May 30th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Rationing of health care takes place in countries like Canada and Britain where thousands of people die every year on a waiting list for treatment.

Can you provide a link to a credible study that shows that “thousands of people die every year on a waiting list for treatment” in Canada and Britain? Can you also link to a credible study that indicates that no, or very few, US citizens die each year on a waiting list for treatment.

Lives At Risk: Single-Payer National Health Insurance Around the World by John C. Goodman, Gerald L. Musgrave, and Devon M. Herrick is an excellent book to read comparing national health insurance schemes around the world with the US system. It’s exhaustively researched and I can’t recommend it highly enough if you’re interested in health care.

But, I digress.

500 heart patients die on waiting lists in Britain. Link

Thousands of NHS cancer patients are dying unnecessarily because waiting times for life-saving treatments are growing alarmingly. Link

Wait times also occur in the US but they are substantially shorter than those found in Britain or Canada and thus far fewer people will be dead or in excruciating pain while they wait for treatment.

Thousands of people in Canada and Britain (and you can add France, Sweden and any other 1st world country with single-payer health care to that number) seems like extreme hyperbole. But, if you provide the links you can change my mind.

The book I suggested is full of data from the WHO and OECD supporting my claim about greater rationing leading to more deaths.

Can you provide a link to a credible study that shows that “thousands of people die every year on a waiting list for treatment” in Canada and Britain? Can you also link to a credible study that indicates that no, or very few, US citizens die each year on a waiting list for treatment.

This is, frankly, a stunning claim. Thousands of people in Canada and Britain (and you can add France, Sweden and any other 1st world country with single-payer health care to that number) seems like extreme hyperbole. But, if you provide the links you can change my mind.

Or do you mean the linked posts? I can see how Pip might be classified as “sex positive,” though I have no idea whether she is in fact, because she’s doing the deconstructing gender thing. Perhaps you find that frothy and a distraction from your feminist concerns? Superbabymama looks to be taking particular sides in various blog wars, (for example, she’s trans-friendly and actively supports WOC bloggers) so maybe that’s what is bothering you? The referenced posts are very factual ones about poverty, and I would be hard pressed to classify them as either feminist or anti, either sex positive or radical and anti-porn.

[R]elatively few people are able to put aside their own personal needs and situation for a theory. If you’re hungry and out of work (whether because the economy has tanked, because capitalism is evil, or because you’re a lazy sack), the idea that everyone is on their own unless they can voluntarily reach an agreement with someone else to help them is frankly unappealing.

I share the view that Attribution Theory plays a role. Poor people will tend to attribute the causes of their poverty to forces beyond themselves. Similarly, rich people will tend to attribute the causes of their wealth to forces within themselves; it is the self-made man who worships his creator. Consequently libertarianism will be more appealing to the rich.

That said, I also share Brandon Berg’s suspicions that people who disapprove of capitalism, or think it is rigged, may tend to exert less effort in trying to win the capitalist game than people to embrace the system uncritically and whole-heartedly. Even if the more pessimistic attitude is more accurate, and it may nevertheless be self-defeating and self-reinforcing. Some self-deceptions may be adaptive.

1. Libertarianism is an out-of-the-mainstream political philosophy, and out-of-the-mainstream political philosophies tend to attract people who actually think about politics. People with low intelligence tend not to think much about politics. So there are very few libertarians who lack the cognitive ability to do a middle-class job well. I’m not just saying this because I’m a libertarian; it’s probably true of Greens, too.

2. Libertarian values are more conducive to success in a capitalist economy than left-wing values. We like commerce. We think the profit motive is just spiffy. We’re not only willing to sell out to corporations—we’re positively enthusiastic about it.

That said, there are some radical libertarians who drop out of mainstream society and work odd jobs under the table in order to avoid funding government activities with their tax revenues. Their values are not conducive to success in a mixed economy.

This is one reason that almost no one who isn’t white and reasonably well-off is a libertarian.

I’m not white or reasonably well-off, and I looove me some libertarianism. I’m actually African American and flat-broke most of the time, but I suppose I fall into that small minority you referred to.

If letting people starve and die be malnourished and medically untreated needlessly is insane, then I choose not to be sane.

A single-payer health insurance scheme ( or any other variation of government-run national health insurance) does not guarantee that everyone will receive health care. Rationing of health care takes place in countries like Canada and Britain where thousands of people die every year on a waiting list for treatment.

Also, US labor force participation rates are underestimated by a few percentage points. At least, that’s how Europhiles explain the fact that the unemployment rate in the US is so much lower than in Western Europe. Don’t they say that there are many people who want to work but have been unable to find jobs for so long that they’ve given up, so instead of counting them as unemployed, we just say they’ve dropped out of the labor force?

Few rights come for free, Robert. The wealthy family living in the rich area of town has a right to property in part because my taxes help pay for cops who enforce their property rights.

Really? I understand that you pay taxes, and that taxes are used to provide government services to the rich part of town, but you’re not actually subsidizing them, are you? That is, aren’t the taxes raised from the rich part of town sufficient to pay for the government services provided there?

Ditto radio stations. They pay taxes on their profits, and property taxes on the land they use, plus a licensing fee to the FCC. These are presumably sufficient to cover the (fairly minor, I’d think) expenses associated with shutting down pirate radio stations. Besides, government has granted itself a monopoly on police services. Even if you wanted to hire someone to catch burglars or shut down pirate radio stations, it would be illegal.

The right to trial by jury isn’t really a right in the sense that you say food or health care is a right. It’s a restriction on the power of government. It’s not that anyone is owed a trial—it’s that the government isn’t allowed to throw people in prison without good cause. And the way we determine whether there’s good cause is a trial by jury. So the beneficiaries of trials are not the defendants, but the general public, because a trial is a necessary part of the process of getting criminals off the streets and into prison. And it just so happens that the general public is footing the bill and manning the juries.

Elections are kind of the same thing. Voting isn’t really an individual right so much as a(n allegedly) necessary process for selecting and legitimizing a not-as-bad-as-it-might-otherwise-be government. We don’t hold elections so people can exercise their right to vote; we hold them because it’s (again, allegedly) the best way we know of establishing a government. The costs are born by the taxpayers in general, and the benefits (such as they are) are likewise spread among the general public.

What these all have in common is that the people who benefit from spending are also the ones who foot the bill. Welfare is different, because the set of taxpayers and the set of welfare recipients are largely distinct. There’s some intersection, but not a whole lot (except in the case of Social Security). It’s one thing to force people to pay for the government services they use, but another entirely to rob Peter to pay Paul. This isn’t to say that the latter is necessarily wrong, but the distinction is still important.

There are some pretty significant areas under that graph - particularly in the 50 to 70 range, where all the most experienced and best people (for many/most jobs) are concentrated, and where there is a big difference.

I would also note that the no-worries European welfare model isn’t that old; not much older than me, if not younger. A small difference now becomes a large difference after multiple generations further distance society from the time when work-or-die was prevalent.

But let’s say that you’re right, the difference in participation is trivial. And let’s also say that I’m nuts and there will not be any increased acceptability for the work-free lifestyle as time and generations pass. In short, the problem is as bad now as it will ever be, and it seems like it isn’t that bad now.

Eyeballing that graph, I’d say there’s about a 2% difference in the total workforce participation. (Actually I’d say it looks more like 5% or so, but 2% should be conservative enough that it won’t be argued.) That is, if 100 Americans will generate 100 work-years in a 12-month period, 100 Europeans will generate 98 work-years over the same time period - with the missing 2 WY going to the slacker youth and lighthearted early retiree. Fair enough?

So, to my way of thinking, the distinction isn’t between rights and non-rights, it’s between constitutional rights and non-constitutional rights.

But, what’s a right and how do they get implemented?

In practice, we all have whatever rights the government we live with is willing to implement and enforce.

Again, look at the rights that everyone agrees on in America. The freedom of speech, the freedom to assemble, the freedom to practice religion, etc. If you were to talk about those, no one would think that you were advocating a large-scale government program to fund them. This is what you call a “negative right”. … It’s only when you are paradoxically talking about things that the Constitution does NOT guarantee that it’s understood that you are talking about a government program.

Ron, is it your impression that court buildings build themselves? That judges, DAs, and public defenders, not to mention court reporters, bailiffs, guards, and the hundreds of other folks who keep our court system running are all volunteering, and organizing the whole thing themselves?

Of course not. The right to a trial is a Constitutional right that requires a huge, perpetual government program to organize, and that is paid for entirely out of tax dollars. So is the right to vote. These are positive rights, in the sense that to be meaningfully implemented they have to be organized and paid for by government.

Your belief that US Constitutional rights never require government programs is, to put it mildly, mistaken.

Interesting how you tie “negative” to the rights that are actually guaranteed in the Constitution, by the way.

I have no idea what you’re implying here, Ron.

As for your continued harping on the little “it’s not a right! It’s an entitlement” argument, I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree. The way I’m using the word “rights” is the way most English speakers use the word; my usage of the word is correct and legitimate.

The definition of the word you prefer is, as far as I can tell, a narrower definition used mainly by right-wingers and libertarians. That’s perfectly fine; you have every right (heh) to use specialized jargon. However, in the context of “Alas,” I will continue to use the general definition of the word “rights,” rather than the libertarian jargon you prefer.

So I see no reason why anyone would consider that Superbabymama does/did not have as much right to have a child as anyone else. The problem is not one of a question of rights, in contrast with areas of China where women are being given forcible abortions (. It is a question of whether having had a child Superbabymama is entitled to have her child supported to a particular standard of living if she does not or cannot do so.

There also is no question of how much food she is being allowed; at least, I presume that no one is actively stopping her from going out and earning enough money to support her child to whatever level she can. It’s an issue of how much (money for?) food the State feels that she is entitled to get from them, and how that amount is determined and what it can buy, and whether the State is wrong or right in providing that level of entitlement.

I don’t know why Superbabymama cannot support her child without resort to money from the government. Not knowing that, I make no value judgements as to whether or not she should be given money by the government. But that’s immaterial to the question of rights vs. entitlements.

“okay, there’s a right to free speech. How does it make sense to implement that?”

The way we have; by guaranteeing that every person has a right to say what they want (except the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater), and to do their best to earn enough money to implement it to whatever level they wish themselves. The same way that any other actual right in America is implemented.

Whether or not you understand, the vast majority of English speakers understand that when I talk about a “right to food and shelter for all,” I’m advocating some sort of large-scale government program guaranteeing everyone enough to eat and a place to live. The word “rights,” in ordinary English, refers to both negative and positive rights.

When you are talking about that, I understand that you are talking about a government program, as do most people. But that doesn’t mean that what you are talking about is actually a right. Nor does it mean that everyone understands it as such.

Again, look at the rights that everyone agrees on in America. The freedom of speech, the freedom to assemble, the freedom to practice religion, etc. If you were to talk about those, no one would think that you were advocating a large-scale government program to fund them. This is what you call a “negative right”. Interesting how you tie “negative” to the rights that are actually guaranteed in the Constitution, by the way.

It’s only when you are paradoxically talking about things that the Constitution does NOT guarantee that it’s understood that you are talking about a government program. When you do that, you are talking about what is known as an “entitlement”, and that’s what they are called whenever legislators or budget makers or political scientists or journalists talk about the Federal budget.

The use of “positive rights” when one is really talking about entitlements is a conflation of the concepts of “I have a right to go get ‘x’” and “If I don’t have ‘x’, I am entitled to have the State take resources away from other people and provide it to me.” They are two separate concepts and should not be confused by calling one a “negative right” and one a “positive right”. Thus, the right to free speech is just that; it’s understood that no one has a right to take resources from anyone else so they can exercise it. But a proposition to create a “right” to food and shelter is not a right at all, either negative or positive; it’s a proposal to create an entitlement.

And I think most English speakers understand that. A heck of a lot more people could define “entitlement” than could define “positive right”, I bet. Certainly you’ll see the word “entitlement” used in the mainstream media; I have never seen the term “positive right” ever used.

That said, I don’t know if I could distinguish between entitlements and rights. The US Supreme Court has held that depriving someone of access to public assistance or public schooling without due process of law violates the 14th Amendment’s prohibition on deprivation of property and equal protection of the laws. See, for example, Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) (”[Promotion] of the general welfare” requires “uninterrupted provision [of public assistance] to those eligible to receive it.”); Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 168 (1951) (Frankfurther’s concurrence) (Due process is available to the extent withholding entitlement would mean recipient risks being “condemned to suffer grievous loss”).

More generally, courts and commentors understand property rights to embody an owner’s judicially-cognizable interest in predictability and security. See Reich, The New Property, 73 Yale L.J. 733 (1964); Grey, The Disintegration of Property, 22 Nomos 69, 69-77 (1980). To the extent that entitlements provide predictability and security, they look a lot like property.

Stripped of the “rights” discussion, I understand Super Babymama et al. want the discretion to have society pay for their choice to have kids, etc. Robert et al. express concerns about the incentives Super Babymama’s policy would create, and want the discretion to withhold their funds from paying for other people’s choices to have kids, etc.

O.K. To adapt Robert’s analogy to fit this, it would appear then that it’s a suppression of Robert’s right to free speech if the State does not take money from you and I and Maia to pay for Robert’s hall and the color laser printer he needs if he can’t afford them.

You’re very fond of making arguments from absurdity. But in the real world, we don’t face the choice of providing no help at all, versus providing expensive personalized aid to every single individual.

In the case of food, I think that we should make food stamps (or whatever those credit cards issued by the state are called - in Oregon, we call them the “oregon trail card,” but I’m sure that’s not universal) way, way more generous. That doesn’t mean I think that each person’s right to eat should extend to the state paying a personal live-in chef to move in to every person’s household, or that we have to pay for $200 meals at the most expensive restaurants.

If we don’t take the simpleminded approach you describe, Ron, we don’t have to provide a laser printer to every citizen. Instead, we can ask “okay, there’s a right to free speech. How does it make sense to implement that? And there’s a right to the basic necessities of life, including food and shelter. How does it make sense to implement that?” There’s no one-size-fits-all solution; saying the government should, where needed, provide food does not logically commit me to the proposition that the government must buy Robert a laser printer.

In the case of free speech, you could argue that the most effective approach is to consider free speech an example of a “negative right”; it’s the right to be left alone, the right not to be interfered with.

In the case of the right to eat, however, making it a negative right obviously isn’t enough. This needs to be a “positive right” — a case where society will help out actively, rather than just refraining from interfering.

But when you talk of rights, you’re not using the same language that other people are.

Sure I am. It’s only right-wingers who pretend, disingenuously, not to understand what’s meant when I say “every person should have a right to food and shelter.” My guess is that you know exactly what I mean, even if you pretend not to.

Whether or not you understand, the vast majority of English speakers understand that when I talk about a “right to food and shelter for all,” I’m advocating some sort of large-scale government program guaranteeing everyone enough to eat and a place to live. The word “rights,” in ordinary English, refers to both negative and positive rights.

It’s deceptive to talk about “Maia,” or any other individual person, paying all of the relevant costs.

O.K. To adapt Robert’s analogy to fit this, it would appear then that it’s a suppression of Robert’s right to free speech if the State does not take money from you and I and Maia to pay for Robert’s hall and the color laser printer he needs if he can’t afford them.

There’s no reason that a safety net we all share can’t also be an expense borne by all taxpayers together.

There’s no reason that the expense of hall rental and printing presses and radio stations sufficient for all of us to use can’t be an expense borne by all taxpayers together; and free speech, unlike housing and health care, is a right guaranteed to all Americans.

If letting people starve and die be malnourished and medically untreated needlessly is insane, then I choose not to be sane.

Fine. That’s your choice. And you have every right to work your butt off and give your resources to whatever agency you choose to fund (or create) in order to define and fight those conditions.

But when you talk of rights, you’re not using the same language that other people are. You’re talking about rights and compelling other people to fund the object of those rights for people who are either unable or unwilling to exert themselves productively enough that they can fund those themselves. Your “rights” are a different concept than the generally accepted concept of what the word means. What you call “rights” is better known in the United States as an “entitlement”, which is the word used to describe Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, welfare, etc.

European countries in which food and housing is considered a right?

Actually, having food and housing is considered a right in both Europe and the U.S., and to imply that it’s not considered a right in the U.S. is deceptive. The difference between the two (and Europe is hardly a uniform grouping, the practices vary from country to country) is that in Europe, you have not just a right but an entitlement to a certain level of these things. It would be more correct to say “European countries in which food and housing is considered an entitlement?”