I have to say though, I'm surprised at how few personal attacks there are in here. I mean, it's a discussion about current controversial politics on an internet forum about video games.
IF YOU LIKE AYN RAND SO MUCH WHY DON'T YOU MARRY HER CORPSE, LIBERTARIAN SCUM.
Seriously, though, I really need to stop having this argument, but I'll try (and probably fail) to keep it brief. At least I'll try to make it entertaining. First of all, rights are not universal. We make them up. To paraphrase George Carlin, that's why you have a "bill" of rights instead of just "rights." They're things people have made up to establish some basic rules and controls to prevent people from getting the shit oppressed out of them.
By
anyone.
I will never understand this rabid American fear of the government. You
elect the government. When was the last time you were called out to vote for the CEO of your loan shark health insurers? Sure, your only power may be to remove the scumbag who's currently in office and replace him with a scumbag of equal or greater despicability, but at least if you don't like the guy you can get rid of him, and it's something, some kind of control.
There's an idea in the U.S. that only the government can oppress you or take things away from you, and if a corporation does it, then it isn't anyone's fault, it just kind of happens. A lot of things "just happen" in the United States, it seems. You just happen to have a ton of poor people who just happen to be black, Hispanic and Asian, and these people also happen to have the worst health care, but it isn't race-related; it just happened. This division between wealthy corporations and government is, I think, effectively arbitrary (both are legal fictions, after all), and the worst part is that it leads to argument along the lines that the elected government shouldn't step in to protect people from gross mismanagement by their corporate masters. Because why? Because freedom, apparently. Freedom to be exploited by the wealthy. And why are these guys so wealthy? Because they work hard and meet consumer demands and therefore totally deserve it? Why, of course! So says classical economics!
Classical economics is what tells us that capitalism is so awesome and good for everyone, and even though no one really uses it anymore, it still seems to form the basis of most of the arguments for a "freedom" that is basically just unfettered corporate greed. But don't take my word for it! Classical economics tells us that competition always pushes prices down to a stable equilibrium for goods, that the market acts with an "invisible hand" to ensure that people pursuing their own goals work inadvertently towards the public good. It's based on three axioms:
- Perfect rationality: perfect rationality means that you always make the best decision for yourself. You have needs, you're capable of assessing which of your options best meets that needs, you can rank the options and you always take the best one. In the world of perfect rationality, you will always buy the soft drink that tastes better to you, and you are immune to suggestion through advertising, so no amount of scantily clad ladies can convince you otherwise. This means everyone only needs to advertise a product to you once. Once you know about Coca-cola, you are equipped to make a rational decision, so why would need more information? Speaking of knowing about stuff, did you know you also have...
- Perfect information: it is assumed that you have perfect information about all past, present and future actions. Everyone participating in the market at any level knows what everything is worth, what it has been worth in the past and how their choices affect the market. And if you think that's magical, there's...
- Perfect competition: there is zero barrier to entry, and money does not influence your ability to compete. If I make a soft drink tomorrow that tastes better than Coca-cola, everyone will buy it instead, and Coca-cola will go out of business unless they make a better product.
Now, most of these are violated to some extent all the time, but sometimes they're a reasonably good fit. For example, if I want to make software for some particular kind of business, I only really need a computer and time, the people buying it are professionals, so they're probably well-educated in the subject, and they're going to be motivated to buy high quality software, since they'll be focused on their priorities.
On the other hand, for health care, basically all of these are fucked. Most people don't know or understand how insurers make their decisions, or what their priorities are, or how they operate, but most importantly, by definition insurance requires boat-loads of money to sustain. Perfect rationality and information are tough enough, but perfect competition is right out the window due to the incredibly high barrier for entry. As a result, the business is too complicated for most untrained people to understand and there are only a few participants.
Private health insurance does not provide cheaper or better service, nor is it "more sustainable." The U.S. spends more on healthcare for a lower standard of care than pretty much anyone else in the world (I mean, if you factor in total cost combined with the low general standard of care). People are still somehow running around with the idea that capitalism is going to produce a better result, but they don't seem capable of or willing to deal with the fact that those inferences are based on axioms that simply do not apply in many cases (this being one of them). Combine that with an ethos that paints the highest moral duty as "don't mess with wealth" and you have a recipe for the most insane arguments I have ever heard.
I'm not pushing this on you personally. Everyone seems to be making these arguments, and I just want you to think about how crazy they actually sound.