"TGM - If you would like an answer, selfishness is wrong because it denies that which is good, i.e. things such as charity, love, etc. That is not to say that it is wrong to want to have things for ourselves, but to do so to the detriment of charity, love, and service to others is wrong. Note that I state this on a moral, not legal, basis."

Well, clearly it denies those, but why are they good? Its the same question that you've left essentially unanswered.

I find it impossible to accept a position which doesn't begin with a clear, justified morality, because ultimately the objectives of that position are going to be more or less just the whim of the person who holds it.

"also you're trying to draw people into arguing with you about the quality of health care when access is the reason we're trying to reform it. basically you're making the argument that the death of thousands of poor and lower-middle-class people is worth having the "best" health care system in the world even when people in other countries live longer for cheaper BOOMSHAKALAKA"
1. I am not arguing for the American system, but for a free market system
2. I have pointed out all ready that there are countless reasons why people life for a shorter time in America, besides the fact that it isn't free market:
America has more poor people than the UK
Americans in general have a less healthy lifestyle
Pollution in areas is much higher in America
to name but three.
3. The important statistics are about how well defended against disease you are (e.g. the amount of vaccination you get) and how likely you are to be effectively treated (i.e. relative survival rates), as I refered to in my first post.



Haven't time to respond to the rest right now.

Your posts show up as italics to you only. It's how you can find where you last posted.

Here's the problem for all you people who talk about how we should let people take care of themselves:

If you put that into effect consistently, you would have poor people dying in emergency rooms while medical professionals stood by and watched. Now even if you think that's the ideal, our society is simply not willing to accept that. If a person needs emergency heart surgery, or is in a diabetic coma, they WILL get help, and YOU will pay for it--tens of thousands of dollars.

But if that person who had gotten free heart surgery could have gotten cholesterol medication and some nutritional counseling, which is a lot cheaper, they wouldn't have needed the surgery. YOU would still be paying, but you'd be paying a lot less. And on top of that, the person with his heart condition under control could keep on working, so that he'd be helping you pay for the next person.

Even if you're a libertarian (which I'm not), it seems that on a practical basis you should just recognize that our society (which you're in) has decided not to let people die in emergency rooms. Given that, why not pay for some basic preventative care so that you don't have to spend so much on unnecessary emergency care?

TGM - First of all, you have not justified selfishness to be good; it is not for everyone to prove you wrong, you must also prove yourself correct. I would state succintly that charity, love, and service to others is good because it is, and because the knowledge of this goodness is written upon the human heart (i.e. in your conscience). However, if you would like to read up on that, you are welcome to read any of a bunch different philosophers who state this as well as virtually every major religion that teaches this as well.

the only problem is i am a cold hearted person, and i prefer not to waste an extra thousand a month on taxes because some guy who drank beer and smoked pot all his life couldnt find a job and got all of his buddies to rally for national health care, which in this economy will tank even more people.

@TGM, OK, here's an argument from the perspective of pure selfishness: 1) as several have pointed out, due to the hearts of most people, these life saving procedures will be performed... it is cheaper to go ahead and pay for preventative care, 2) The same instinct that makes you want to live and have your children and other relatives live is also legitimately there for the rest of humanity... we are all pretty similar genetically... this the result of a near extinction (down to about 2,000 individuals) that we calculate happened about 70,000 years ago:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2975862.stm
"Unlike our close genetic relatives - chimps - all humans have virtually identical DNA. In fact, one group of chimps can have more genetic diversity than all of the six billion humans alive today."
So... as chimps will defend each other and work together in their groups, it only makes sense from a genetic standpoint of wanting instinctively to protect and nurture those who are related to us for us that we would/should want to help the rest of our species as much. We all are your relatives... cousins with common ancestors as recent as 70,000 years ago (or less, obviously). And why should we follow our instincts? Because it still feels good to do what our instincts tell us to do. So... purely from a self-centered standpoint (it personally saves you money, and it protects your relatives... and thus gives you pleasure), you should want there to be a universal health care system in place.

@TGM, put another way, society matters because we are your kin.

I found this opinion piece by David Frum on the health care reform bill very interesting... (David Frum is a conservative and former Bush speech writer and coiner of the “axis of evil” phrase, and until two days ago, a fellow at the conservative think-tank the American Enterprise Institute).

"Passage of health care overhaul is Waterloo - for conservatives"

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/03/25/2631681/passage-of-health-care-overhaul.html

Immediately after publication he was fired by the American Enterprise Institute:

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/03/david-frum-fired-aei

American Enterprise Institute “scholars” had been apparently “ordered not to speak to the media because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.”

This also reminds me of the firing of William F. Buckley’s son, Chris Buckley, from the National Review a while back after also speaking against the party talking points. Frum had also previously gotten fired from the National Review because of another editorial he wrote. Seems that these organizations are not as much think tanks and media organizations as they are PR firms for the party line.

"At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision. Unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President George W. Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise."

Yeah. this was what bugged me. After conservatives realized that the bill had a chance of passing, they started saying 'lets start over again and craft a GOOD bill.' Had they participated from the start, perhaps they would have a bill would have liked. So instead of having centrists from both parties, you get a bill that panders to the left. Conservatives played chicken with our futures and lost and now must live with it. (I am not saying the bill is good or bad. I am just saying that the republican congressional delegation tried a maneuver that failed.

Dingleberry Jones said: "Had they participated from the start, perhaps they would have a bill would have liked. So instead of having centrists from both parties, you get a bill that panders to the left."

I have to disagree with you here. I don't see this as a bill that panders to the left... virtually all the consessions were to the Republicans and conservative ("blue dog") Dems. The left wanted Single Payer... and as a backup concession they wanted the Public Option... they got neither. They also wanted the coverage to be universal... it is not.

David Frum appears to agree with me:

"Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big.

"The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney's Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counterproposals to Clintoncare in 1993-94."

That said, even though it was remarkable that Obama listened to anything the Republicans said (and incorporated many of their ideas) being that it didn't change a single Republican vote, I agree that the Republicans probably would have gotten even more if they participated in good faith from the start. By not bending at all, they cede the middle ground to the Dems. ...but you said conservatives... and I would submit that the conservatives (Blue Dog Dems) did participate from the start... it was the radical right (all the Republicans) that didn't. I would presume they did so to earn their Tea Party/Rush Limbaugh/Ann Coulter/FoxNews cred. They are marginalizing themselves.

One more thing about Republicans marginalizing themselves has to do with their increasing embrace of violence and hate. A quote from a Paul Krugman op-ed from a couple of days ago illustrates:

"What has been really striking has been the eliminationist rhetoric of the G.O.P., coming not from some radical fringe but from the party’s leaders. John Boehner, the House minority leader, declared that the passage of health reform was “Armageddon.” The Republican National Committee put out a fund-raising appeal that included a picture of Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, surrounded by flames, while the committee’s chairman declared that it was time to put Ms. Pelosi on “the firing line.” And Sarah Palin put out a map literally putting Democratic lawmakers in the cross hairs of a rifle sight."

The map of the location of lawmakers houses led to several acts of intimidation/terrorism including the cutting of a propane line that easily could have killed the family that lived in the targeted house. (numerous death threats were also made and bricks thrown through windows... truly the cowardice of bullies)

@ Ghostmaker: "I think a discussion for another day. I'll be more than happy to argue my positive case in April, when I am on holiday for a while."

Ok, I will take you up on that in a couple of weeks' time.