Besides the moral one? No.
It's only a question of whether you want to base your society on the principles of solidarity or on those of individualism or a mixture.

Solidarity [a word which we owe to the French Communists], signifies a fellowship in gain and loss, in honor and dishonor, in victory and defeat, a being, so to speak, all in the same boat. --Trench.

You want to change that? Rally a majority behind your view to promote your interests and you'll get what you want.
That's democracy a la carte. 'lol'

Oh and I'm in favour of a mixed system. People should be forced by law to insure themselves. As already done with car insurances you can't drive without one. And actually, you can't either live without a proper health insurance.
On the other hand that would mean that the state would have to sponsor those with a low income to get an insurance that covers the minimum health care level but still is affordable to them.
That would save us all a lot of money but still serve the principles of solidarity.

LC- why should someone be forced by law to pay for insurance? Ultimately, an individual not insuring himself isn't violating anyone's rights. No one has the right to force him with a physical threat to use his money on something which he does not value.

LC, should you be forced to wear kneepads, a helmet, elbow guards, and safety goggles when you leave the house? I mean, it's obviously in the best interests of everyone since anything can happen to them at any time. Since people are going to have accidents, we might as well force them to be as safe as possible.

*gag* No way!

But, this is different only in the details to what I posted originally. The government has no right to force me to buy insurance. If I don't, it's my responsibility to pay the legal, property, and healthcare bills of the things I'm responsible for.

And you can live fine without health insurance. If you choose to do so (maybe because you'd rather spend that money elsewhere or save it), you have to adjust your life accordingly. Eat healthier, work out, and whatnot. Take the logical steps to live healthier in order to avoid going to the doctor's office. And it isn't like you can't start up a special savings account and put away a portion of your income there in order to pay for medical care in the future.

No one "needs" heath insurance. I certainly enjoy mine, but others may have different needs. It's wrong to force them.

"solidarity" is a concept used to rationalize just about every form of intrustion into our lives, by the way. It says the rights of the individual do not matter when compared to the masses or society. It says having an opinion contrary to the majority is wrong, one of the things I hate most about Chirac/Schoeder/Annan...they complain the most loudly when someone doesn't follow their lead, which they claim is the only way to go.

Hm true, I must admitt I haven't thought much bout this.
People are stupid, they don't think longterm wise. That's a fact, I doubt you'll deny it.
And unless you are pretty rich you can't pay for all the medical costs on ya own, it's just too high. 'Do you know how much a simple visit to the doctor actually costs?'
So it's a matter of fact that as much as you need a car insurance to drive you also need a health insurance to live and proper education to work. I'm not demanding to force everyone to go to Uni but at least get the basic education, reading writing calculation.
If we let everyone decide on his own, then we'll have what you got now in the US, a large part of the population unisured, and in the end they represent a threat when ill. To spread diseases, end up unproductive since they can't work, a loss to our economy, a shame to our community and potential criminals out of despair.
It is in my opinion also a question of responsibility and ethics. But I admitt that I haven't done much research on that topic. So I'll better withdraw unconditionally 'heh'

Wow. I am not sure how to take all of this. Today is the first time that I have seen this. I guess that having a form of cancer and not being able to work due to pain so great that it feels like my insides are being eaten alive is no one elses fault except mine and the genes that I got. I was born in America, I vote every election, I pay my bills and the government takes tax's out of my paycheck. I am not asking for a hand out, all I want is to get a little bit of medical care. But I am not worth that, am I? Because I can't get a coverage due to this condition being with me my entire life, I don't have the right to be out of pain?
A friend of mine is allowing me to move into his house in a different state because I can no longer afford to take care of myself. Work is not an option for me anymore.
Do any of you out there have ideas? I would love to hear them.
Tell me, "Drizz", what if you found yourself without health care and dying? What would you reach for? What lengths would you be willing to go to get better? What if it were your children, parents, spouse?
All I ask is that America get off it's moral high horse, stop trying to fix other countries problems, and work on those that live in USA.
Oh and if you wish to call me pitiful, please find me and do so to my face. I would love to hear that.

Nick Manix
Austin, TX (until 10/07/03)

What moral high horse? I see America wallowing in a moral valley right now, doling out money from people who earned it to those who beg it.

it's my money. It should be my choice what i do with it. if I think you deserve my help and my money, that is my decision. Come to me and ask me for my money yourself.

If you hide behind the government as your faceless agent, demanding they give you what you want, their only option is to take it from those who are not you at the point of a gun or at the threat of handcuffs. How do you justify that?

"I am not asking for a hand out, all I want is to get a little bit of medical care."

Well, the simple solution here seems to be to get some medical care then. The argument that you need medical care fails to in any way necessitate the conclusion that the government should tax people to provide you with it. I need water more than you need medical care, but I can't seem to recall the last time the government provided me with it, much less provided it at the expense of other people. For some cruel, unjust reason, I'm forced to work and sustain myself, providing for my own nourishment.

What a disgusting state of affairs, providing for yourself! If everyone provided for the person born immediately before them, the world might be a better place.

Ultimately, bad things happen. It's such an overstated fact that it's gotten to be a trite bromide, but its overuse can be attributed to the fact that almost no one seems to remember it. As hard as it may be to believe, some people are devoted to moral principles, rather than their whims and needs of the moment. If I were dying, I'd love it if someone wanted to provide for me, and extend my life by even just a few years by covering costs I couldn't. Though, at the same time, I wouldn't consider anyone morally obligated to help me, and would certainly be appalled if they were forced to. The negative aspects of your life are yours to deal with, as are the positive ones. You can ask people to share in both, but it's not your place to demand it.

Mr. Manix, thank you (assuming it is you, this being the Net and all...) for stopping by and commenting. Allow me to respond.

"I guess that having a form of cancer and not being able to work due to pain so great that it feels like my insides are being eaten alive is no one elses fault except mine and the genes that I got."

Mr. Manix, I determine fault primarily through someone's actions. If I did not cause your medical condition, it is not my fault you must suffer through it. Similarly, if your condition develops such that there is no way you could have avoided it, then it isn't your fault either. Particularly with genetic dysfunctions, there is no point at all in assigning blame to a disease that is out of your control. We can dispense with the blame game right now. I did not blame you for your condition, which I am sorry you have.

"I was born in America, I vote every election, I pay my bills and the government takes tax's out of my paycheck. I am not asking for a hand out, all I want is to get a little bit of medical care."

Pardon me, but "a little bit of medical care" IS a handout. It may be delivered in the form of a charity offering, a lottery, some anonymous individual's donation, or what have you...but asking for a service or good (with so far no mention of repayment for that service or good in the future) that you cannot provide for yourself is by my definition a handout. I would take just as much issue with anyone asking for such a thing from taxpayers regardless of their social status, financial situation, public standing, or history of their citizenship. If it feels like I've singled you out, it's only because your name was in this news article and the deeper meanings behind the article were enough to drive me to post on the topic.

"But I am not worth that, am I? Because I can't get a coverage due to this condition being with me my entire life, I don't have the right to be out of pain?"

Hell man, I don't know you. If I did and we were friends, I'd probably do whatever I could to find a way to help you out. But I don't know you, just as I don't know millions of others of people who suffer from disease and can't afford medical treatment. Considering your level and mature response to something that must surely weigh heavy upon you, you most likely are "worth" getting medical care. But not at the expense of those who cannot choose to offer you help, i.e., the taxpayer. You have the right to do what it takes (short of murder, theft, or fraud) to treat your pain. By asking the government to provide for you, you are implicitly saying the taxpayers in Texas should foot your bills for some indeterminate time. I consider that wrong.

"A friend of mine is allowing me to move into his house in a different state because I can no longer afford to take care of myself. Work is not an option for me anymore."

Again, I am sorry to hear that. Not being able to work dramatically limits your options. You are lucky to have a friend willing to help you out so generously. But your friend made that choice on his own. The people of the state you wish to get health care from wouldn't get that choice; you'd take from them without their consent. That is where my central problem lies. If they want to help you out, then they shouldn't be barred from doing so. And if they aren't, then they shouldn't have their money taken from them.

"Tell me, "Drizz", what if you found yourself without health care and dying? What would you reach for? What lengths would you be willing to go to get better? What if it were your children, parents, spouse?"

I've never experienced such a dire situation, so any response is hypothetical to some degree. I can tell you this, however. I would scour the earth for any other moral means available. I would not resort to theft by proxy in order to improve the situation.

"All I ask is that America get off it's moral high horse, stop trying to fix other countries problems, and work on those that live in USA."

International politics aside (and I bet I'd tend to agree with you), I don't believe it is the state's job to provide for those in need. I believe the state exists in order to protect our rights, rather than violate them. Those are my morals and to a large extent the morals of the people who built this country. Your needs (which are no unimportant matter, let me stress) do not dictate that I or anyone else should provide for them. Let us decide if we will help you out. Don't force use through the government.

You are not pitiful. You are seriously ill (do you have NF1 or NF2?) and looking for a way to get better or to at least treat the symptoms. I cannot fault you for that. But I will fault you for trying to take the property of others (their money, through taxation) without getting their consent first.

Wow. This seems to me to be on the verge of something exaggerative – ridiculously and unnecessarily explosive – perhaps operatic – Dickensian - or even maudlin…. Anyhow, my personal opinion is that the issue at hand does not merit all the aforementioned diatribe; something of the human element is being entirely overlooked in this situation.

Yes, the “Nick Manix” who responded to this posting is indeed the Real Nick Manix.

I happen to be the person who met Mr. Manix earlier this year and became deeply involved in a friendship with him that transcends most that I have ever even heard of. I also happen to be the person that is moving him from Texas, a fact that I am please about, into a state that will expedite financial and medical assistance for him (albeit at all of our expenses – a fact that I am not too please about).

I would like to state that I am an unabashed individualist, entrepreneur and subsequent capitalist, engage in volunteerism, and find value in just about every comment made by Drizz. I am anti-tax, anti state-sponsored philanthropy, and, yes, Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” is the closest thing to the Bible that I follow (the Metropolitan Opera being my church of choice – just had to throw that in there for fun).

I find it sickening that citizens of our great country are forced to provide for the less fortunate. Volunteerism means exactly that – that one gives of oneself that which will bring a greater value to oneself – not to sacrifice. It is, to coin a title, the “Virtue of Selfishness.” To sacrifice, is, according to Rand (and a philosophy I happen to subscribe to), “to give up something of greater quality for something of lesser quality.” For the record – I do not sacrifice anything.

If I could wrap up my thoughts into the most rational summary, I would say that the broader perspective of using Mr. Manix as a sounding board for political reasoning (on the side of those who work hard for a living and choose to reap the joys that that living provides), is to not take into account the many, many more threads that make up the fabric of this situation. Here are just a few:
1. Nick Manix is, as of July 25, twenty-seven years old. He has not had a formal education and has spent the entirety of his professional life in the service industry – specifically, bartending and waiting tables. This justifies his perspective. Period. It’s quite simple. He is desperately wanting to cling to anything that will help him see the beauty in life. I myself have experienced intense moments of physical pain and know first-hand what it is like to have to hold onto images, colors, sounds, memories, and even other people, to overcome it. Being able to maintain one’s very sanity under the most horrific and tortuous physical oppression is not easy – certainly not for a twenty-six, now twenty-seven year old with Nick’s family background (which is an entirely different and unfortunate factor in the story) and lack of general psychological support.
2. Nick will not ultimately depend on state-funded assistance. This is because he is amazingly talented and has rapidly found the means to exercise that talent. He is a gifted creative writer.
3. I do believe that if you were to find yourself in Nick’s shoes, you would ask for “hand-outs.” There is nothing wrong with this. It only becomes wrong when “hand-outs” become your right. Nick knows that the system will allow him to sustain if he fights for it. That does not condone – nor does it support – the system.

Oh well – many more thoughts on this as I am intimately involved – but I’m tired at the moment and it is very late. There are much more important things at the moment to think about – like sleep.

Oh yes, and Nick – shall we talk about this over lunch next week? Don’t worry – I’ll treat.

Once again, this is Nick. Thank you Aaron for going to bat for me. I just want everyone to know that I have tried to do my best. Life is hard, no one ever said that it would be easy and no one owes anyone anything. I guess that I try too hard to see the good in the world and hold to the idea that America takes care of its own. But, these are just my thoughts. But to everyone who feels the need to hold onto every last cent and not help those in need, fine. That is your choice. But for me and millions of others out there, we didn't have a choice. Yes it sucks, yes it is hard and yes it is my life and no one elses. But no, I did not choose this. My country, the one who takes the money from what little I did earn, that one that expects me to vote and do my civic duty, tells me, "Sorry, we have more important things to spend money on. We can't help you. But keep paying us money!"
I'm done with this.

Aaron, I think what you are doing for your friend is noteworthy and admirable. I am, however, having trouble reconciling your stated belief in Objectivism (or with large parts of it) with your desire to see Nick's needs get met through a government agency. If you think #2 on your list and saying you aren't happy about the option you've taken absolves you of what I see as a contradiction, I disagree.

As for #3, I'm sorry, but I stand by my response. And a "hand out" does indeed become a problem when it is taken for granted as a right. More fundamentally, it becomes a problem when that hand isn't be propelled by goodwill, generosity, or love...but by fear of being fined, arrested, thrown in jail, or publicly vilified as an uncaring monster. I see no vitue whatsoever in a system that threatens people to help others.

Mr. Manix, I wish your tax money went towards better things; better yet to not have it taxed from you in the first place so you'd be better able to afford these expensive decisions. So don't lump me in with some mythical penny-pincher who thinks paying for road construction, state museums, or park maintenance is more important than a human life.

In the end, neither of you have answered my initial question: "Do I have an obligation to pay for someone else's goods and services?"

I feel, and I do not speak for everyone, that Yes, we should take care of those who are in need. I would willingly allow an extra chunk of change that I got on my paychecks while working to go to those who are in need. I guess that I care too much about people. It is not an obligation so much so as it is basic human decency. But again, that is just me. In America, medical care has become a for profit business. Narcotics are next to nothing while antibiotics can cost in the hundreds. Check up's run in in the mid hundreds. MRI's cost thousands, CAT scans as well. Greed has taken over. No longer does the bulk of the medical community care about the wellness of people, they care about how big their paychecks will be. What is wrong with helping people? America is more than willing to go into other countries and rebuilding their cities, taking care of their sick, housing their homeless and so on. Why can't we focus all of those funds and energy on taking care of our own? You have stated how you feel things should be, and I have stated how I wish things were. Who is to say who is wrong? All I know is that I don't have a choice any longer. I have to pray that some foundation, some company, some person is willing to help me be in less pain for the remainder of my life. I have lost most of the use in my right arm, the left arm is going. I can no longer lift or pull anything. Yes, I am down on my luck. But I am not pitiful as you stated in the text at the start of this forum. I just want the pain to go away. So tell me, am I wrong to reach out and ask America, my country, for help?

Nick, I have a feeling you aren't really reading what I'm writing.

"I would willingly allow an extra chunk of change that I got on my paychecks while working to go to those who are in need."

I find nothing wrong with what you've just said. This is because you would *voluntarily* choose to donate a portion of your income towards those you feel who need it. That's great. Do and encourage that, by all means.

But don't tell me I have some duty, obligation, or requirement to sacrifice for others. Cloaking this in a call for "human decency" doesn't change the central issue. If I have enough money left after paying for more important things to me, then I'll choose whom to be charitable towards.

"In America, medical care has become a for profit business. Narcotics are next to nothing while antibiotics can cost in the hundreds. Check up's run in in the mid hundreds. MRI's cost thousands, CAT scans as well. Greed has taken over. No longer does the bulk of the medical community care about the wellness of people, they care about how big their paychecks will be. What is wrong with helping people?"

It's a shame your understanding of economics is so poor. People get into the medical field for a variety of reasons, so don't assume you know their inner thoughts simply after being exposed to the escalating costs of treating you. I'm not prepared to delve into the reasons why healthcare is so expensive, but I promise you it isn't about raw greed. The "bull of the medical community" aren't surgeons, anaesthesiologists, or other specialists: they are the nurses, orderlies, interns, and residents who pull far less pay and work hard hours. I'd rethink your rhetoric before you go blaming them for high costs.

"Who is to say who is wrong?"

Please don't fall for this kind of crap. There is a right and there is a wrong. I have as much authority to declare someone's stance wrong as you do. It helps if that authority is backed by reason and logic, though.

Nick, when I mentioned "most pitiful" it was in the context of a larger point, that being it has become standard practice to parade the unfortunate around as an arguement in themselves for some purpose. I despise it when people do that because it's an appeal to emotion and a fallacy. You yourself are not pitiful because you haven't given up. I didn't get a chance to speak with you before I wrote that initial post, so my mind has changed somewhat.

I believe there are always choices, but after a process of elimination or attrition, the worst ones remain to pick from in bad situations.

No, you are not wrong in asking for help since you cannot provide for yourself. You are wrong, however, if you think people should be compelled by force of law or public shame to help you and others.

Slow down, Nick - think. We will discuss later.

My resounding answer is "no, I should not have an obligation to pay for someone else's goods and services?" Nick thinks differently; however, and I would add that America does take care of its own - through individual volunteerism (yes, propelled by love and need). Nick, you are doing incredible things that are being appreciated and encouraged by important people in your life - individuals who ARE helping to support you. Do not imagine that "America" is a single entity - an imagined ogre that takes and should provide - America is made up of individuals like you and your dear friends - your true support system. We will have an opportunity to explore alternatives to state-support. In the meantime, we will seek temporary relief where we can - as we do pay for the service through taxation (ughhh!) - but only as way-station to success.

Drizz - do you really think this is a compromise?

Aaron
-

I believe nationalized health insurance should be the standard. As a British National, it is and always will be the one detriment I find in the US system of government: the blatant short-sightedness of our “health-care” system.

It is naïve to think that providing medical care for Nick is a burden to us as a society. It is not only our moral obligation (he is a citizen, can be asked to surrender his life for this country and has paid an exorbitant amount of taxes as a single male with no “deductions” or “dependents), but it is a shrewd economic move: as Nick’s illness progresses, he will become completely unable to work. We, under the current system, will then be required to provide for him in his entirety, either directly or as the incapacitated dependent of a wage earner (his mother). The relatively minimal out of pocket that would currently sustain Nick in “working order” (pun intended) will increase by one hundred fold if we allow his condition to deteriorate any further. He will no longer be able to provide for himself, and his family will become entitled to huge amounts of public assistance due to his incapacity. From a coldly economic posture, we will have “deprived” ourselves of his earning capacity, effectively cutting off our noses to spite our faces.

From a moral perspective, we should be ashamed of ourselves. We, who feel vindicated in imposing our values on the rest of the world, feel no obligation whatsoever to our own. It’s a pity that the health care situation in this country (the only “civilized” nation in the world without nationalized healthcare, by the way!) isn’t brought to light in a UN meeting: maybe sanctions for human right violations would bring us to our senses.

Yes, I have a right to say this: I hold permanent residence in this country and pay a ridiculous amount of taxes to both. Relinquish my British passport? Never! When I’m inevitably old, if I were still to live in this country, my bank account would determine my living standards. Even if I were immensely wealthy, I’ll still be treated like the leper with the most fingers. I shudder to think of the older people in this country currently eating cat and dog food because Medicare (true bought-and-paid-for insurance, mind you) won’t cover prescriptions. Prescriptions, mind you, that cost pennies to produce and cost hundreds to purchase.

Take that to the United Nations and see what results you get.

"It is naïve to think that providing medical care for Nick is a burden to us as a society."

Ms. McKenna, surely you aren't saying that Nick (and by extension, the taxpayer) gets medical care for free? Because that *is* a burden: you admit that yourself with your comment, "The relatively minimal out of pocket that would currently sustain Nick..." It may be a small one for a large nation to cover the costs of a handful of people, but that is not the case at all with nationalized systems. As a British citizen, you must be aware of the terrible state of financial affairs your National Healthcare System is in.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/09/07/nhs07.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/09/07/ixhome.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3109915.stm

Those are the quickest examples of the problems that face socialized healthcare, no matter who runs it and no matter what rules are put in place. No, there is a HEAVY burden on society when it is forced to pay for the services of others.

If possible, I'd like you to expand on this "moral obligation" thing. Why am I morally obligated to submit to having my income taken from me in order to cover some or all of the costs of someone else's problems or needs? You can leave off any response about being a citizen of a country that taxes him - I've already addressed that in a previous comment.

In regards to your comment about heading off more expensive problems down the road...it is the current system that needs changing! If we didn't have to pay for all this, then we wouldn't get shafted by the needs of those who end up in dire conditions. I say get rid of the entire structure and let people provide for their own through their own efforts: by paying for themselves, convincing others to help them, or by getting insurance coverage.

The obligation you feel towards helping others is something I've dealt with in a prior comment as well. Go right ahead! In fact, start up a charity for cases like Nick's so you can bestow more upon those who need. I've got no problem with that and I'm certain many people would help out. But the obligation you feel towards the needy does not mean *I* have an obligation to help them. My primary priority is my life and the people and things I value in it. Once those values are taken care of, I am willing to help others.

You do not have a right to health care. It is a service, just as oil changes, Internet access, and workout gyms are. No human rights are violated when someone doesn't have health coverage. Human rights are CERTAINLY violated when a nationalized healthcare system steals income through taxation to provide for all...and then proceeds to do what is economically required of all services that have artificially low costs to it's consumers: rationing. Queues, procedure restrictions, time limitations, little fees here and there, massive amounts of preventative medical advertising, etc.

You can cease with the harping on foreign policy. You are assuming too much about me.