Four-Step Healthcare Solution

[mawilson 2,133]

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

Up to 2 weeks delay on cancer surgery - Extended wait has psychological impact on patients, oncologist says

Cancer waiting times in the UK (Scotland)

For the quarter ending 30 June 2005, median waits by type of cancer were as follows:

Colorectal cancer - 53 days

Lung cancer - 44 days

Lymphoma - 53 days

Melanoma - 25 days

Ovarian cancer - 39 days

[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?

She wouldn't.

Glad to hear she doesn't fall into the category of 40-50 million Americans who cannot get access to health care of any sort.

Edited June 5, 2009 by JimandChristy

[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.

Glad to hear she doesn't fall into the category of 40-50 million Americans who cannot get access to health care of any sort.

And who can go to the nearest Emergency Room which (as you often claim) we already pay for.

[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.

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.

The fundamental basics don't change - unless there's a constitutional amendment, or unless you do away with national constitutions entirely (which only tends to happen if there's a coup or a revolution)

Bush's war on terror (and everything that came with it) didn't change a whole lot in that regard - because the policies were directed outward. Certainly by virtue of his position - Bush effectively set the tone and "officialised" the nation's stance toward other nations (and towards human rights) for and on behalf of every Americans (including those who disagreed with him).

[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?

She wouldn't.

Glad to hear she doesn't fall into the category of 40-50 million Americans who cannot get access to health care of any sort.

And who can go to the nearest Emergency Room which (as you often claim) we already pay for.

But the ER doctors only do the minimum possible to give care because you don't have health insurance...won't give full diagnosis and treatment, then prescribe medicines that you cannot afford anyway.

Edited June 5, 2009 by JimandChristy

[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.

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.

The assumption you continue to make (as I said) is that private enterprise will act in an ethical manner. You're making just as many assumptions about the practical aspects human nature as the communists did. Different assumptions to be sure - but assumptions nonetheless.

And... no such thing as society? If you truly believe that - I'd be curious to know your position on the founding values and the rule of law.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The function of an ER in America is to stabilize you, not cure you.

[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.

The fundamental basics don't change - unless there's a constitutional amendment, or unless you do away with national constitutions entirely (which only tends to happen if there's a coup or a revolution)

The constitution is obviously up for interpretation, as we've seen many debates on semantical meanings of the constitution.

Taxation, regulation, minimum wage, and group-favoring legislation, would've absolutely sickened Americans 100 years ago. So yeah.... I'd say the fundamentals have changed.

[JimandChristy 1,689]

The function of an ER in America is to stabilize you, not cure you.

Exactly, so going to the ER doctor is a short term fix for a long term problem.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

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.

I'm not suggesting subservience at all. I'm just refuting the Libertarian claim that governmental regulations, laws or policy is forced rather than contractual in nature. Even though we are required to sign up with the civil service, it is because we are bound by the contract we have as citizens of the U.S., which we can freely choose to relinquish. There is nothing forced in the sense of enslavement, which is the implication made by the Libertarian POV.

Edited June 5, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[JimandChristy 1,689]

The function of an ER in America is to stabilize you, not cure you.

Exactly, so going to the ER doctor is just a short-term fix for a long-term problem....you go to a ER doctor complaining of a bad back, they'll tell you why it is but they won't treat it directly, they'll just suggest taking some sort of painkiller till you go and see a normal doctor. HOLD ON on a minute the person can't afford to go to a normal doctor because they don't have health insurance......

Edited June 5, 2009 by JimandChristy

[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.

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.

The fundamental basics don't change - unless there's a constitutional amendment, or unless you do away with national constitutions entirely (which only tends to happen if there's a coup or a revolution)

The constitution is obviously up for interpretation, as we've seen many debates on semantical meanings of the constitution.

Taxation, regulation, minimum wage, and group-favoring legislation, would've absolutely sickened Americans 100 years ago. So yeah.... I'd say the fundamentals have changed.

Nothing stays static - but we haven't thrown out the constitution, so while there is continuing debate on a number of issues we aren't about to bring back slavery any time soon

[Peikko 1,575]

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.

Society exists, but it's not a 'thing'. It's a structure of organisation.

[mRx 16]

The assumption you continue to make (as I said) is that private enterprise will act in an ethical manner. You're making just as many assumptions about the practical aspects human nature as the communists did. Different assumptions to be sure - but assumptions nonetheless.

And... no such thing as society? If you truly believe that - I'd be curious to know your position on the founding values and the rule of law.

I made no reference at all to business ethics. You wrote that the free-market relies on a *lot* of assumptions. I showed you how it absolutely did not.

This has nothing to do intangible and subjective ideas such as society. Because, yes, arguing such is an act of futility, just as saying forest's are green. A tree may or may not be green. A tree may be dying, and may have turned brown.

With the axiom that each rational individual acts in the belief that they will make their condition better than it previously was, there is no need to bring collectivist goals into this, because such a thing doesn't exist.

[mRx 16]

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

Society exists, but it's not a 'thing'. It's a structure of organisation.

It can't be quantified--uniform truths can't be derived from it--and there exists no goal of society that is not the goal of the individual.

It doesn't exist.