australia's healthcare system is the best in the world are obvious.

The world needs ditchdiggers and people to clean up toilets and floors. What happens to them when they need treatment? You're pretty much saying that they should have chosen a better profession in order to pay for medical expenses. Although I am in ways torn between the subject. What motivation is there for someone to attain higher skills and a great paying job if they are going to be taxed far, far more than someone who isnt earning as much. They are still earning more than another, but due to taxes the amount becomes marginal. All I can say is that I hope that if you guys need some sort of medical attention one day that you dont go broke.

[Order]

All I can say is that I hope that if you guys need some sort of medical attention one day that you dont go broke.

Thats like saying "I pray for your soul."
Don't be a smarmy douche.

Also,
I earned access to the veteran's association, including health benefits through honorable military service. Benefits which I have had to use to resolve standing medical issues and will probably need again.
Im pretty sure Sasquach is in a similar situation, considering I remember him talking about taking shrapnel.
I know Hobaginator is resolving a medical issue in the civillian system as well.

Its not costing me anything. I dont know about the other two, but I believe you are about to have those poorly considered words crammed back down your face.

Of course you are torn on the subject of who deserves what. You're a flimsy-moraled leftie.
Allow me to tell you what to think:
If it has to be taken away from another individual or group, you don't deserve it. If the unwilling are made to pay to fix your problems, you are taking unduely.

For those who can't afford health care, it is a perk they must deal without. Just like I must deal without vacation time and a house of my own. I have the opportunity to earn them and am currently unable, but i dont expect someone to requesition them from another person or group and hand it to me.

Have some knowladge. Free of charge for you leeching types.

[Rowan]

Honestly, You just said you're recieving free treatment because you were in the military? What entitles you to this over someone who injures themself in any other workplace? You're just as bad as these "leeches" you're talking about.

[Heartless Angel]

It has nothing to do with entitlement. It's a perk. Something they offer to incentivize people to join the military, because they need people to join the military, and if they did not offer sufficient bennefits for doing so, we wouldn't have a military of the size we want to have. The same is not true of other jobs. If an employer can get all the people he needs without offering such incentives, what reason does he have to pay more money to offer them? None. At all.

Im well aware of what my taxes go toward, but I dont have a problem that its going toward healthcare. Its comforting knowing I dont have to worry about shelling out $50,000 for some surgery I might need in future. You're right when you say im paying for everyone elses healthcare, but everyone else is also paying for my healthcare. Whether or not I'll actually need $50,000 worth of surgery in the future isnt really a concern... mainly because it wont burn a hole in my bank account. There are FAR more insane things we are taxed for in Australia that would require speculation.

This reminds me of a book in Morrowind. Something to the effect that if you toss a Guar into boiling water, it's smart enough to jump out, but if you just put it in cold water, and slowly raise the temperature to boiling, it won't notice and it'll stand there until it's cooked alive. You're still paying more for your healthcare than us for ours, you just don't see the cost all at once after using it.

And in Australia, you're in a much better position to share shit, because half of your population aren't leeches who contribute little to nothing to society and expect a brain surgeon's wages for wasting resources and taking up space and complaining that we people with real jobs and valuable skills are mean because we don't want to share. Sharing occurs when two parties each have something, and each bennefit from dividing what they have amongst each other. It's a symbiotic relationship. When one party has something and the other has nothing to offer in exchange, what we have isn't two parties sharing, we have one giving and gaining nothing in return, and one taking and contributing nothing in return. This is not a symbiotic relationship, this is a parasitic relationship. America has a significantly higher parasite:symbiont ratio than most other countries with socialist systems, so it would work even worse here than it does everywhere else. You say it's fine that you're paying for everyone's because everyone is paying for yours too. That's not necessarily true. You're paying for 100% of the populations care, but less than 100% of them are putting in the same amount to take care of you. I'm sure you can do the math here, that means you're either spending more for the same thing we get here, or spending the same for less.

[Order]

I am entitled to it because I knowingly and intentionally put myself in harms way for the benefit of my country and fellow citizens.
And you best believe that where I worked was one of the most dangerous places on the planet. Not only that but my individual actions were commended by the cheif of naval operations, the head boss man in charge himself.

That is how I earned the right moreso than most and far harder than you, you miserable, flailing peice of dog sh**.
While you sucked your thumb and cried about your AC being broken, I saved lives and willingly pushed myself to my limits.
That is why I am now entitled to it and you are a d**k sucking leech who has never so much as gotten a shrug from any authority higher than your own mother.

I earned the right and privelages granted to me by the US because I stuck my own neck out there and made the machine work through sheer manpower, intelligence, strength and honor, of which you are lacking in every interperetation of the words.

When a vet of the united states says that he earned something, he does not mean it was accidental, luck, cercumstance, or passed down by inheretance.

Understandable that a person who thinks they deserve a doctors time simply because he was born a human doesnt know what the word "earned" means.


Edit::
Almost let this slide...

You're just as bad as these "leeches" you're talking about.

You are the "leeches" I am talking about.
And of course you would like to lump yourself in with me in any stretch of imagination because I am inhumanly able and willing while you struggle for appreciation and a sense of accomplishment.

I take nothing without first paying for it. Just like I paid for my veteran's benefits first before I attempted to access them.
Being a shameless cephalopod as you are, I know you cannot imagine the type of world I live in where goods and services come at a price which must be paid and some of those services I enjoy were paid for with my individual ability to perform tasks which seem inhuman to most, even when viewed in the scope of a single day, let alone my entire enlistment.

Do you invite being slam-dunked like this intentionally or is this just another occurance in your day-to-day which you roll over and let happen while curling up and saying, "Why me?".


Ask any american vet if he feels like he's taking advantage of his country by accepting treatment at a VA medical facility. Seriously, I guarentee you will have one hundred 70 year-old men fighting each other for the privelage of strangling you to death in order to put you out of your shameful, misguided and meaningless misery.
We are the type of people who have second thoughts about applying for unemployment when we are between jobs and have to convince ourselves that, even though we have paid into the program through taxes our entire working life, we are not taking more than we have already earned.

So, manipulate your view of yourself and bend the laws of physics all you need so that you can place yourself somewhere close to my level.
But do not attempt to imply that I haven't earned every cent this country will ever spend on me, or that I would accept one single penny more than that.

Every individual attribute of your life and your ideals leads you to where you stand,
Embarassingly low.

[Rowan]

@order.
The way you spout your military services to the USA is shameful. You also speak as if I give a shit. I know where id rather my taxes be going, and thats definitely not towards you.

So in response to you HA, I am giving more than im getting, so that shows im not a leach. Although its not a 100% symbiotic system, its definitely in the 90 percentile. That makes it worth while, doesn't it? We cant expect perfect figures when we are talking about this, but what we have is definitely a good thing. Also its not accurate to say that during my lifetime I will pay more in healthcare taxes than I would if I was living in america and had to pay for the procedures I required. Theres no way of knowing whats going to happen, but I feel safer knowing that im 'covered' in a sense. I think of the tax as a health plan that entitles me to free medical. To those that dont pay tax, they can go and **** themselves. But theres very few dolebludgers in our society, so perhaps it isn't an option poverty 'because of war' stricken America can afford to consider. If America stopped wasting their tax dollars on war then maybe they wouldn't be in this mess... (How'd you like that one, Order?)

[Heartless Angel]

o in response to you HA, I am giving more than im getting, so that shows im not a leach. Although its not a 100% symbiotic system, its definitely in the 90 percentile. That makes it worth while, doesn't it? We cant expect perfect figures when we are talking about this, but what we have is definitely a good thing.

Not really. Only having to deal with 10% of your population acting as parasites is not better than taking care of yourself and not dealing with any. In a society with no parasites, everyone would already have health insurance, and a symbiotic system would be no different than everyone taking care of themselves. The thing about ACTUAL symbiont, is that that they are each providing something the other needs and does not already have. In the case of healthcare, we're not dealing with a variety of different things, there's no reason to share what we have if we both actually have the same amount of the same thing. So the only cases in which socialized systems are even "needed" (at least according to liberals) are ones in which it is going to be a purely parasitic system. There will be those who break even, but the only cases in which there are going to be changes of any kind will be due to a parasitic relationship between the poor and the people they're piggybacking. SO there's absolutely no symbiosis going on there, anywhere where there are any effects, it's purely parasitic.

Also its not accurate to say that during my lifetime I will pay more in healthcare taxes than I would if I was living in america and had to pay for the procedures I required. Theres no way of knowing whats going to happen, but I feel safer knowing that im 'covered' in a sense. I think of the tax as a health plan that entitles me to free medical. To those that dont pay tax, they can go and **** themselves.

I'm also covered. I a pay a few percent of anything I ever actually need, and pay substantially less for my healthcare than you do for yours. Unless I beat the odds and manage to set the new Guinness book record for most lightning strikes survived in my lifetime, It's extraordinarily unlikely I'll spend as much on health care as you will. And I can say that as someone with a shitload of health problem who pays for maintenance meds regularly (about 5$ a month is what I actually have to spend on my meds thanks to my insurance, I spend more on World of Warcraft than I do on medication)

But theres very few dolebludgers in our society, so perhaps it isn't an option poverty 'because of war' stricken America can afford to consider. If America stopped wasting their tax dollars on war then maybe they wouldn't be in this mess... (How'd you like that one, Order?)

That's a typical liberal response. Unfortunately it ignores the fact that we spend less on multiple wars than we have on funding Obama's one term of unnecessary idealistic socialist nonsense. And we usually get something out of a war. We get absolutely nothing out of paying for parasites to drain our vitality. No to say all war is a necessary expense, a lot of America's world policing is a complete waste of resources that could be better spent here on American soil, I'll definitely agree to that.

[Dranzer]

Absolutely ridiculous. Order, you've resorted to using expletive insults in an intellectual discussion. You should know that this made you lose any respect you might have had from anyone in regards to your merit and sense. Thank you for serving. Now, kindly let it go, or get your vulgarity out of my thread.

@Sasquatch

The other choice would be what we're doing now. Everybody gets their necessary healthcare. If you need something to save your life, you will get it.

The words: "for free" aren't anywhere in there. You know why? Because the argument sounds good when it has a loophole. You're right, if someone goes into the ER after a car accident, that person is taken care of [almost] immediately. That's great, but no one really talks about the bill they get in the mail later, do they? No. The system itself is broken beyond repair, and no I don't just mean the healthcare system. Unfortunately, even the great idea of medicine is political. Consequently, that means it's corrupt.

I do agree with you on the idea that "the answer is always money." However, (and maybe I should have reworded the title of this topic a bit better, but I digress,) I do not believe that money was the initial reason behind the idea of "medicine" and the beginning of scientific research in regards to it. There's a school of thought that human beings aren't born selfish, and selfishness is taught; I agree.

I would also like to add as a side note that I know a lot of people who are in the medical field (myself included) that are in it because they would like to help others.

@Heartless Angel

Since this ties into what I just stated above:

The word deserve invokes all sorts of sub-arguments, mostly rooted in foolish human ideas of morality.

And.

We all look out for number one. Sometimes looking out for number one can involve helping others, but nobody is truly selfless in this world. All things have value, and consciously or not, we all calculate these values into our decisions making process.

You're right, not anymore at least. The reason I put these two quotes together is because I'd like to take a look at that "foolish human idea of morality" for a moment. The root of most, if not all ethical or moral issues is happiness. What defines that happiness is where the arguments differ. Therefore, you just argued in a moral way, but it would seem that our idea of morality is different. A few examples of what can happen when two (or more) humans disagree have already been provided in this thread, and on this site's forums alone. I see no need to show anymore (they're seen everywhere).

@Martin

Thank you for sharing that information. I learned something new, which was an objective I had when I created this topic. I was certainly more ignorant to the UK healthcare system than I am now.

Not all human nature is inherently self serving -

I know it seems that I've slightly contradicted myself in what I've previously stated, but allow me to elaborate. First, I agree with you. I also agree the essential root of most ethics/morality is the "pursuit of happiness". However, I believe that the "pursuit of happiness" is not always self-serving.

This is why, self-serving by definition is:

self-serv·ing (slfsûrvng)
adj.
1. Serving one's own interests, especially without concern for the needs or interests of others.
2. Exhibiting concern solely for one's own interests

Pardon my tangent on morality, but this an ethical issue, is it not?

@Rowan

Thanks again for your information as well. I wasn't well acquainted with Australia's healthcare system either, and I was hoping to hear from someone from over yonder.

If America stopped wasting their tax dollars on war then maybe they wouldn't be in this mess...

I felt the need to comment. Unfortunately that is a valid point, but that's a bigger can of worms I really don't care to discuss presently; world peace.

@Everyone

First, I'd like to share this as I found it ironic with all this talk of leeches:

"Commercial Leech Farming Today"
by Thomas Lux

Although it never rivaled wheat, soybean,
cattle and so on farming
there was a living
in leeches
and after a period of decline
there is again
a living to be made
from this endeavor: they’re used to reduce
the blood in tissues
after plastic surgery – eyelifts, tucks,
wrinkle erad, or in certain
microsurgeries – reattaching a finger, penis.
I love the capitalist
spirit. As in most businesses
the technology has improved: instead
of driving an elderly horse
into a leech pond, letting him die
by exsanguination,
and hauling him out
to pick the bloated blossoms
from his hide, it’s now done at Biopharm
(the showcase operation in Swansea,
Wales) – temp control, tanks, aerator
pumps, several species,
each for a specific job. Once, 19th century,
they were applied to the temple
as a treatment for mental
illness. Today we know
their exact chemistry: hirudin,
a blood thinner in their saliva,
also an anesthesia
and dilators for the wound area.
Don’t you love
the image: the Dr. lays a leech along
the tiny stitches of an eyelift.
Where they go after their work is done
I don’t know
but I’ve heard no complaints
from Animal Rights
so perhaps they’re retired
to a lake or adopted
as pets, maybe the best looking
kept to breed. I don’t know. I like the story,
I like the going backwards
to ignorance
to come forward to vanity. I like
the small role they can play
in beauty
or the reattachment of a part,
I like the story because it’s true.

Back to the healthcare discussion. I'd also like to ask what the point of "universal healthcare" is if doctor's offices won't be taking every kind of insurance? Or does the idea of "universal healthcare" incorporate that somewhere? To me that seems like just another loophole.

[Heartless Angel]

There's a school of thought that human beings aren't born selfish, and selfishness is taught; I agree.

I would also like to add as a side note that I know a lot of people who are in the medical field (myself included) that are in it because they would like to help others.

Finally, the non political aspect of the subject I was really hoping would be discussed my someone other than myself. Thank you.

@Heartless Angel

You're right, not anymore at least. The reason I put these two quotes together is because I'd like to take a look at that "foolish human idea of morality" for a moment. The root of most, if not all ethical or moral issues is happiness. What defines that happiness is where the arguments differ. Therefore, you just argued in a moral way, but it would seem that our idea of morality is different.

Not at all, my argument was a factual analysis of human nature. A moral argument would be one containing a normative claim. I made no such claim (at least not in the philosophical end of the argument, I've tossed a few around elsewhere), because I believe normative claims are ultimately illogical nonsense. I don't base any of my decision makings on silly beliefs of right and wrong. I base my decisions solely on my knowledge of cause and effect and what will most likely lead to the desired outcome. And I'll go ahead and anticipate your response, that that desire is where the moral root, happiness comes in, so I'll go ahead and get to countering that point before it's made. Desire is a basic driving force in all higher organisms.

A wolf is hungry, it desires food. It eats. Would you argue that the wolf is making a moral judgement by pursuing the food it desires? Of course not. It's satisfying its needs. The same is true of us.

I know it seems that I've slightly contradicted myself in what I've previously stated, but allow me to elaborate. First, I agree with you. I also agree the essential root of most ethics/morality is the "pursuit of happiness". However, I believe that the "pursuit of happiness" is not always self-serving.

This is why, self-serving by definition is:
self-serv·ing (slfsûrvng)
adj.
1. Serving one's own interests, especially without concern for the needs or interests of others.
2. Exhibiting concern solely for one's own interests

Self serving by that definition, and egoism are then two fundamentally different things. What I'm actually arguing for then, is egoism. Not all egoistic actions are in spite of everyone else, often times helping others is just a means to an egoistic end.

Would you call a spider selfless, because by eating the insects in my house, it helps me keep the insect population of my house down? Of course not, It doesn't give a shit about me. It's eating because it wants food. Helping me is just a convenient by-product of pursuing its own goals. The only difference with people is that helping people is more directly linked to our own goals.

I've mentioned this before, but it's applicable to a lot of subjects, so once again, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.



Nowhere in the pyramid will you find anything about the human race as a collective. That is simply because, humans by nature do not care about anybody else, except when doing so allows them to meet their own needs. You don't find a girlfriend because you have an inherent interest in that one random female out of the 3 billion on earth being loved, you find a girlfriend because YOU egoistically want to love and be loved. You don't get a job because you have a inherent interest in an employer somewhere having a skilled employee, you get a job because YOU egoistically want to be a skilled professional in whatever field you're interested in that helps your pursue your self actualization and take home a nice paycheck for what you've done. And as you can see at the top of the pyramid, morality itself is just a part of our own basic selfish psychological needs. Your beliefs are not held in the pursuit of what is best for mankind. Your beliefs are held to help you pursue and hopefully achieve your own egoistic self actualization. We aren't driven by morality, we are driven to morality by our own egoistic desires. We're just as much acting to satisfy our own goals as the hungry spider and wolf I mentioned above. Sometimes like the spider, helping someone else is a part of that personal goal, but other people are not the ultimate reason for our actions any more than keeping my basement insect free is the spider's objective.