#1 SITE FOR THE LATEST REVIEWS ON THE HOTTEST TECHNOLOGY HITTING THE MAINSTREAM!…

“This extension is ridiculous IMHO. It shows that there’s no obvious stopping point when one decides that everyone is responsible for the welfare of all humans (and, from what I’ve read, Singer feels responsible for the welfare of animals as well.)”

That’s a reasonable argument, I’ll admit. I don’t agree though. I’m comfortable with having an ideal to strive for, even if I fall short. I don’t donate anything like all of my wages above subsistence level to charity (then again, I don’t make all that much more, but that’s not really relevant). But reading Singer did convince me to donate much more than I did before. Is the world worse off if Singer contributes “only” 80% of his “excess” or if he donates nothing at all?

The same thing applies to your taking Singer to task for not being an investment banker. First of all, you assume that he’s as well suited to that job as he is to academia, which isn’t obviously true (and likely is false–it’s hard to imagine a **scholar of ethics** lasting for more than a day on Wall Street, isn’t it?). Second, you take Singer to task for not (theoretically) maximizing his income but who among us is perfect? Again, I find it far better to act altruistically in pursuit of an unobtainable ideal than to live with your cynical point of view.

Singer actually addresses your very argument in reference to vegetarianism (he may also directly address it in terms of altruism, but I’m familiar with his what he wrote about animals so I’m going with that). He himself is a vegetarian (possibly a vegan, I can’t remember) but he makes clear that even if you choose to eat meat, even eating *less* meat than you otherwise would is a moral act. Imperfect, yes, but the animals who aren’t slaughtered when you opt for a vegetarian meal once night a week are real, nonetheless.

Alright, I gotta stop feeding the troll. I’ll try to restrain myself from future comments and insults.

This extension is ridiculous IMHO. It shows that there’s no obvious stopping point when one decides that everyone is responsible for the welfare of all humans (and, from what I’ve read, Singer feels responsible for the welfare of animals as well.)

The issue you raise is a tough one, because it’s hard to draw the line as to when any individual has done his or her fair share. The philosopher Peter Singer likes to present this kind of hypothetical scenario: Imagine you’re walking past a lake and you spot a child drowning in it. No one else is around to help save that child, so you decide you must do so; however, you are certain that doing so will ruin the expensive new pants you are wearing. In this scenario, most everyone would agree that saving the child’s life is more important than the loss of your new pants. Singer then goes on to point out, though, that each of us could save a child’s (or children’s) life by donating our excess income to reputable charities; the only difference is that we don’t see that child drowning in front of us. But the decision whether or not to donate is parallel in nature to the decision whether or not to ruin your pants: preserve my money or save someone else’s life? Singer’s point is that we’re always making that decision whenever we purchase non-essential goods and services.

There are obviously problems and difficulties with his argument, and with defining what goods are “non-essential,” but one of its interesting implications is that almost none of us ever acts in accordance with ethical ideals. (Singer himself “only” donates ~80% of his “excess” income (income above average cost of living), rather than a full 100%) In my view, the key take away from his arguments is not that we’re all moral reprobates (I only donate ~1% of my own income), but that the burden of acting ethically often falls upon society as a whole, and the government, because, left to their own devices, individuals won’t always act in the most ethically responsible manner. We as humans need to take steps to try to legislate ethical behavior for ourselves, because it sure as heck don’t come natural.

In the case of health care, the system is so massive and unwieldy that I think it’s hard to argue that the burden falls heavily on individuals. So I don’t think it matters how much Hantu, or myself, or others who argue that health care is a moral obligation, personally devote to heal the sick–it’s orthogonal to the main issue: setting up policy that gets as close to the ethical ideal as possible. It’d be nice for us individuals to do something, but we’re not hypocrites if we don’t: the solution needs to be systemic, beyond the scope of what any individual can do… Even a full-time nurse who also volunteers at a nursing home on the weekends probably isn’t doing enough (as an individual) by Singer’s standards of the ethical ideal.

(As for myself, I believe I make most of my own ethical contributions indirectly, by teaching and writing about literature, art, philosophy, ethics, etc. They’re meager contributions, I’m aware, but they’re what I feel I’m good at, and they’re what excite me. And I never prosyletize, crudely telling students to vote Democrat or something. I see it more as a matter of conditioning them to exercise their critical intelligence, to be more sensitive and measured in their responses to the world around them by attending to literature, art, writing, and ideas. And I think that’s actually a pretty similar goal to Steven’s own goal in much of his writing.)

If Hantu takes some sort of medical training and works to help the sick, or if Hantu contributes money to help heal the sick, s/he has my greatest respect. What makes me angry is when someone sits on his butt doing nothing while proclaiming that hospitals have a moral obligation to do more than they’re already doing.

It makes you angry to hear people say that society has a moral obligation to make sure the sick can receive adequate medical care!? Wow. Just wow.

It’s sad, and more than a little disturbing, that you can only view the question from a self-interested, business perspective, but, hey, at least you’re honest about it: your own profit margins as an “insurance expert” matter more than the health of the populace.

I’m not saying that the financial viability of the health care industry doesn’t matter, but I am saying that when you’re trying to ascertain ethical principles you don’t begin by asking, “Would such a principle be profitable?” You begin by trying to logically ascertain the principle and only then do you try to figure out how to get as close to that principle as possible in the real world. But to get “angry” about a moral claim you need to demonstrate why that claim is wrong–not why it would be problematic to adhere to for the industry you happen to work in.

1- Our health care system is currently very inefficient and fiscally unsustainable and must be reformed in order to get our fiscal house in order.

This is 3 points. I agree only with the first. Our health care system is inefficient.

However, it’s not fiscally unsustainable. Americans buy a lot of health care, because we’re rich and health care is important. As health care gets more and more expensive (and better and better), some people won’t be able to afford the very best of care. So, they’ll get less than the very best. What God ever guaranteed that every single American would get the very best of health care?

What is unsustainable is a government system that promises the very best to every participan, such as Medicare. The Dems have made this problem worse by guaranteeing the best of health care to even more people. We can be certain that these guarantees will not be fulfilled.

Making our health care system more efficient would be nice. IMHO the bill that was passed makes it less efficient and also makes if more difficult or impossible to ever make the system more efficient. E.g., that bill encourages more malpractice suits and makes malpractice reform more difficult.

Set that aside. Suppose a magical one-time gain in efficiency reduced the cost of medical care by 25%. If medical costs continued to rise at 10% per year, they would soon outstrip that one-time 25% saving.

2- Rapid, large scale and fundamental changes to the current system, which has existed for over 50 years and is huge part of our economy, is undesirable and unpredictable.

I’d accept this as a generality, although it depends on the changes, of course

3- Employer based health care does not make sense in the modern economy and unfairly burdens American companies in a global market, while discouraging entrepreneurs from leaving their employers to take risks.

I’d accept this a generality.

4- It is morally unacceptable for hospitals not to treat people who are sick, but don’t have insurance.

This sort of thinking makes me angry. It’s so easy for those of us who aren’t bothering to provide health care to claim that there’s a moral responsibility for those who provide such care to do more than they’re doing. It seems equally logical (that is, not logical at all) to assert that there’s a moral responsibility for people who waste our time writing comments on blogs to go to nursing school and devote our lives to healing the sick.

Furthermore, it doesn’t work. Hospitals are already going bankrupt because they’re overly burdened with requirements. Then they can’t treat anybody.

5- Health Insurance companies should not be permitted to drop coverage after the fact or refuse coverage because of pre-existing conditions, or practice any other adverse selection biased risk shuffling.

Should a burning building pay the same fire insurance rate as one that isn’t burning? Obviously not.

Furthermore, if people can wait until their house is on fire to buy insurance, many people won’t buy any insurance until a fire occurs. But, if the insurance company insures mostly buildings that are already on fire, they’ll have to charge enormous, unaffordable premiums.

The same principle applies to people waiting until they’re sick to buy health insurance.

Anita Dunn stated that Mao was one of her favorite political philosophers. I’m not quite sure what facts you are working from, but that sounds way too cozy for me. As a mental exercise, imagine the reaction if John Boehner said that “Hitler was one of the political philosophers he admired most.” I think we would be getting far more than yawns from you.

Your next paragraph makes my previous point. Again, you look to paint the right as a bunch of mouth-breathing racists waving the confederate flag. That is Saul Alinsky to a “T” and does not resemble debate at all. Of course it was the Dems that supported slavery and mainly opposed the civil rights movement. Of course it was a progressive and Dem darling (Margaret Sanger) who wrote for Nazi eugenics journals, had them write in hers, and looked to exterminate blacks, hispanics, Jews, etc., calling them “human weeds.”

And sorry, you really do not have knowledge of our founding fathers and their political spectrum. I appreciate your Wikihistory version but it just is not accurate… If you would like, I can point to countless instances of American Progressives flirting with Hitler and Mussolini rather than being mortal enemies.

And, no, most modern progressives are not Maoists, Stalinists, etc. They ARE, however, influenced by their beliefs just as I am influenced by the FF’s beliefs. To deny that is a fool’s errand. And BTW, it was the NAZIS who sad they learned the art of propaganda from the US progressives, specifically Wilson and FDR (look up Wilson’s 4 minute men).

If I did not answer the question of “why” the TPers were not in the street for Bush, it is because I said it was irrelevant. The “why” does not matter any more than “why” you are not in the streets protesting the Obama administration this minute, while they carry on Bush’s policies. People wake up at different times. You do not ask why they did not wake up earlier. (Perhaps 300b deficits ballooning to 1.8t deficits has something to do with it?).

And I do agree with 1-5. Too bad Obamacare does not address those issues with any efficiency. But, no, an unconstitutional power grab is not the only way to fix it.

I’m not sure of your point regarding climate change. That two organizations believe in AGW does not even mean that everyone INSIDE the organization supports the position and completely ignores the inconvenient truth that thousands of scientists disagree. Your argument was that it is settled science. Gravity is “settled science.” All scientists believe in it. AGW is not. You and Steven are wrong and should man up and admit it.

And I suspect, like nearly all other climate science, their findings are at least partially based on Phil Jones’ work which he admits cannot be verified or replicated.

Just turned on the Yankee game…