I'm quite happy with a collective good argument
You still haven't articulated what the collective good is. You refer to it, but you don't define or describe it. I do not see a collective good. I see that it's a good deal for the beneficiaries. I do not see a greater good. You can't claim it as a justification if you can't specify it, if it's a figment. That's the difference between a justification and a values statement.
I see decent health care as a right of citizenship, which will, undoubtedly, cause you to grind your teeth. (Hmm, if pressed, I might even be willing to argue for dental care under it as well.)
So, you "see" it. If you "see" it, where did it come from? What is the basis for it? Or did you just make it up out of whole cloth?
What else do you "see." What about food and clothing and recreation? Lotsa human needs. Companionship? How about sex? Why is there a right of citizenship to be provided with one and not the others?
As for "entitlement mentalities", I'm less bothered by them than by the suffering which follows from not covering everyone
This is one of those pay me now or pay me later deals, IMO, just like Fram oil filters. You are focused on the immediate suffering, not unreasonably. What you don't consider is that you may be ironically producing greater suffering later on if you undermine the notions of property rights, individual responsibility and initiative, pride of accomplishment, and personal generosity. That is too high a price to pay.
I'm not against generosity, either personal or collective. I am personally quite generous. If individuals, communities, or states want to set poor people up in mansions with their own private doctors, chefs, and personal shoppers, fine. Just don't establish any of that as a right of US citizenship. Once you've done that, you've pulled the rug out from under the success machine. Establishment matters. |
