Four-Step Healthcare Solution

[mRx 16]

So the right to be healthy is illusory? Gotcha

Strangely, people do go into health care, not because they want to get rich, but because they want to help people. Odd that...

Health Care = "Basic" Human Right and why the richest nation on Earth cannot provide this for their own citizens just boggles the mind. I'm sure the majority of doctors and nurses take this stance.

You're absolutely right!

Healthcare should be free.

Quick, go get your M.D. and help the cause!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The real thing is though, there is no perfect solution to human organisation. All one can hope for is to provide a system of organisation that is reasonably fair to most of the people most of the time...at least that's my current conclusion.

That does seem to be the thinking behind the current philosophy - we cycle between regulation and deregulation as the economic cycles allow. The provision of essential services likewise fluctuates - but there are some things that remain more or less fixed.

The thing also is that this pure free market theory is largely untested - and like communism, while it sounds attractive to its devotees, it relies on a *lot* of assumptions.

[mRx 16]

Actually, as a confederate, surely slavery is your thing?

I'm a confederate now? Wait, let me find my musket and sack of gold coins.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Madame Cleo & Private Pike,

Slavery may be a staple of European life, but we don't want that in the U.S.A.

Matt, if you believe the Libertarian viewpoint that all employment relationships are contractual and therefore voluntary, then you should recognize the social contract that everyone here in this country has with the government and our laws. So, even if you are hauled off to jail after being tried and convicted for forgery, for example, you agreed by living here as a citizen, to abide by the laws and justice system that sent you to prison.

Therefore, calling a publicly insured healthcare system, forced upon the people, just doesn't hold up to logic.

Steven, you must see that this "America: take it or leave it" mentality is no different than when the Conservatives were saying it in justification of Bush policies.

It was ridiculous then; as it is now.

Plus, citizens aren't under contractual subservience to submit to their government's decree's. It should be the other way around, my friend.

What he means is that a society relies on certain assumptions about the role of government and the rights of citizens.

[Peikko 1,575]

Actually, as a confederate, surely slavery is your thing?

I'm a confederate now? Wait, let me find my musket and sack of gold coins.

Come now, you did suggest that our economic troubles stemmed from the days of Lincoln and the defeat of the states that tried to secede.

Sorry not succeed

Edited June 5, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[mRx 16]

The real thing is though, there is no perfect solution to human organisation. All one can hope for is to provide a system of organisation that is reasonably fair to most of the people most of the time...at least that's my current conclusion.

That does seem to be the thinking behind the current philosophy - we cycle between regulation and deregulation as the economic cycles allow. The provision of essential services likewise fluctuates - but there are some things that remain more or less fixed.

The thing also is that this pure free market theory is largely untested - and like communism, while it sounds attractive to its devotees, it relies on a *lot* of assumptions.

That's what your logic always boils down to. That it relies on too many assumptions. That's absolutely untrue though.

It relies on the logic of the human--The desire to pursue actions which better one's condition.

Communism, OTOH, does rely on a *lot* of assumptions. Particularily, on the assumption that everyone will work to the best of their ability, in perfect societal harmony, to make for the benefit of society.

[mawilson 2,133]

In general, I would imagine American's feel that way too, they just can't get their heads around a reasonable way to provide that. What we have now though, just stinks. Almost anything would be better

A friend's mom was diagnosed with cancer a few days ago. She's going into surgery on Monday.

How long would she have to wait for it in the UK or Canada?

[Peikko 1,575]

For cancer surgery? In my experience not long - urgent care is given priority, you know that.

[JimandChristy 1,689]

In general, I would imagine American's feel that way too, they just can't get their heads around a reasonable way to provide that. What we have now though, just stinks. Almost anything would be better

A friend's mom was diagnosed with cancer a few days ago. She's going into surgery on Monday.

How long would she have to wait for it in the UK or Canada?

How long would she have to wait if she couldn't afford to have health insurance?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The real thing is though, there is no perfect solution to human organisation. All one can hope for is to provide a system of organisation that is reasonably fair to most of the people most of the time...at least that's my current conclusion.

That does seem to be the thinking behind the current philosophy - we cycle between regulation and deregulation as the economic cycles allow. The provision of essential services likewise fluctuates - but there are some things that remain more or less fixed.

The thing also is that this pure free market theory is largely untested - and like communism, while it sounds attractive to its devotees, it relies on a *lot* of assumptions.

That's what your logic always boils down to. That it relies on too many assumptions. That's absolutely untrue though.

It relies on the logic of the human--The desire to pursue actions which better one's condition.

Communism, OTOH, does rely on a *lot* of assumptions. Particularily, on the assumption that everyone will work to the best of their ability, in perfect societal harmony, to make for the benefit of society.

How is it untrue?

Pursuing actions that better a person's condition is no less of an assumption than the one that everyone will work to the best of their ability for the betterment of society.

The continuing assumption in your philosophy is that private enterprise will behave in an ethical manner and not pursue its own betterment at the expense of society.

Edited June 5, 2009 by Private Pike

[Peikko 1,575]

I was admitted to hospital immediately for ovarian cysts. I don't know anyone who has had urgent care delayed. The longest delays are for elective surgery. My aunt had to wait about 6 months for cataract surgery but she had both eyes done with a minimum of delay between each surgery and is doing great. In the US she could not have afforded to have that fixed, period. Worse in the US she would now be blind and relying on others to care for her, at a cost. In the UK she is still living alone taking care of herself. I am sure we know which is cheaper.

Edited June 5, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In general, I would imagine American's feel that way too, they just can't get their heads around a reasonable way to provide that. What we have now though, just stinks. Almost anything would be better

A friend's mom was diagnosed with cancer a few days ago. She's going into surgery on Monday.

How long would she have to wait for it in the UK or Canada?

My aunt had leukemia a few years ago - they had her in for treatment within a week.

[mRx 16]

Madame Cleo & Private Pike,

Slavery may be a staple of European life, but we don't want that in the U.S.A.

Matt, if you believe the Libertarian viewpoint that all employment relationships are contractual and therefore voluntary, then you should recognize the social contract that everyone here in this country has with the government and our laws. So, even if you are hauled off to jail after being tried and convicted for forgery, for example, you agreed by living here as a citizen, to abide by the laws and justice system that sent you to prison.

Therefore, calling a publicly insured healthcare system, forced upon the people, just doesn't hold up to logic.

Steven, you must see that this "America: take it or leave it" mentality is no different than when the Conservatives were saying it in justification of Bush policies.

It was ridiculous then; as it is now.

Plus, citizens aren't under contractual subservience to submit to their government's decree's. It should be the other way around, my friend.

What he means is that a society relies on certain assumptions about the role of government and the rights of citizens.

But those certain assumptions about roles and rights tend to change dramatically over time.

War, torture, church-values, etc were certain roles that society assumed when they elected Bush.

[mawilson 2,133]

In general, I would imagine American's feel that way too, they just can't get their heads around a reasonable way to provide that. What we have now though, just stinks. Almost anything would be better

A friend's mom was diagnosed with cancer a few days ago. She's going into surgery on Monday.

How long would she have to wait for it in the UK or Canada?

How long would she have to wait if she couldn't afford to have health insurance?

She wouldn't.

[mRx 16]

The real thing is though, there is no perfect solution to human organisation. All one can hope for is to provide a system of organisation that is reasonably fair to most of the people most of the time...at least that's my current conclusion.

That does seem to be the thinking behind the current philosophy - we cycle between regulation and deregulation as the economic cycles allow. The provision of essential services likewise fluctuates - but there are some things that remain more or less fixed.

The thing also is that this pure free market theory is largely untested - and like communism, while it sounds attractive to its devotees, it relies on a *lot* of assumptions.

That's what your logic always boils down to. That it relies on too many assumptions. That's absolutely untrue though.

It relies on the logic of the human--The desire to pursue actions which better one's condition.

Communism, OTOH, does rely on a *lot* of assumptions. Particularily, on the assumption that everyone will work to the best of their ability, in perfect societal harmony, to make for the benefit of society.

How is it untrue?

Pursuing actions that better a person's condition is no less of an assumption than the one that everyone will work to the best of their ability for the betterment of society.

The continuing assumption in your philosophy is that private enterprise will behave in an ethical manner and not pursue its own betterment at the expense of society.

The fact that individuals pursue actions that benefit one's condition is no assumption. It cannot be debunked, or refuted. Everything action that you take, you do in the assumption that you will be better off than you were before --monetarily, emotionally, etc.

There is no such thing as society, there are only individuals attaining individual ends.