Healthcare for humans is just another service, it doesn't need to be a special category. There doesn't need to be an association whose membership is granted a monopoly on this service. In absence of regulation, private industry would self-organize into tiers based on demand. From the very lowest tier of service, to the highest. This what we see in countries without so much regulatory burden, and more market freedom, such as India or China.
More fundementally, there is no moral justification for any of it. Just because one person or group of people belive in empathy, or a particular modal of social order, doesn't give them the right to impose that on others who disagree.
But that's not the question we started with. To get back to the original question -
I still believe using better modeling to make health insurance or loans available only to those who barely need it is highly unethical. If we are staying stuck in the current model of insanely high sticker prices that are only affordable with insurance then i don't believe it's ethical to deprive people who need insurance - because in this current model, there is no easy free market alternative, only illness and death.
I (and most other people) believe people should be "entitled" to not be slaves to tyrants, to freedom of speech, to food/warmth/shelter, to basic utilities like running water and electricity. If we have a surplus of resources such that we COULD either give everyone healthcare or give a few people more money, why should society as a whole pick the latter?
Except I don't call that entitlement, its called progress. By your logic, we should not take for granted anything that wasn't' present at the birth of civilization such as not being mauled by a bear or freezing to death. Why should our standard for humanity as a whole be stagnation instead of progress? Does that benefit anyone? If your country was taken over by a dictator and you were forced at gunpoint to become a slave, would you prefer other countries to try to restore democracy, or would you prefer that they say "why should you be entitled to freedom?" and do nothing?
I think you are basically taking libertarianism and "not reaching into the pocket of strangers" to a crazy extreme. Yes, it is a virtue to be self sufficient. Charity and empathy are also virtues.
Yes I agree wholeheartedly. We should not take anything for granted, and perceive any improvements to our quality of life as things to be grateful for, not entitled to. We are all born naked and hungry. Everything we receive afterwards we get from other people, people who are not obligated to give us anything.
All of your examples of being forced into chains at gunpoint oppose the fundamental principle I'm advocating for: consent. Just because someone has something (say indoor heating), it doesn't entitle you to have the same thing. Just because others live comfortably, it doesn't mean you should as well. Just because you define "progress" a certain way, it doesn't give you the right to impose that definition on me, does it?
> Yes, it is a virtue to be self sufficient. Charity and empathy are also virtues.
Yes! Where we disagree is whether these virtues should be voluntary or compulsive. For all of history until recently, they were voluntary. We have NGOs and other organizations which operate on this model of voluntary charity. This is the only model that's ethical. What gives you the right to impose your virtues on others?
I understand you are libertarian and believe only in consent, i don't need that explained to me again. I'm talking about actual concrete next steps on a concrete situation (healthcare), not "imagine you could rebuild the entire world in an ideal fashion". Thats the question I really want you to answer.
More along the lines of the philosophical (but less important, pointless) debate - Consent is not so clear as you think it is. Why should I consent to your single-minded focus on consent as the only valid principle of organizing society overriding all other concerns of practicality? What if I view that as an imposition of your virtues on mine?
I strongly disagree that it's pointless to have an underlying philosophy that decisions are based on, quite the opposite in fact. I would say that having a consistent philosophy or set of principles is the most important thing when making any sort of decisions, especially in the administration of complex systems such as society.
To answer your second (very valid) question, the underlying assumption is that we are all more or less equal, and therefore neither of us has a right to impose anything on the other. The question I've asked that you've not answered is what is the source of your authority to decide what virtues I should live by? I'm not saying you have to live by mine, just that you lack the moral authority to make me live by yours.
The fact that I'm asking for a source of authority is just a fancy way of saying "why do you think you can impose on me and not expect me to resist with violence and subversion?"
I don't. I think prices and wages ought to be privately negotiated between consumers and producers, and employees and employers respectively. I also think that people are no more entitled to goods, employment or services from other people than they are to romantic relationships, which clearly need to be consensual.
Healthcare in the US is extremely heavily regulated, that's why it's so expensive. The minimum quality of care is absurdly high. There's no budget option. If you want any medical care, you have to see a physician with an ridiculously expensive education, the supply of which has been artificially limited by regulatory capture.
This is all highly unethical. If you need a simple procedure, why can't someone with the equivalent of technician training do it for much cheaper? Again, this would be a consensual interaction between two parties, which is nobody's buiness but their own.
> If we took on your Darwinian model, then its a very simple negotiation - life-saving medicines or surgeries are worth infinity, because otherwise you die. So if you ever need either of those, the doctors will simply ask for every single dollar and asset you have in perpetuity, easy.
This just totally ignores the idea of competition. If some doctors are charging infinity, then others would realize they could capture market share by charging less than that. The veterenary comparison is very apt, why should human healthcare work any differently?