d said:implicit here is the assumption that government can successfully address these issues without making us worse-off on some other dimension -- the assumption itself is dangerous.
razz: did you not just confirm that it is a dangerous assumption?
Since the money issue is taken care of for some of us, maybe some of us should go into public service to help solf some of these issues instead of golfing, fishing, eating chocolates, and bloviating about solutions all d
FIRE ME! said:Very good point. We just had many posts complaining about the government education system. Healthcare is far more complicated than education, IMO.
bpp said:. . . It is almost as though some people are allergic to actual data, preferring their theories remain untainted. . .
i too have noted that many suffer from this allergy ... most often those on the other side of the argument (whichever side that might be). it's not so much they are concerned that their "theories remain untainted", rather that their conclusions not be questioned or, perish the thought, that any underlying assumptions be made clear.some people are allergic to actual data, preferring their theories remain untainted.
d said:interesting. you state that we "have no way of knowing which assumption is dangerous" and then proclaim that free markets are worse than dangerous.
I think this is way simplistic--people are more complicated than that, although I agree about income having little to do with character or crime. (In fact, didn't a recent study describe the antisocial, even sociopathic, qualities of many CEOs?) Crimes cover everything from cheating on taxes and speeding, to insider trading, counterfeiting, ID theft, driving drunk, abusing a child, robbery, disorderly behavior, and so on. And our currnet administration has intimated that voicing disagreement with their policies is tantamount to treason--a very serious crime, punishable by death. Or at least indeterminate disappearance. Thank goodness they have backtracked on that.lets-retire said:Crime is a underlying flaw in the character, or whatever you want to call it, of a person not the amount of money they bring home.
I want to be able to buy the best healthcare available... most universal plans do not offer the best..
who suggested that they could?While I agree that free markets are a very powerful and effective tool for solving many, many problems, this does not mean they can solve them all.
I believe in Western Europe & Japan, weaker students get tested out periodically and shunted into non-college tracks. In the US, we treat all children as if they will catch up at any time (in theory anyway) and provide lots of remedial aid. I think we should do something in between the extremes of one bad test and yer out, and everybody taught as if ultimately becoming a scholar.Texas Proud said:But, I do agree that the US secondary education system is broken.. they do not want to teach the kids.. and I would love to get the system from some other country and try it here if it works.. and yes, other countries systems do work..
Years ago when I was young and on the road and had no heealth insurance, I was unable to get a private doctor to treat my serious strep throat, even though I had money to pay and all I needed was a peek into my throat and a prescription for penicillin. I ended up at an emergency room--and they didn't seem to want my money there.Texas Proud said:well, we called up, got an appointment in a hour.. had test done.. found the 'bug', got shots, got prescription.... all within a 4 hour time frame... she was shocked it could happen so fast.. and it was covered under her travel insurance...
Texas Proud said:do not want to go to universal health care if MY health care will suffer just to get X million of people on the system
astromeria said:This IS the crux of the problem (self-reliance, selfishness, I leave judgment up to the reader). However, I think we can have a pretty good cake and eat it, too, if the govt pays for or supplies catastrophic coverage for all. And anyone is free to purchase additional coverage. So, best still available to some, and pretty good available to all.
Especially if the "chronic condition" is judged to be a lifestyle derivative of smoking, obesity, or extreme sports...Martha said:One big issue is dealing with chronic conditions. You may need regular medical care and drugs. Does that fall within the catastrophic plan? Or do you need to buy private insurance for those costs. Self financing is going to be pricing and private insurance won't want you.
More rolling teh dice with other people's lives.Especially if the "chronic condition" is judged to be a lifestyle derivative of smoking, obesity, or extreme sports...
Chill out, Razz, and I mean that in the moderator's sense of the expression.razztazz said:More rolling teh dice with other people's lives.
PROVE that in THAT ONE CASE the problem is due to a "life style choice" You can't because that's not how those statistcics work. But you would kill those people because YOU THINK it was PROBABLY the cigarret he smoked 25 yrs ago or somethjing else YOU don't like. Or maybe it was the radon gas in his gandmother's house he stayed in as a child. But WTF, kill him anyway. Unless he's already born rich and can pay for it out of his "personal fourtune. (Courtesy of Gov created copyright protections and other wealth redistribution tricks) More life's lottery winnings. You cannot solve or even address a general problem with a knee jerk prejudice for anectodal solutions
WHat if his doctor caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in needless medical expenses due to misdiagosing a condition or the drug prescribed caused severe adverse reactions? And those reactions were ignored by the doctor?
The patient's fault? What d F? He sick and not rich. Kill 'em and save me a buck. I am omnisciemnt after all since it's my opinion. Ain't freedom great.
Nords said:Especially if the "chronic condition" is judged to be a lifestyle derivative of smoking, obesity, or extreme sports...
yes, And what if you vapor lock from the medication for this procedure? Or what if the guy who has no cancer and never will gets his guts perforated by a doctor and F'd up bigtime? HE CHOSE To get the colonoscopy so it's his fault.if you get a colonscopy after age 50,
Nords said:I'm pointing out one of the issues-- or flaws, if you will-- of involving the government in catastrophic health insurance.