Reply to Topic
Sorry, I somehow missed this post until now.
Perhaps we do have some truly irreconcilable differences, but I'm not sure that precludes us from talking about this issue. You say that all of my arguments illustrate that universal care actually involves sacrifices, but a) those sacrifices are important, and b) a lot of them have been about the specific rhetoric used, too.
If universal care involves sacrifices, obviously you can still argue that it's worthwhile in spite of them, but they matter. They force us to decide what our real priorities are. Since you acknowledge that significant rationing is inevitable, for example, the corollary to that is that you're willing to sacrifice height of care for breadth. This will inevitably cause some people to die. Which may mean your top priority is merely to make sure people don't die or go bankrupt for one reason (they can't afford it) rather than another (there not being enough to go around in general). Perhaps you care more about the idea of people being in the same boat than you do about the size or quality of the boat. Perhaps inequality with abundance offends your sensibilities more than overall scarcity with equality. And maybe this is valid; that's the part we probably can't hope to reconcile. But we can shine light on these underlying assumptions. I do so in part because, deep down, I don't think our core assumptions are all that different, but if I'm wrong, it's still important to get those cards on the table. It's still important to point out that there are real downsides to these reforms.
As for rhetoric, well...words matter, too. You can think universal care is important and worthwhile, but acknowledge that it's not a "right," but just a good idea. I'd generally rather talk about the idea itself, but the rhetoric around this issue (particularly the idea that it's a "right") is awfully dense, so it's necessary to cut some of that away to really talk about the issue.
And, of course, there are issues of basic consistency. If you justify the mandate by saying we need the young to pay for the old, I don't think you can simultaneously say we should let the old die to keep costs down for everyone else. That's a problem you have to resolve even if we assume you're right about healthcare in general. We could have radically different worldviews, but as long as we agree on the law of non-contradiction, that's a thing we can talk about.
You have been very respectful and very thoughtful, so I'm certainly not going to berate you or imply anything negative about you or your position if you elect not to address these things. It takes a lot of time and thought and can be tiring. But I do think there are plenty of issues here that can be discussed even without agreement on more fundamental issues...if we really disagree on those fundamental issues much at all, underneath all the rhetoric and political atmosphere.
Perhaps we do have some truly irreconcilable differences, but I'm not sure that precludes us from talking about this issue. You say that all of my arguments illustrate that universal care actually involves sacrifices, but a) those sacrifices are important, and b) a lot of them have been about the specific rhetoric used, too.
If universal care involves sacrifices, obviously you can still argue that it's worthwhile in spite of them, but they matter. They force us to decide what our real priorities are. Since you acknowledge that significant rationing is inevitable, for example, the corollary to that is that you're willing to sacrifice height of care for breadth. This will inevitably cause some people to die. Which may mean your top priority is merely to make sure people don't die or go bankrupt for one reason (they can't afford it) rather than another (there not being enough to go around in general). Perhaps you care more about the idea of people being in the same boat than you do about the size or quality of the boat. Perhaps inequality with abundance offends your sensibilities more than overall scarcity with equality. And maybe this is valid; that's the part we probably can't hope to reconcile. But we can shine light on these underlying assumptions. I do so in part because, deep down, I don't think our core assumptions are all that different, but if I'm wrong, it's still important to get those cards on the table. It's still important to point out that there are real downsides to these reforms.
As for rhetoric, well...words matter, too. You can think universal care is important and worthwhile, but acknowledge that it's not a "right," but just a good idea. I'd generally rather talk about the idea itself, but the rhetoric around this issue (particularly the idea that it's a "right") is awfully dense, so it's necessary to cut some of that away to really talk about the issue.
And, of course, there are issues of basic consistency. If you justify the mandate by saying we need the young to pay for the old, I don't think you can simultaneously say we should let the old die to keep costs down for everyone else. That's a problem you have to resolve even if we assume you're right about healthcare in general. We could have radically different worldviews, but as long as we agree on the law of non-contradiction, that's a thing we can talk about.
You have been very respectful and very thoughtful, so I'm certainly not going to berate you or imply anything negative about you or your position if you elect not to address these things. It takes a lot of time and thought and can be tiring. But I do think there are plenty of issues here that can be discussed even without agreement on more fundamental issues...if we really disagree on those fundamental issues much at all, underneath all the rhetoric and political atmosphere.
