Ayn rand and healthcare

[jimbob]

Because I was thinking the thread "Health care - administrative incompetence" is the wrong place for the discussion on whether slavery was justified but taxation is theft.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194778

Kellyb:

Unless Rolfe is right and TFian is doing a Poe, then there I think you are wasting your breath.

From another thread:

But sometimes genocide is necessary to defend your culture. Slavery as also a necessity before the discovery of abundant fossil fuels, and will probably come back in favor after the peak.

The idea that you would systematically target your enemies like that is simply insane thinking. You target their leadership and make peace, not wipe them from the face of the earth.

No it's not. That's such a ridiculous absolutest statement. Trying to make "peace" after killing their leadership is insane. To nullify a threat, you make sure it never is a threat to you again. The best way to do is to make sure every single one of the bastards is compost.

Also, some groups are simply pests. And what do you with pests? Exterminate them! If we hadn't, there'd be no USA today.

Also slavery is not economically a great deal. In fact it held back industrialization which would have improved productivity more quickly. Sure there are a few jobs like picking fruit that benefit from hand picking but those jobs don't make it worth it to deal with slaves. How many horses that you have to feed all year does a tractor replace?

What utter BS. Slaves = near free labor, and are easier to breed than to produce the same machines to do the tasks they'd do. They are also easily replaceable (unless a plague wipes out your slave stock). Sure, machines have the added advantage of never rebelling, but that threat can usually be culled out with successful breeding and inspiring enough fear in your slaves.

There's a reason why Dixie suffered greatly when they were forced to dismantle their slave economy.

What a deeply repellent set of views, or a not-very funny Poe.

I suggest that the discussion about whether universal healthcare is worse than slavery should continue here.

or this derail:

So what do you think should happen to these "defectives"?

The market should decide their fate.

Just like in Logan's Run.

Not quite, I'd make it more like 50 years of age, with exceptions of people with exceptional skill and/or wealth. But I know nothing like that would ever become popular enough, even though it'd be a good policy to reduce resource consumption.

 

[Dinwar]

The title made me curious, but I see nothing of Objectivism in the OP.

Trying to make "peace" after killing their leadership is insane. To nullify a threat, you make sure it never is a threat to you again. The best way to do is to make sure every single one of the bastards is compost.

This is certainly not an O'ist mentality--Terry Goodkind is an O'ist, and his main character tends to co-opt the enemy armies.

What utter BS. Slaves = near free labor, and are easier to breed than to produce the same machines to do the tasks they'd do. They are also easily replaceable (unless a plague wipes out your slave stock). Sure, machines have the added advantage of never rebelling, but that threat can usually be culled out with successful breeding and inspiring enough fear in your slaves.

This is about as anti-O'ism as you can get. Read "The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution" to see Rand's thoughts on slavery (there are a number of good examples in that book, which I can't remember off-hand; at any rate, a philosophy built on inalienable human rights cannot accept the concept of slavery).

Not quite, I'd make it more like 50 years of age, with exceptions of people with exceptional skill and/or wealth. But I know nothing like that would ever become popular enough, even though it'd be a good policy to reduce resource consumption.

This is about as far from Rand's philosophy as you can get as well. First, exceptional--to whom? My grandfather has exceptional skills, including hog butchering, skill with a drawknife, and other such skills. No one will pay him for these. Does he get to live? And remember that wealth is relative--even America's poor would be considered exceptionally wealthy in third-world countries or in the Middle Ages. And the appeal to popularity being used in place of ethical consideration is something that Rand specifically, and repeatedly, rejected (look at what people say about her main characters to see evidence of this).

To attribute this to Ayn Rand is just as wrong as to attribute WWII to Obama.

 

[Wowbagger]

Yeah, what does the thread's contents have to do with Ayn Rand and/or healthcare?

 

[TFian]

Given I've never claimed Ayn Rand shared my views or I've otherwise derived my particular viewpoints on this issue from Ayn Rand, I'm not sure why you made this thread. The title is misleading, to say the least.

 

[jimbob]

Given I've never claimed Ayn Rand shared my views or I've otherwise derived my particular viewpoints on this issue from Ayn Rand, I'm not sure why you made this thread. The title is misleading, to say the least.

Oh, my mistake:

Since when do the poor produce the wealth of the rich? Maybe you should pick up a copy of "Atlus Shrugged".

If you already paid for it, you'll get the treatment. Simple as that.

 

[jimbob]

Yeah, what does the thread's contents have to do with Ayn Rand and/or healthcare?

The title isn't the best, the healthcare administrative incompetence thread kept getting drift into discussions about whether healthcare was wrong. So I (foolishly) thought that it might be better off in R&P.

 

[Dinwar]

Oh, my mistake:

Right, because anyone who so much as MENTIONS one of Rand's books must be an Objectivist, reguardless of what else is said!

There's a huge number of people who think Atlas Shrugged is a great novel, and who agree with the economics of the novel, but who reject, well, pretty much everything else about Objectivism. The essay "Conservativism: An Obituary" outlines this phenomenon fairly well. The basic gist of the essay is that if you accept the economics, but reject the metaphysics, epistomology, ethics, etc., you A) don't really accept the economics, and B) aren't an Objectivist. And while we objectivists reject parts of the Objectivist philosophy, they tend towards the parts where Rand confused her preferances for ethical absolutes (homosexuality, for example).

 

[Beerina]

Given I've never claimed Ayn Rand shared my views or I've otherwise derived my particular viewpoints on this issue from Ayn Rand, I'm not sure why you made this thread. The title is misleading, to say the least.

Oh, my mistake:

Since when do the poor produce the wealth of the rich? Maybe you should pick up a copy of "Atlus Shrugged".

If you already paid for it, you'll get the treatment. Simple as that.

Of course, if you want to get elected, your best bet is to butter up the masses, filling them with narratives as to how awesome they are, and how everybody else is just evil and out to get them, and, gosh darn it, if you will just give me the power to bonk those others over the head, I'll make your life perfect.

I promise.



One of the rudest things you can say to the masses, if you want to get elected, is that, regardless of how much you get paid, you still owe a tremendous debt to the businessmen and innovators who drive society forward.

If you point out that a few hand motions will get you a house and 2 cars and a TV, thanks to someone else thinking up something for you to do, but, left alone in the woods, that hand motion will get you starved to death in quick order, well, that's really a rude no-no.

...if you want to get elected by the masses.

 

[TFian]

Oh, my mistake:

I'm sorry, but this doesn't follow. First, why even quote my views on slavery, which wasn't even in the same thread, or about health care? Second, where did I say Ayn Rand shared my view on this subject? Also, I don't base most of my health care views from Ayn Rand. I certainly have some significant overlap with her philosophy, but I never claimed that my views were her expressed views.

Maybe "TFian and Taxation" would have been a better thread title?

 

[bookitty]

I originally posted this in the health care administration thread but it might be more topical here.

Ayn Rand, a near-perfect example of why we need a universal system of health care.

As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs. Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel that an individual should take help."

 

[hgc]

I originally posted this in the health care administration thread but it might be more topical here.

Ayn Rand, a near-perfect example of why we need a universal system of health care.

As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs. Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel that an individual should take help."

Yes, I laughed out loud when I saw this news the other day. Ayn Rand's views on public healthcare programs are akin to L. Ron Hubbard's views on psychiatric drugs -- OK for me, not for thee.

 

[Beth]

I originally posted this in the health care administration thread but it might be more topical here.

Ayn Rand, a near-perfect example of why we need a universal system of health care.

As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs. Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel that an individual should take help."

It's an excellent example of why her philosophy doesn't work. Her books are interesting, but they are fictional. Even she could not maintain her philosophy when it came to her life.

One that that struck me as I read through this.

Not quite, I'd make it more like 50 years of age, with exceptions of people with exceptional skill and/or wealth. But I know nothing like that would ever become popular enough, even though it'd be a good policy to reduce resource consumption.

This strikes me as being absurdly close to the system we currently have. Especially if you look at things on a world wide basis. The only real difference is that there isn't any particular age people are offed for being too old*. Those who are poor in our world simply don't have the resources to live longer than they do.

*I'm not 100% sure that is what is being referred to, but that was how I read that quote.

 

[Beerina]

I wonder if you took out the taxes she paid over the years if it would more than balance out. She wasn't 100% against taking "assistance" if you thought of it as reclamation of taxes that shouldn't have been taken from you in the first place.


Whether she (or anyone else) would be prescient enough to have invested and set it aside for end-of-life rainy days is another issue.


Is that humanity? You're too stupid to save for expensive but wonderful medicine towards the end of your life because you'd rather live hand-to-mouth, or close enough to it?

Note that Social Security and Medicare are piss-poor ways to do this, being legally defined as welfare, i.e. transferring money from current tax payers to current receivers, rather than savings or planning programs stretching decades. It's cheaper, and thus more likely to pass that way. Sigh.

 

[hgc]

...
Is that humanity? You're too stupid to save for expensive but wonderful medicine towards the end of your life because you'd rather live hand-to-mouth, or close enough to it?

Note that Social Security and Medicare are piss-poor ways to do this, being legally defined as welfare, i.e. transferring money from current tax payers to current receivers, rather than savings or planning programs stretching decades. It's cheaper, and thus more likely to pass that way. Sigh.

Who wants to live hand-to-mouth? How does a garbage collector or a bookkeeper save up for a quadruple bypass operation?

SS and Medicare are not "legally defined" as welfare, whatever that is supposed to mean, nor is the distinction in any way relevant. SS is a program that works very well, and is expected to be able to pay 100% of its obligations through the year 2037. Minor adjustments, such as to the income cap on contributions, today will extend that term greatly. Medicare is a program in trouble because the continuously skyrocketing costs of healthcare in the US, which is caused largely by the profit-based private insurance system.

 

[Nosaj]

I originally posted this in the health care administration thread but it might be more topical here.

Ayn Rand, a near-perfect example of why we need a universal system of health care.

As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs. Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel that an individual should take help."

I think Ayn Rand's use of SS and Medicare may very well prove by example that capitalistic self-interest is ultimately self-refuting? And by 'capitalistic self-interest' I mean the idealization of greed (self-interest) over altruism (common good), competition over cooperation, privatization over public ownership, etc.

In other words, it seems to me that it was in her best self-interest to take advantage of the very altruistic ideals and services she decried as a "basic evil." Of course, one may counter that she already paid into the system, so she was entitled to receive those benefits and it was in her best interest to do do, meaning she wasn't a hypocrite and was still being true to her Objectivist philosophy. That may be true; however, even if she didn't pay into the system via taxes, she still didn't make enough money as a writer to pay for her own surgery and other medical bills without risking financial ruin.

Despite all her rhetoric, when push came to shove, she needed the state's help via the very same system of taxation and redistribution she decried as a basic evil, and was as much of a "looter" and "moocher" as she accused other users of the system to be. Why? Because, ironically enough, it was in her best self-interest; the so-called welfare state that she spent her literary career attacking saved her life and allowed her to live another 8 years railing against it.

 

[Dinwar]

How does a garbage collector or a bookkeeper save up for a quadruple bypass operation?

Considering the fact that one of the richest men in the town I grew up in WAS the garbage collector, I'd say the job isn't the main issue.

In other words, it seems to me that it was in her best self-interest to take advantage of the very altruistic ideals and services she decried as a "basic evil."

I'd recommend reading her works. This issue is very clearly dealt with in her essay "Counterfeit Individualism."

 

[jimbob]

How does a garbage collector or a bookkeeper save up for a quadruple bypass operation?

Considering the fact that one of the richest men in the town I grew up in WAS the garbage collector, I'd say the job isn't the main issue.

Most garbage collectors are not rich.

How does someone on a minimum wage save up for healthcare?

If the median net worth of renting US households in 2004 was under $5k, how does someone in that situation save up for a quadruple bypass operation?

In other words, it seems to me that it was in her best self-interest to take advantage of the very altruistic ideals and services she decried as a "basic evil."

I'd recommend reading her works. This issue is very clearly dealt with in her essay "Counterfeit Individualism."

Can you paraphrase the arguments?

 

[hgc]

Considering the fact that one of the richest men in the town I grew up in WAS the garbage collector, I'd say the job isn't the main issue.

Don't be ridiculous. I'm not talking about the guy that owns the trucks. I'm talking about the guy that actually picks up the garbage, and throws it into the truck.

 

[jimbob]

Who wants to live hand-to-mouth? How does a garbage collector or a bookkeeper save up for a quadruple bypass operation?

SS and Medicare are not "legally defined" as welfare, whatever that is supposed to mean, nor is the distinction in any way relevant. SS is a program that works very well, and is expected to be able to pay 100% of its obligations through the year 2037. Minor adjustments, such as to the income cap on contributions, today will extend that term greatly. Medicare is a program in trouble because the continuously skyrocketing costs of healthcare in the US, which is caused largely by the profit-based private insurance system.

And of course, forbidding most of your governmental programs (not VA) from negotiating on price isn't going to help.

 

[Dinwar]

Don't be ridiculous. I'm not talking about the guy that owns the trucks. I'm talking about the guy that actually picks up the garbage, and throws it into the truck.

Don't put words in my mouth or make unsupportable assumptions--so was I. The company I was thinking of is too small to have desk jobs; besides, the guy in question started out slinging the garbage cans, and worked his way up to owning the company (and, if I recall correctly, putting his former employers out of business). My argument is that it CAN be done, even in a job most of us have nothing but contempt for (which, ironically enough, is why the man got rich); which means there's nothing inherent in the job preventing people from saving for it; which means that there are some other factors in play. My guess is that these are primarily personal factors--the personality of the person, choices they made in the past, etc. And before anyone jumps down my throat claiming I'm blaming the victim, let me point out that I'm in a situation that's fairly close to what's being described. My family is in a great deal of debt and a major illness would ruin us financially. And I'm applying the same arguments to myself.

Most garbage collectors are not rich.

Re-read my post again. Where did I say they were? My argument is that there is nothing inherent in the job of garbage collecting which prevents people from saving money. In other jobs, yes. In poorly-payed jobs, yes. In garbage collecting? It depends.

Can you paraphrase the arguments?

In Atlas Shrugged someone offers to make John Galt economic dictator of the country. He refuses. When asked why, John Galt responds that he refused the argument for the same reason the other person offered it--if Galt accepted it, the other person would win. The foundation of Rand's philosophy is individualism, and a parasite by definition is not an individualist. And someone taking money they did not earn, be it through robbery or through Social Security, is a parasite (specifically, they are consuming the money, and therefore life, of the people who produced it). It would be a gross contradiction to claim to be an individualist AND to claim that you had a right to someone else's money.