The profit motive should be removed? Why do you Marxists think there is a health care system in the first place?
In case you didn't know, that whole communism thing only sounds nice in theory, it didn't work out in the Soviet union.
Let's recap here. I spoke about the idiocy of medical care being a for-profit enterprise. To which this person responds:
[INDENT]Health care as Profit and communism - Not the same issue
Not the same country
Not the same culture
Completely dissimilar resource pools
Not the same people
Disparate ideologies
Not the same history or priorities
Different historical periods
Vastly different set of people with different goals
Different National Priorities
One is how you get treated, the other is a political philosophy
Vastly divergent contexts
...and the list goes on and on
[/INDENT]Yes... excellent comparison. Bravo
t's this kind of vague impugning and horribly juxtaposed comparison that blinds people to one course of action or another. Another term for this is mudslinging; where if I can apply a supposedly-negative label to a course of action, I can hope to influence others by that negative association (this is called labeling). In so doing, it seeks to steer judgment via emotionally-loaded term-associations; to influence judgement via emotional reaction rather than any potential merits
For anyone else who might be interested, here's the idea: There are some endeavors that don't make ethical sense to be for profit. Think about it...
- Apples are OK as a For-Profit Business: If you can't pay, you don't get them
- Bicycles are OK as For-Profit Sales: Want a bike? Sure! But only if you can pay for it
- Bleeding out after you're run over by a truck: Ok, sit down and let's talk price - if you don't have the money, please keep the mess to a minimum.
The third example illustrates (on an ethical level) where Medical Care, as a for profit industry, fails. If you'd like more general examples of what kind of human behaviors we can expect where profit is involved, see any history book.
A multi-billion dollar consortium has pulled out its war chest...
If you look at other countries with national health care they may not be perfect but they are beneficial to all its citizens. You can exclude certain government interference but if they assist then they are taking care of tax payers interests.
The perfect model would be a benevolent society that has corporate responsibility, with the clients as their share holders. Socialists and capitalists governments always fear real power being in placed in the consumers hands.
Your failed right wing establishment has failed your country , your people and the world.
A country that had everything is being reduced to a propaganda led corporate ghetto, trying to blame anything social and calling it a communist inspired downfall of this great America. Get real its your corporate greed and this damned self interest thats killing your economy.
The worlds changing, stop being so damned insular and realise we all need to help each other.
Homely looking people aren't less or more productive than good looking ones. What's cheaper or more effective about good looking people? But yes, in extreme cases cosmetic surgery has been offred on the NHS, and has turned people who would have otherwise not wanted to contribute to society into people who can.
Hilarious. No hold on, what a total berk are you? Grow the Hell up you adolescent prat.
For anyone else who might be interested, here's the idea: There are some endeavors that don't make ethical sense to be for profit. Think about it...
- Apples are OK as a For-Profit Business: If you can't pay, you don't get them
- Bicycles are OK as For-Profit Sales: Want a bike? Sure! But only if you can pay for it
- Bleeding out after you're run over by a truck: Ok, sit down and let's talk price - if you don't have the money, please keep the mess to a minimum.
The third example illustrates (on an ethical level) where Medical Care, as a for profit industry, fails. If you'd like more general examples of what kind of human behaviors we can expect where profit is involved, see any history book.
You have lost me on this one, what point are you attempting to make?
Rwa001 has a good point. The societies in Britain and US are quite different and to say that the British system would work in the US...
European health care systems are tiny compared to that of the US. The US health care system is equivalent to the entire economy of France. Some of the northern European systems, that these people idolize, wouldn't even be visible on a pie chart.
Those socialized health care systems aren't cheaper because socialism does work contrary to historic experiment, they are essentially externalities of the US system. They are covertly subsidized by the US system. If the US tried to copy European "success" it wouldn't work and European systems would break down (faster). So it's weird the Europeans on this forum should have this position, since they do have great self-interest in the US not switching away from it's (semi-)free market health care system.
So with apples, if someone were starving, you'd be ok with asking them to politely die somewhere not within public view?
In whatever case, as I said before, I'm not opposed to what you've presented, but you've failed to address my post and its concerns. Which, coincidentally, are the commonplace concerns of most Americans presently.
...but you've failed to address my post and its concerns.
So with apples, if someone were starving, you'd be ok with asking them to politely die somewhere not within public view?
EmperorNero,
There are a good many points I could address in your reply, but I'm not sure there'd be much communication (two-way, that is) taking place. This isn't a slam, I think its likely just counterproductive to nitpick on a topic this complex. I would; however, like to add some thoughts: Some specific, most generally/philosophically:[INDENT] You spoke at length about Personal Responsibility as being the solution to the woes of the medical care quandary in the U.S. - I happen to agree that lack of such is a problem (that there are a number of people who have not planned responsibly for their own care). I too wish this could be otherwise. Unfortunately, everyone else's personal responsibility - to the extent to which this is applicable - isn't something we have control over externally. Either individuals learned this or they didn't. There will always be those who don't plan and don't take the wise path. Many people such folks should be left to die - and in a certain light perhaps that could be just. But just how would you determine whether or not someone should have planned ahead? And what would you do if you could determine this? Might you review their lives, psychology, finances, childhood teachings and then make a decision, "You should have known!" or not? Determining fault is what we're talking about here. Yes people should plan ahead, Yes they should be responsible, Yes they should work hard and provide for themselves. Whether or not someone could or should have done better (or more responsibly) is iffy and likely not even be knowable.[INDENT] In this same light one could justifiably cast the issues of Preventative Medicine, Fitness, Healthy Habits and much more. But think it through: Just how far are would we take this? Shall we outlaw red meat and beer? So yea, while I agree with you on the sentiment, I believe the complexity of human behavior prevents us from sitting on our laurels and saying, "You shoulda done better!" as a blame-factor in any just fashion. Yes it applies in some cases yet not in others, who's going to determine this?
[/INDENT]Yes, I cast Profit-Taking as a major part of the U.S.'s current medical care problem. But it's not the only problem and may not even be the biggest part of the fix we're in now; it's simply the one I was grinding about earlier. Since I'm on a roll here, if I were to say "This is the Biggest Factor causing our Problem", I'd say that under the current system, if everyone had sufficient insurance coverage, we'd not be hurting as we are. I looked ahead and specifically chose a career from which I could retire and retain medical benefits. Some didn't, some couldn't, some can't afford it, some won't spend the money on it. If we're going to talk about "what's the biggest reason" for not having insurance; before we fly off and point fingers at one_single_cause, how might we know the truth of which is more/most profuse?
[/INDENT]
There is such a thing as diversity in the how such things are implemented. Could we collectively manage our medical care in a distinctly American way that reflects our values and national priorities?
I think so.
Thanks
... we dont need to go back to their childhood and find out what values were instilled in them or what their environment was like, it is a simply mathematical equation of how much money they earned and what the normal expenses are for someone in their age bracket taking into consideration the number of dependents they have etc....
...it is a question of did they have the means to do so if they chose to.
...the second part of the issue is why is there medical insurance? why are medical costs not affordable?
...were that the case, each person would have the option to save a certain amount in case of medical emergencies..
... then there is the issue of malpractice insurance, and the american dream of winning a lawsuit which is even better than the lottery. this drives up the price and once again it is the insurance companies who win.
1-there is free government medical care for the poor. these people are absolutely dirt poor...
2-there is affordable medical care for the middle class...
3-there are the tourist hospitals with the firstrate equipment and high paid doctors which the higher middle class and upwards can choose...
4-there is no malpractice insurance and i have never heard of a doctor or hospital being sued.
i could be wrong, but i think the whole problem of the price of medical care in america...
...How many fine minds waste in the wilderness because of being born in the wrong square mile. Thank yourselves lucky you might have the ability to pay, none choose at birth to be stupid reckless or plain lazy...
You spoke at length about Personal Responsibility...
I don't bring up communism and the soviet union as emotional right-wing mudslinging. I bring it up because the same plausible arguments in favor of state run industry are being used today, as were used to argue that the soviet union would have superior economic success than the US. We have a historical experiment that show these plausible arguments to be false.
You not only are very unaware of you mortality, but you also contradit yourself.
I see that you have little understanding of the world that we live in. Utopia is a great thing...but we're not there.
Khethil,
Why not have a socialized first aid system, for those who actually turn up at the emergency room bleeding? It seems that would be at most 20% of the overall medical cost. Since half of medical costs are within the last few years of a persons life, I guess those costs are long term treatment like chemotherapy, not everyday injuries like being hit by trucks.
Health care would be vastly more affordable if we returned to a free market system. "Making it affordable" seems to be code for "handing it to people".
I call people who claim that communists because they believe in the very same arguments to claim that a state health care industry would be superior, as communists in the last century did to claim that state industry in general would be superior; e.g. that it would be cheaper because there are no shareholders to pay, no profit motive, no allocation costs, etc. All this turned out not to work in the soviet union.
As philosophers you should be more aware ,than others, that we are never masters of our ability or have the freedom to choose wisely by the nature of back ground. How many fine minds waste in the wilderness because of being born in the wrong square mile. Thank yourselves lucky you might have the ability to pay, none choose at birth to be stupid reckless or plain lazy. Make allowances for those less capable than you, dont your ethics permit this?
What I find amazing that a country that prides itself on its christian values ignores its basic tenet. A few play the game of self satisfying charitable works with all the public display of performing seals. In reality they are pithing in the ocean but they dont really care as long as the public facade is maintained.
Call me a Marxist a trotskyite what ever you like but I'm proud that my country has had the ability to treasure all its citizens. We are as strong as our weakest, today's looser may be our future saviour. Many incapable of securing health benefits are so often called upon to lay down their lives, if you require them to serve, surely you should be prepared to serve them?
Sorry for the rant but this subject rattles my cage.
Yes, this is possible. I could see how we could come up with a basic criteria (ratio -vs- expenses) perhaps. This is a good option. It does get complicated; however, especially in determining what expenses are necessary, then by extension the perception that we're limiting folks' personal liberty in what they can call a legitimate expense.
Even then, what do you do with the folks that do fall below the threshold (i.e., that fit in the "Can't Afford Insurance") category?
i dont have the mechanics, but this is where the public treasury takes over. where that comes from is a political issue, be it taxes or whatever. this is where people who have more money than they need are relieved of that burden and part of it is put to good use. there can even be some kind of reward for people to contribute to this fund...rich people now contribute to charity for tax benefits, and the money they contribute is questionably doing any good any way other than paying vast administrative costs. why not make a new charity-government fund for medical care for the destitute and the struggling.
Sure, I think it's a good suggestion towards making the "You must if you Can"-option. Still, what is chosen as 'excusable' expenses or not will make it complicated; not unworkable, but complicated. Nice thinking
And this, of course, is the bigger question as to why our system is in such trouble. Why its so expensive depends on who you ask. The two major contributing factors (I believe) are: Compensating price increases to cover those treated but didn't/couldn't pay -and- the fact that there are multiple levels of distributors for all medical supplies (each taking their cut of profits). I have first hand experience with this, and for those who believe these claims are over-bloated, they're definitely not. The amount of price jackup for each level in the distribution chain makes the old $500 Hammer (of the DoD ripoff scandles) look tame.
This is one of my solutions, by the way. I have insurance, but it has caps, limits and deductibles. To account for these, I have emergency funds tucked away. A lot of us do this for a rainy day.
Oh my god yes - we outta stick this one up there as a causal factor in the high cost. Yep, we're a grossly over-litigious society. Combine this with our over-valuation of material goods and you've got dollar signs flashing in some folks' eyes. Make no mistake, there are definitely instances where a lawsuit is warranted, but how much are or are not justified, I've no idea. I'd say this is definitely a major contributor.
I think this is an overall outstanding set up. For number four, I'm a little leery. As I said, there are quite a few unnecessary/unwarranted malpractice suits, but I firmly believe that there are those cases where a clear injustice has been committed and compensation is in order. So I'd think some sort of malpractice system should be in play - perhaps wherein the cases and criteria are more tightly controlled.
in the case of malpractice, criminal charges should be brought against any person who has committed a crime. the idea here is not to award huge sums of money to victims, but to stop people who are incompetent and unethical from practicing medicine. in addition to jail time or whatever punishment is awarded according to the scope of the crime involved, huge fines could be collected from them; they could be given enough penalties that would deter others from doing the same. and on the other hand, why allow people to buy their way out of their crimes and why allow people to defame honest practitioners and threaten them or extract an out of court settlement by an insurance company when what they are entitled to is their day in a criminal court to prove their innocence?
Yea, given how much of a slice of our economy is comprised of medical-related goods and services (combined with how much its been inflating), I'm sure it played its part. How much or how significant, I'm honestly not sure.
Thanks, nice reply and good idea up top there.
I say, just build a "you're on your own" society, and once people starve make a annoying and embarrassing private charity way to get stuff available. Don't just hand them other peoples money in their comfort, thereby subsidizing their failure, making them dependent and taking away their dignity.
Though a lot of the countries mentioned as having public health systems also have something like full employment (or did before the financial crisis). So the "healthcare free at point of sale = lazy/dependant/undignified people" argument doesn't seem to me to hold much water.
There's nothing contradictory about that. The system doesn't cater to vanity alone, but to a degree of need, for vanity you have to go private.
That's rich coming from someone who thinks all women should be forced to have big breasts. Maybe you're the one with a need to expand his horizons a bit.
