Thread: Medicine

to me "personal responsibility" means that if i want to be able to grow old and be happy and in good health then it is your own responsibility to keep your body in good health and fitness so as to give it the best chance to survive. so if i decide to smoke and each crap food all the time and drink excessively and all those things that we know are bad for our bodies in EXCESS then i have to deal with the fact that i won't live to be 100 and that the medical community can't just "fix" me when my body finally gives up from years of abuse. when people think there is no consequence then they live recklessly and this is where we are at in a large part. it is simply not cheaper to eat fast food for every meal, its easier, but not cheaper and extremely detrimental to your health. but do we hear this on the news? not really because that would be detrimental to the fast food industry and i guess that is wrong, so rather then tell people this and then the fast food industry might have to change a little to keep profits going we let the industry keep on allowing people to kill themselves and their children with toxic food. this is in fact just my 2 cents.

how to fix it? ha i don't claim to be smart enough to know how to fix it, i'm just another guy who can spout out what is wrong. but i know for me i eat good food (not 100% of the time as i am far from perfect) and i exercise as much as possible in various ways. those are the things i can control, and when i have children i will make them eat healthy food so that when they grow up they will already be in the habit of feeling good and eating good. that is what my parents did. i guess that is what personal responsibility is too me when talking about health.

sorry if that is aff topic and really long.

Originally Posted by Bruno

It is for everyone hwo needs it, regardless of the situation.



Refusing medical insurance is not prudent. It is a pure gamble. Because if you have only 1 serious accident, you are bankrupted for life.
I remember the story of the US construction worker who had no insurance and shot himself in the eye with a nailgun. He was glad he survived, but sad because he'd have to work the rest of his life to pay off the 100K$ he'd racked up.




I counter that social healthcare is a sign of a responsible society in which the people have recognized that a healthy society is generally better off, and that preventing desperation and lawsuits because of something as trivial as healthcare is a good thing.

We can discuss this a long time and we will never agree.
You believe is maximum personal freedom (I think), and I believe in compromise to make sure that society as a whole is a better place to live in. By the same token, I fully agree with seatbelt and helmet laws.

And this point out the most basic difference between us.

You believe that strength or betterness is a society is measured by how it treats its weakest members. A noble idea certainly, but a society never bettered itself through its weakest links.

That's why I believe a societies strength and greatness should be measured by the amount of room it can allow for each member to get ahead. Sometimes this has negative consequences for the individual, but if you allow the stupid, the sickly, and the most unlucky to remove themselves from the society, it is by definition stronger and better thereby.

To cite your example above, the construction worker was doubly a fool, first for not buying his own insurance (its available and not as expensive as the media would have you believe), and second for not taking normal safety precautions when using a dangerous piece of equipment. If this is the care he takes with himself, a lot of people will be better off because his carelessness didn't build their home.

I also believe that if market forces were fully allowed to act on the health care market it wouldn't have cost him 100K

Also in a society that demands personal responsibility you cut down greatly on those lawsuits.

As a final remark I would say that in your society it is the sick and infirm who are the best off. Where my idea of society rewards those who think ahead and work to their fullest potential.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

And this point out the most basic difference between us.

You believe that strength or betterness is a society is measured by how it treats its weakest members. A noble idea certainly, but a society never bettered itself through its weakest links.

That's why I believe a societies strength and greatness should be measured by the amount of room it can allow for each member to get ahead. Sometimes this has negative consequences for the individual, but if you allow the stupid, the sickly, and the most unlucky to remove themselves from the society, it is by definition stronger and better thereby.

To cite your example above, the construction worker was doubly a fool, first for not buying his own insurance (its available and not as expensive as the media would have you believe), and second for not taking normal safety precautions when using a dangerous piece of equipment. If this is the care he takes with himself, a lot of people will be better off because his carelessness didn't build their home.

You assume without evidence that the two are mutually-exclusive. They are not. In fact, throughout history, one of the most common causes of civilizations crashing is a growing inequity between rich and poor. It took down Rome, and it may take down America.

You also ignore morality. Jesus Christ had a lot to say about how to treat the poor, but "let 'em fend for themselves" wasn't one of them.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

I also believe that if market forces were fully allowed to act on the health care market it wouldn't have cost him 100K

The health care system in the United States is an excellent example of one developed mostly by market forces.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Also in a society that demands personal responsibility you cut down greatly on those lawsuits.

Evidence? If you read Tocqueville, you find that American society has been litigious right from the very beginning -- even when people were totally responsible for themselves. Might it also be the complete lack of any economic safety net that forces people to litigate?

Originally Posted by Wildtim

As a final remark I would say that in your society it is the sick and infirm who are the best off. Where my idea of society rewards those who think ahead and work to their fullest potential.

A sick and infirm person better off than a healthy one? This refutes itself.

j

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

You assume without evidence that the two are mutually-exclusive. They are not. In fact, throughout history, one of the most common causes of civilizations crashing is a growing inequity between rich and poor. It took down Rome, and it may take down America.

It might, but it took centuries for Rome to even go from a republic to an empire and centuries more for it to fall. The most Socialistic of societies managed that same sequence in mere decades, so I would say that isn't a good road to take. And the longest lasting societies were extremely repressive imperial states where there was nothing but the richest few and the teeming masses, no equity at all, again, not where I want to go.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

You also ignore morality. Jesus Christ had a lot to say about how to treat the poor, but "let 'em fend for themselves" wasn't one of them.

He asks us to give to the needy he doesn't require that we do so as a matter of law. He especially doesn't say that we should put our trust in the government to provide for our every health need.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

The health care system in the United States is an excellent example of one developed mostly by market forces.

And those forces worked quite well to control prices and services until the government entered the market and began throwing it weight around with welfare programs.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Evidence? If you read Tocqueville, you find that American society has been litigious right from the very beginning -- even when people were totally responsible for themselves. Might it also be the complete lack of any economic safety net that forces people to litigate?

litigation is one way for society to require responsibility and I don't thin people object to that. What they object to are things like the twinkie defence and suing Oreo for making you fat.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

A sick and infirm person better off than a healthy one? This refutes itself.

j

If they are not contributing to society but only benefiting from the the work of others then they are better off according to the rules of that society.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

It might, but it took centuries for Rome to even go from a republic to an empire and centuries more for it to fall. The most Socialistic of societies managed that same sequence in mere decades, so I would say that isn't a good road to take. And the longest lasting societies were extremely repressive imperial states where there was nothing but the richest few and the teeming masses, no equity at all, again, not where I want to go.

Give me an example of the long-lasting society -- especially since the Industrial Revolution, when the pace of political and social change accelerated.

The longest-lasting polity I can think of is the Roman Catholic Church -- a socialist institution.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

He asks us to give to the needy he doesn't require that we do so as a matter of law. He especially doesn't say that we should put our trust in the government to provide for our every health need.

He asks that you give all that you have to the needy. You're equivocating here.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

And those forces worked quite well to control prices and services until the government entered the market and began throwing it weight around with welfare programs.

Evidence? The reason government got into the medical insurance business to begin with was because market forces had priced medical care out of the range of significant segments of society.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

litigation is one way for society to require responsibility and I don't thin people object to that. What they object to are things like the twinkie defence and suing Oreo for making you fat.

The twinkie defense was made in a criminal case, not a tort case. Did the Oreo suit get thrown out?

Originally Posted by Wildtim

If they are not contributing to society but only benefiting from the the work of others then they are better off according to the rules of that society.

Better hope you stay healthy.

j

Originally Posted by Wildtim

That's why I believe a societies strength and greatness should be measured by the amount of room it can allow for each member to get ahead. Sometimes this has negative consequences for the individual, but if you allow the stupid, the sickly, and the most unlucky to remove themselves from the society, it is by definition stronger and better thereby.

Not necessarily. In old age warrior society, yes.
But today it is not so straightforward.
My brother would have bankrupted my parents when his chronical illnesses surfaced in college, and he would not have been able to graduate.

But he didn't. He went on to get his phd in CS, and solved an old problem in CS, earning him a ticket in the top CS conference in the US, as the first from his university, ever.
He made some great contributions in his thesis, and continues to do so post-doc.

true, he will never be a warrior and he will forever be dependent of the system.
But our system is not worse off for his existence. In today's society, value is measured in many more ways than only physical. Just like Stephen Hawking

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Also in a society that demands personal responsibility you cut down greatly on those lawsuits.

Sorry, but that is not true. As soon as uninsured medical costs are into play, there is no choice but to sue. the costs are too high to suck up, and the other party will not pay voluntarily. Suing is the only option.
And I mean no offense by this, but in the US it seems people sue each other over anything and everything.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

As a final remark I would say that in your society it is the sick and infirm who are the best off. Where my idea of society rewards those who think ahead and work to their fullest potential.

The sick ar no better off than I am. On the contrary. I am healthy and they are not. The only difference is that they are not left behind, and I have the same benefits if I ever need them.
also, my contribution is a semi fixed amount (tiered system) so I can get ahead as much as I can achieve.
Btw, as it is now, I still pay much less for full coverage for my entire family, than an American would have to pay for reasonable coverage (minus dental of course). And in my system, everyone is covered.

So while I understand our philosophical differences, an objective comparison of cost vs reward has my system significantly ahead.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Gugi, Did they give their reasoning for introducing free market forces into their totally socialist system?

Well, it's obvious - the planned socialist economy just didn't work.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

If we are obligated to provide "healthcare" What is healthcare, and when does our societal obligation end and each individuals responsibility for their own choices (good or bad) begin?

That's the real question that needs to be addressed carefully. Of course, you can take the easy way out and say 'every man for themselves', but that produces pretty bad society.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

At the same time if a person is prudent and saves their resources for future need, how can I deny him the right to use those resources for their immediate benefit?

I don't see why don't you apply the same logic to any other service that the government provides or has provided traditionally. How about national defense - why would you deny somebody their resources if they don't feel threatened? There are many things that a society decides to do because they improve the overall quality of life. Yes it's unfair in some sense, but I have a theory that as long as government intervention is moderate the invisible hand still takes care to readjust things and fix some mistakes.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Frankly socialized medicine is yet another symptom of the erosion of personal responsibility and the independence of thought that once made people strive for greatness.

I don't agree with this, but treating symptoms is generally considered inferior to addressing the actual problem. Punishment is a nice idea, only if it worked and we may just have the perfect world.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

but if you allow the stupid, the sickly, and the most unlucky to remove themselves from the society, it is by definition stronger and better thereby.

I don't think that's by definition 'better' society. To me better society is not one that has better members, but one that functions better at the same general mix up of stupid/sickly/unlucky and smart/healthy/lucky as the next society.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

As a final remark I would say that in your society it is the sick and infirm who are the best off. Where my idea of society rewards those who think ahead and work to their fullest potential.

Actually not, in the first case these are the people who have gotten most help and in your society the ones who are rewarded most are those who are already rewarded, irrespective of whether they got there by work, inheritance, or luck. You are not measuring people's potential in any way, so you don't reward more a person who reach their full but relatively low potential, than the one who developed almost nothing from their enormous potential.
The only difference is that you are refusing to provide any help to those who are disadvantaged. Of course once you start providing them help you've got to actually be making the decision of how much, in what form, etc., so your approach is undoubtedly much simpler, but that does not make it better.

My opinion is that life is not fair and it's not simple.

I am always stunned that people argue against socialised health care from a point of ideology ignoring the fact that socialism is alive and well even in the face of great adversity (Cuba) and the proof is readily available to all who choose to look that health care is cheaper and better for all involved when it is socialised. The corporate rich just see a chance to steal more dollars from our pockets and convince people with oversimplified argument intended to appeal to their 'worser' natures.

Look to the evidence!

X

Originally Posted by Wildtim

And those forces worked quite well to control prices and services until the government entered the market and began throwing it weight around with welfare programs.

I hope you can back this up with data. I understand that you can't do it in a thread like this, but you must have the research studies that have proven this.

Originally Posted by xman

I am always stunned that people argue against socialised health care from a point of ideology ignoring the fact that socialism is alive and well even in the face of great adversity (Cuba) and the proof is readily available to all who choose to look that health care is cheaper and better for all involved when it is socialised. The corporate rich just see a chance to steal more dollars from our pockets and convince people with oversimplified argument intended to appeal to their 'worser' natures.

Look to the evidence!

X

I'd like someone to talk to me about the health care in Cuba, or the lack of it, Please !!