:1. In order for there to be a reasonable quality of medical care provided to all human beings who have a reasonable need it is necessary for all human beings to be reduced to penury to pay for itThe term 'reasonable' is the one in question then. What is reasonable treatment and where does it end? Many years ago receiveing treatment for an ulcer would be luxury when it was more reasonable to focus on broken limbs. Thus the limit is set by what treatment 'we' are able to offer as humans and what we should consider 'reasonable' limits to set. One is dynamic and the other very subjective.
To add, one $30k operation could become very many baskets, or very many baskets could be come quite a few life saving operations for the impoverished.
2. There is no consistent way, philosophically or practically, for one to admit spending money for a plastic washing basket and at the same time to abominate spending money for a blatant extravagance that directly impacts the survival of the poor.
This is where I disagree. It sure seems that way, but consider the principle in operation. " It is wrong to spend on extravagant and unecessary things when people need treatment." Well, why is buying a basket ok but having the lipo operation, or buying a private jet not? Pure relativism, and not a useful guide to ethical values. One jet buys hundreds of operations - so that one person should give it up. a million baskets buy hundreds of operations, so those million should give that up. Thats what you get, ethically, with relaitivism and 'ends justify means' moralism.
Hence we can condemn the gassing of jews for the same reason and according to the same principle that we condemn the beating of one fellow - because we consider the moral principle not the sclae of damage.
None.
