I first heard the argument when it came to cigarettes. Back then my parents both said “just wait. They’re coming for fat people next.” And so they have done, and remarkably efficiently, too. Earlier in the week my plea to be left in peace with my soda was met with the standard response such pleas receive these days.
In so far as much as the cost of treating those affected by soda and other negative dietary habits is absorbed by the society as a whole, your right to do as you please in this case directly affects my right to not have to absorb some of your health care cost. So your liberties would tread on my liberties.
It sounds good when you hear it for the first time. Why of course! We are all owned by our brethren in society and therefore must obey all marching orders designed for the greater good. And now that we have Health Insurance to pay for our illnesses–and it doesn’t matter whether said insurance is private or Universal Healthcare–we have everyone who is out three-sixteenths of a penny for our last head cold to answer to.
Does no one see the two flaws in this logic? I hope they start to because I plan and hope to live a few years yet and don’t want to be fed the same palavar for decades.
Flaw Number One: We Are Entropic Creatures
Every man, woman, and child on this planet began dying the moment they first drew breath. Life is but a march toward the grave, and so many things we encounter in that march contribute to speeding us along our way. If we plan to object to smoking and soda drinking and general icky fatness on the grounds that such things cost insurers money then we should look to the top cost first for elimination. Stop having babies, of course, because that whole thing is just frought with expense. There’s the pregnancy and delivery and then there’s the tubes in the ears and the vaccines and the vaccine side effects and the legs broken when your little six year old walking Bill To Society falls off the monkey bars. In fact, every baby represents a lifetime of health care bills. So stop now! After all, you belong to me because you cost me. While you aren’t having babies you need to also not drive a car or take vacations or run marathons. All of those have high associated healthcare expenses.
Flaw Number Two: Godwin and Aktion T4
I truly apologize in advance for bringing the Nazis into this. I know it is a weak way to make an argument. But unlike Soylent Green–which makes the same argument–this really did happen less than 100 years ago. Once society starts determining that the cost of individuals’ treatment is to negative benefit of the group’s pocketbook, it becomes very easy to “mercy kill” the sick, the old, the infants with birth defects. After all, why should I pay for your Downs’ Syndrome child? I mean, really! The nerve of you! The nerve of you to ask ME to put my precious money on the line for your Alzheimer’s-ridden grandmother…she should just be done away with too. After all, isn’t a lethal injection a lot cheaper than paying for two decades of a nursing home or a lifetime of physical therapy for that spina bifida baby?
This is where reducing everything to dollars and cents gets us. We are so busy worried about currency we aren’t paying any attention to the cost to our humanity. By turning every “choice” into an accounting question we cheapen ourselves. Yes, I want to be left alone to drink soda in peace. But, selfishly, I also don’t want society deciding when I’m 67 that my various ailments make me a net liability and therefore sacrificial. People are more than the sum total of what they cost one another.
This is where reducing everything to dollars and cents gets us. We are so busy worried about currency we aren’t paying any attention to the cost to our humanity.
This is actually my problem with an unfettered free market. And actually fairly related to my biggest concern with libertarianism in general (which in a very real sense is just an unfettered free market applied to EVERYTHING).
My sentiments exactly! The collective, by definition, is a declared assault on both individual liberties and private property ownership. It’s consequences are not, REPEAT NOT, unintentional, but rather the desired result of those who have sought to destroy the American system of individual liberties and responsibility and bring this population under the subjugation of a technocratic system now controlled by mega banks, corporations, and, yes, insurance companies.
I gotta agree with Dolphin here. Those of us who argue in favor of collective responsibility tend to be all “we must look after each other no matter who each other is.” Which might run us into overspending, but is less likely to run us into ignoring each other’s humanity in favor of dollars and cents. It’s the people who are “you and I are separate and every bit of care you get costs me in some way” folks who are more likely to cut off Baby Downs or Grandma Forgetful or Funny Cousin.
I agree that there is a “stop costing me money with your evil ways, you” mindset out there, but it doesn’t belong to communitarians.
I’d argue that it doesn’t “belong” wholly to one ideology. I’ve heard this tautology (?bromide? Asshattery?) from adherents to EVERY party. Libertarians, communitarians, Republicans, Democrats, independents.
I’d posit, in fact, that’s what makes it so bloody dangerous. It’s an ideology that appeals to the self-interest, and is slowly replacing that other brick of oppression “Think about the CHILDREN!”
It is a false logic that appeals to people who want to sound libertarian OR compassionate.
It’s just dangerous eugenic piffle.
“In so far as much as the cost of treating those affected by soda and other negative dietary habits is absorbed by the society as a whole, your right to do as you please in this case directly affects my right to not have to absorb some of your health care cost. So your liberties would tread on my liberties.”
And thus is stated both the biggest argument that proponents make in favor of, and the biggest detriment to, Universal Health Care.
You can now fill in the blank for broccoli, exercise, in-home air filters, orthopedic shoes, and anything else anybody wants. Big Brother just arrived. He’s carrying an insurance plan.
Okay, first let me state unequivocally that I think UHC is the worst idea since Viet Nam.
But if I’m being intellectually honest–as I try to be–I’ve heard this same thing from people on group plans through their work. 10 years ago I had to go to an insurance meeting at my job (the annual thing where they review plan changes). The cost of our plan–their plan–had doubled that year. So the insurance company rep gave this speech about how they had spent a million dollars keeping some very sick premature baby alive. He didn’t realise that the baby’s father was in the room. (AWKWARD–and probably a HIPPAA violation). Then mr. Insurance gave us a lecture about always asking for generic Rxs. Then he talked about how obesity was such a cost factor. Everyone spent a good five minutes looking around at all the fat people with covert, accusing glances.
And that wasn’t a UHC scenario. That was corporate insurance.
This is so scary because it crosses so many ideologies.
nm:
“I agree that there is a “stop costing me money with your evil ways, you” mindset out there, but it doesn’t belong to communitarians.”
Communitarians? I realize that there’s an intensive effort to re-brand the soundly demolished movement these days, but in the interest of historical accuracy I have to point out that “communitarians” use to be known by another name. And it didn’t work out so well the first few dozen times it was tried in other countries.
Jason, I’m not rebranding. You, on the other hand, don’t seem to be able to distinguish between “communism,” the political philosophy; “Communism,” the euphemism for dictatorial state control of the economy; socialism, both a political philosophy and a system being practiced in most of Europe with results no more disastrous than those the U.S. finds itself in today; and “communitarianism,” a political philosophy with deep roots in this country. You could look them up, though.
“You, on the other hand, don’t seem to be able to distinguish between “communism,” the political philosophy;…”
Not to pick a fight here, NM, but…
Wikipedia is fun!
“Some people have argued[4] that communitarianism’s focus on social cohesion raises similarities with nationalistic communism, or various forms of authoritarianism, although supporters contend that there are substantial differences between communitarianism and authoritarianism,”
So just because I disagree with you does not make me wrong, and I do stand by my assertion that there’s been an attempt at a soft rebranding of socialism/communism in the U.S. of late (about that Patient Care act…).
Further, according to the Wiki on Communitariansim/Communism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communitarianism), I’m in good company thinking there are similarities. The nut of the matter is that, while there may be a semantic difference between the two, in practical terms the average Occupier that hears Communitarianism isn’t going to make much of an academic distinction. So while there is room to argue (and arguments persist), to most people they’re largely the same.
And here we go into political season.
Some people have argued that George W. Bush’s invocation of existential threats to the country as an excuse to curtail individual liberties raises similarities with fascism, or various forms of authoritarianism. Using your logic, Jason, anyone who says that George Bush was a fascist is not wrong.
Anyone can play that game, and it’s equally ridiculous no matter who does it.
*Quite a lot of them have, actually. Google “George Bush fascism” for some examples.
I’m not sure that “It shares 7 letters so some nut on the street may or may not be able to tell the difference” is a compelling argument that two political philosophies that in many places stand in direct opposition to each other are in fact one in the same. You’re not wrong because you disagree, you’re wrong because you’re wrong. Kind of like saying a dog and a seal are the same animal because they both bark.
Heh… here’s me deciding that this argument just isn’t worth it. (mudwrestling and all that). And NM, I don’t disagree that GWB had similarities as well. Just hoping you know that your views are not universally held.
I would, as well, be interested in knowing (in the interest of historical accuracy) by what other name communitarianism was known and which countries have tried it.
What is now called “Communitarianism” in the United States has been the ideological response to those having issues with “Libertarianism”. Like “Libertarianism” it is more a philosophical framework that informs various political positions. Just as there are Republicans and, oddly, fascists who hold libertarian ideals there are Communists who hold communitarian ideals.
I think _perhaps_ Jason sees the use of “communitarian” to be a rebranding of “socialist” and/or “communist” while nm sees it as a clarification.
What I find unfortunate is the general misunderstanding I see a lot of communitarians make. When they profess Communitarian they seem to see it as an ideal exclusive to left-wing politics. While I consider myself–obviously–a political libertarian I believe strongly that my humanity AND my religion require me to be Communitarian. I just believe that our ways of fostering community are best met through means other than government because government is by definition a force and a community is not nurtured through threat of force.
Likewise, most Communists–Russia/China/Cuba style–are NOT true Communitarians in that they require complete subsumation of the individual. Once that is done the community actually CEASES to be a “community” (which is a gathering of individuals bonded out of proximity, desire or necessity) and becomes the behemoth of State. It doesn’t work, obviously, because individuals cannot remain wholly subjugate.
The closest political philosophy to Communitarianism would be socialism, of course, with all the failings socialism has evinced thus far.
And Katherine, never apologize for bringing up the Nazis when the comparison is apt.
When the shoe fits, don’t let the Guardians of Polite Conversational Rules tell you that it’s just too unfashionable to show in public.
From http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?GodwinsLaw
“What I’ve always disliked about this “law”, is that it’s more often than not invoked in order to shut people up, and to avoid focusing any thought upon the phenomenon of Nazi Germany. As if there is nothing to be discussed there. As if it was a tiny isolated pocket of evil that “just was”. As if there has been nothing before, and nothing since in human affairs, that resembles anything about the Nazis, whatsoever.
I always thought it ill-behooves self-professed “geeks” to fall into this trap, and start sounding like muddy-brained bumpkin-infants, certain-about-everything, singing “La La La La La La La”, with their fingers in their ears.”
Yeah; Godwin has been on my nerves lately because it has had the unintended effect of turning the horror show that was the Third Reich into a punchline.
Yes, on Usenet 20years ago and on Tapatalk today it does get irksome to have everything drilled down to “yeah, well, the Nazis…”
But frankly, that crap HAPPENED. it happened in an industrialized country populated by educated people. I don’t care to be doomed to repeat their evils.
It happened. But it’s notable that it was pretty much the only one of Hitler’s murderous policies on which he got any pushback from the German populace. In fact, he had to tone down not just the rhetoric, but the murders as well.
I don’t see how that in any way negates my point.
Oh, no, it doesn’t. It wasn’t meant to, except to the extent of noting that this sort of health-based attack will always be harder to carry out than attacks on “evil Others.” And that it’s hard to turn one’s family into “evil Others” in a way that it’s not hard to turn other people’s families.
Mostly, it was just meant as a comment on industrialization, sentiment, and propaganda.
Good Post.
I agree on your health care points. It’s a dangerous line we now walk, and atrocities will happen along the way. Not that atrocities aren’t occurring now, or that the current health insurance system isn’t totally messed up, but the “solution” we’ve been given is like feeding rat poison to a sick person. I’ve felt very discouraged for my country these past few days, weeks (years).
On the point about humans being entropic creatures, I agree to a point. I think in the area of health, Christians are guilty of focusing on the ‘sin’ at the expense of God’s grace. Yes, we live in a fallen world, and we will all die. But, God heals our cuts and bruises along the way. He mends our broken legs and arms. He offers us the bounty of his nature. Pure unadulterated food–fruits, vegetables, grains, meats, milk. Soda is a man-made concoction. To me it’s like saying, I’m going to die anyway, so I may as well drink this acid.
As a child of a recovered alcoholic and a smoker who lived on coffee and refined carbs, I know the pain of watching a loved one slowly and unnecessarily abuse themselves. Did God intend for my Dad to die of cancer? Maybe. Did he intend it to happen at age 57? I don’t think so. When we willingly sin against our bodies, it hurts those around us, sometimes profoundly. But it seems Christians are notoriously guilty about turning a blind eye to this type of sin, and that is one of my #1 pet peeves about the church.
Well, but should people who drink soda be punished because some people who drink soda drink too much of it, or because some people think it’s poison? I don’t drink soda, but I’d sure hate to see it outawed.
My point in emphasising the entropic nature of life is not to say “since we’re all doomed we may as well go out with a bang!” but rather to emphasise that no matter what choices another person makes with her life, that life will ultimately end with her body ceasing to function. It is, therefore, utterly ridiculous to prohibit X activity under the basis of “it will increase healthcare costs” because Healthcare costs are _never_ a stable baseline.
Is drinking soda a sin? Maybe for some people God has convicted them that they should not do it. If I recall correctly you’ve posted in the past that you are a self-confessed sugar addict. (I apologise if I’m remembering wrong and confusing you with someone else. I blame the drugs.) For that person–a person who has been convicted that this is YES a problem for them–to drink a soda would be a sin. (See 1 Cor. 10:23).
For me personally I do not believe that the act of playing poker is itself a sin. But I am convicted that I cannot play poker (or chess or Settlers of Cataan) with other players because of how it affects my contentment and my testimony. So I don’t play those games. But I don’t also assume that they are as harmful for you or Jason or Carsen or nm or Jill or Patrick. So I don’t think the entire world needs to be on a SETTLERS OF CATAAN IS ILLEGAL kick.
Since I’m a believer in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit for all Christians I figure that Spirit can convict a believer of her wrongdoing. For me personally not only am I not convicted that Soda drinking am wrong I also have doctors telling me that I need fluids so badly and if soda is what I can keep down then soda is fine. On several occasions I have had physicians actually Rx regular (sugared) Coca Cola for me.
Katherine, I agree, I think the Holy Spirit will convict a person, then it’s up to that person to obey. A lot of times people choose not to obey, but that’s old news. Regarding the docs prescribing Coke, I suppose that makes sense, given that it’s pretty much a drug. (Caffeine, sugar) I might be a little biased given my negative history with sugar, though.
nm, I think if the government thinks soda is bad it should ban it where it currently has the power to do so, in schools, in war zones. (But it will never do that.) Other than that, I think it’s a waste of time for the government to get involved. They’d only be reinforcing the lack of personal responsibility that is rampant in the US.
[...] Rite Aid Deals 7/15…Looking like a HOT week! Cheap Huggies, Free Bayer and candy barsTitle UnknownC Online Test BbcKris Humphries Demanding A Paternity Test For His Ex-Girlfriend’s BabyUnintended Consequence Of Public Generosity [...]