Can you help me play devil's advocate with health care?

Question

I'm a Libertarian, and I think that socialized health care is both morally wrong and contrary to the ideals this country was founded on. But that doesn't matter. I'm trying to figure out a convincing argument that will allow me to play devil's advocate when discussing this issue. Because let's be honest, if you can't argue both sides of an issue than you really don't understand it. The approach I'm taking goes back to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The government cannot restrict those things without some sort of due process. This is why you have the RIGHT to a lawyer when you're arrested, in order to preserve your liberty. Not having access to a doctor would restrict your access to life itself, and as such must be provided. The government has a moral obligation to get you into a doctor's office if you're sick, just like a lawyer's office if you're acccused as a crime. Would anybody like to help me work on this? And please don't reaffirm what I already know.

Some of you seem a little confused about the whole lawyer thing. From Miranda v. Arizona, this is what cops read you when you're arrested: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney during interrogation; if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you.

Answer 1

Mahl's argument above is precisely why insurance exists.

Insurance is a derivative instrument for the payment of medical services. Essentially it is an option to pay a certain amount under certain future conditons. It functions to level out the catstrophic risks s/he desribed.

As such, the finance creates value in the economy as well, adding to gdp.

My thought is, given the knee jerk reactions above (at the time I started writing this), the question is being incorrectly framed for the Average Joe who is concerned about "American Principles".

To me, and probably to them, that is a matter of supporting Entrepreneurs.

So I would suggest that an innovative financial way to insure health care for all would be VERY American.

I think the case AGAINST boils down to the fact that people, such as doctors, can not be entrepreneurial and be rewarded for the best use of their time and skills.

I don't think that need be the case. Finance of medicine is a complex matter, with many entrepreneurial players, including the financiers and investors, and many ways to be paid besides straight fees and salaries.

I think some creative thinking can assure everyone care while allowing entrepreneurs to thrive.

No one is against all market regulation here - after all, insurance and HMOs, as a large part of hospital finance and health care, are already heavily regulated - always have been and always will be.

Also, it is telling to me that no one is fundamentally against public education, as long as private alternatives are allowed to exist. This has long been the American way after all.

Why do we have public education? In order for people to become and remain effective citizems, first and foremost.

This is so obvious we don't ask for proof, but we could prove economically the benefits to society of its investment in education if asked (OK it is not optimized right now but you get my point:)

In addition to reframing the issue as an entrepreneurial one, you could also reframe it as similar to our social investment in education - it allows us to be better citizens, and to remain so longer then we would otherwise. Without such health care, we are working agianst our prior investment in education.

Now I have no doubt many such as those posting above would say that we should not treat "those people" (for some set of people they don't like), and they would also say we shouldn't educate "those people" either.

But there comments are just a local failure of the education system of creating good citizens in the past, and are not representative of the future potential of such investments.

So I think NOT allowing people to frame this as a matter of "governement health care is un-American" is a better rhetorical device.

Being American means being compassionate and being entrepreneurial and that position is neither.

By reframing the discussion as I have - one of entrepreneurial potential, even the most hard core Libertarian or Republican can get behind it, and by also reframing it as a matter of enabling strong citizens, even Democrats can get behind it.

Answer 2

I think you are starting from the wrong premise. A better argument from economic principles is that health care is not a right but health like education is a public good and as such will by under provided by markets. You have only to look at poor countries to see how unproductive sickly people are. Since health care has gotten so expensive a larger and larger share of the population do not and can not purchase the socially optimum amount without government subsidies. At some point the subsidies become so large that the cost of figuring out who pays what, cost more than the cost of extending coverage to everyone, and we are nearing that point so a single payer system is the most efficient solution. This argument may not appeal to you because it is based on economic efficiency, not morality, but I think it the best one that can be made.

Answer 3

I oppose UHC entirely, but I'll play along. I think you are taking a bad approach at playing devil's advocate, because I dispute that any service could be considered a right. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness doesn't state you have a right to keep living because health care keeps you alive. It just says you have a right to life, that no one can take your life from you.

I would go about it like this: their are some people who will benefit from UHC. They do exist, probably the 1/6 of America that is struggling to keep up with health care. Sure, they could go to the ER, but eventually they will get a bill. Or maybe they should go to a doctor, but instead they have to wait until it's an emergency in order to get care, those are their only options. Some of those people might barely get by while trying to get care. With UHC, that won't be a problem for them. They will get care, and perhaps it will leave them better off than if UHC wasn't around. Some of them might even improve themselves to the point where they are paying into other's health care. I'd imagine those cases are rare, but they will happen.

Unfortunately, I believe this is a slippery slope. All indications I've seen is if the government starts giving people an inch, they'll expect a mile, and any socialist policies are going to be expected to continually improve at a detriment to that society as the population becomes more reliant on the government.

BTW: I do agree that if you can't play devil's advocate against yourself when considering an issue, they you aren't prepared to say you understand it, or that you are trying to. Excellent point!

Answer 4

The difference between a right to a lawyer and the "right" to a doctor is that the state is causing the need for the lawyer. The state causes you to need a lawyer by prosecuting you. Therefore, since the state directly caused the need for the lawyer, it is only right that the state provide a lawyer if you can't afford one.
This is different than needing a doctor because the state did not cause you to need a doctor. Most likely you caused your need for a doctor, so why should the state (the people) pay for it? Your need for a doctor is the consequence of your own actions, not the state's actions.

If you are looking for an argument in favor of socialized health care, you won't find one. There is no logical or moral reason to force your fellow citizen to pay for the consequences of your actions. Asking for help is fine, but using the government to force people to help is wrong.

Answer 5

While I LOVE the idea that the government OWES us health care, the real problem is that there would still be many who would NOT go to a doctor, because doctor's 'cost too much.' Government health care wouldn't be 'better' because the 'good' doctors would be 'private' and still demand the high payments, and the 'not so good' doctors would be the ones who see us. OOPS. I'm telling you what you already know ... I'm a basic libertarian (not a party member, though). I can't speak as the devil's advocate here ... because if we had 'government health care' we would have to have too much 'paperwork' that the GOVERNMENT had access to, and THAT is NOT a 'good thing.' The 'government' would have the 'moral obligation' which means they could 'monitor' us and decide if we were doing unhealthy things, and could haul us off to the doctor even if WE thought we were FINE. THAT is very frightening.

Answer 6

Hard to do.
Your approach seems to imply that without a National system, somebody is forbidden access to care and is left to die and you know that's not true. Because the government is not providing enhanced access does not mean they are willfully restricting it.

Basic care is already available to everyone. For some, that access is cumbersome and inconvenient because they don't pay but, who's responsibility is it to improve that condition and why should it be? With it, people are motivated to improve their own condition and that better serves the greater good than a Government care system would.
The only way for the government to improve that condition is to diminish the access of those who have more READY access now. THAT IS a willfull restriction. Can you really expect the population to stand for that because a socialist says its more moral and better serves the greater good?
That is not real-world thinking.

Answer 7

A single payer health system would eliminate administrative waste.
The government would have much more bargaining power with providers than it does now as an important payment source of providers, but not the only source of payment.
The high cost of health care in the United States is particular an issue in the area of prescription drugs, where consumers see Canadians whose government has negotiated for lower prices with drug companies, pay less than consumers in the United States

Answer 8

I really misunderstand where you are heading. Walking into an emergency room uninsured and pennyless, you will still be treated. If you dont pay the bill thats your problem. So you are not deprived of life, you simply force those with insurance into higher premiums. When I say you, it is in general, not you personnaly. So effectively it already exists. All the national health care will do is make the government (i.e. taxpayers) foot the bill for insurance on the un or underemployed. So it wont even hurt their credit rating anymore.

Answer 9

The "right" to a lawyer is contrived by the Bar Association to promote their profession. The actual right we're talking about here is the 5th amendment right against coerced self-incrimination. Our view of "rights" do not require that anyone be coerced for you to enjoy that "right". Accordingly, there is no real "right" to an income, food, shelter, nor health care. Such things require others to provide for you from their substance. The "right" to life only requires that others abstain from conduct that would DEPRIVE you of life. The term "rights" gets abused a lot these days.

Answer 10

The other side does not use a purely logical argument like you are using above. To give the other argument, you need to rely on an emotional argument such as, think of all the poor children who don't get to go to the doctor because their parents can't afford it due to their low income/non-insurance providing jobs. We as a society need to provide for those people because they can't provide for themselves.
Take logic out of the argument and go with the pure emotional argument.