If healthcare ought to be provided for all....

[dks13827 3]

anyone think 'they' will be happy paying doctor / hospital bills for us dummies on motorcycles or dumb skydivers ?? think about it.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

I think the key is that a certain minimal level ought to be provided - not an everybody-gets-to-go-to-Mayo program.

Didn't the President call out the Mayo Clinic by name as the sort of thing he wants available to all Americans?

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

anyone think 'they' will be happy paying doctor / hospital bills for us dummies on motorcycles or dumb skydivers ?? think about it.

Easy enough to ban motorcycles and skydiving then. It's only fair that if I pay for your healthcare I can make you stop doing things that might raise my costs.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Health care financing, and maybe even health care itself needs to be not-for-profit.

Not for profit healthcare is, on average, more expensive than for-profit healthcare in this country.

In one article the Wall Street Journal found a non-profit system that charged 5 times as much as it's nearest for profit competitor. That non-profit has executives making 7 figure salaries and an in-house venture capital investment fund.

Before you cry out for "non-profit" I recommend examining what, exactly, that means.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,400]

>anyone think 'they' will be happy paying doctor / hospital bills for us
>dummies on motorcycles or dumb skydivers ?

"They" are paying for it now. A lot of skydivers don't have health insurance, but we don't leave people with broken backs to rot in the LZ. Nothing would change, other than hospitals wouldn't go out of business because of people like us.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

>anyone think 'they' will be happy paying doctor / hospital bills for us
>dummies on motorcycles or dumb skydivers ?

"They" are paying for it now.

That's two different "they"s.

Now, the bill is largely paid by local hospitals. In your proposed system (as I understand it--please correct me if I'm wrong), the bill would be paid by the federal government (basically spread amongst all the taxpayers).

The major difference, in this context, is that local hospitals, even if they wish to, are unable to ban skydiving or motorcycles. The federal government, on the other hand, seems quite capable of doing so.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,400]

>The major difference, in this context, is that local hospitals, even if they wish
>to, are unable to ban skydiving or motorcycles.

?? County boards run county hospitals, and are often the same boards that pass rules concerning skydiving at local DZ's. Indeed, we've had far more success with airport access issues at the federal level than at the local level, as the dozen or so local-government DZ shutdowns have attested to.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

>The major difference, in this context, is that local hospitals, even if they wish
>to, are unable to ban skydiving or motorcycles.

?? County boards run county hospitals, and are often the same boards that pass rules concerning skydiving at local DZ's. Indeed, we've had far more success with airport access issues at the federal level than at the local level, as the dozen or so local-government DZ shutdowns have attested to.

If the county board bans skydiving, you can always head to another county.

If the federal government bans it, you're going to have a much harder time moving to another country.


Also, I have yet to hear of a county banning motorcycles. Can you provide a reference for a case where that has happened?

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Uhh. No.

Check the entire statement. It has everything to do with caring for our own people.

I did - it's still bullshit. Try again.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[makeithappen40 0]

Totally! I'm glad you agree, its total bullshit that they give these corporations so much money!

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Totally! I'm glad you agree, its total bullshit that they give these corporations so much money!

They don't like big companies and corporations and conglomarates unless it gets them elected . . . then it's ok.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[futuredivot 0]

Find me some incentive more effective than profit potential to drive improvement and innovation. The potential to make a ton of money drive drug companies to develop better medication. It allows Doctors the funding to research more effective treatments and procedures. Even when an individual or group of researchers are toiling purely for the greater good of mankind, the light bill is picked up by a guy wanting to make money.
Or do you think that society would be fine under a belief of to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities. That didn't work on the farm and it ain't gonna work here.
I have yet to meet anyone that gives every single cent above sustenance level to help others. That is what you're asking these companies to do. Companies that have an obligation to their owner that have taken a level of risk to return a profit.
People that I have talked with face to face that are in favor of socialized have been more interested in what they can take than what they can give. No economy works on one way flow.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[makeithappen40 0]

>Find me some incentive more effective than profit potential to drive improvement and innovation

Thats not the issue, dude. Profit potential and profit gained through government spending are just a hair different. Most free-marketeers wouldn't agree with how the government spends/creates money to make/save mega-corporations. They would say that is a form of socialism, not free-market economics.
Therefore, using the government as an economic crutch is not the same thing as selling goods in a free market.

>Or do you think that society would be fine under a belief of to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities. That didn't work on the farm and it ain't gonna work here.

I'm not sure yet. There hasn't ever been a clear cut example of the sort of socialism you just mentioned. It always turns out that people who don't need alot get alot, and those who need alot don't get anything. (Like in Russia) Also, socialism, by its standards is supposed to NOT be a form of government that results in exploitation of another man for a man. This has happened in every form of communism, just like it happens here. (Think middle class tax rates)

I'm not sure how a totally free-market driven society would work either, as I know of no examples of societie(s) where this has actually occured. There seems to always have been some sort of exploitation, or some sort of government imposition in the market.

>I have yet to meet anyone that gives every single cent above sustenance level to help others

Me either. I don't think its possible. However, I still think current government spending habits are atrocious, because they don't even attempt to emulate actual capitalist or communist standards.

>That is what you're asking these companies to do

Show me.

>People that I have talked with face to face that are in favor of socialized have been more interested in what they can take than what they can give.

And how is that different from the self-interested means that capitalism is founded on, again?

[makeithappen40 0]

Quote

Quote

Totally! I'm glad you agree, its total bullshit that they give these corporations so much money!

They don't like big companies and corporations and conglomarates unless it gets them elected . . . then it's ok.

Fucked up huh.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Profit potential and profit gained through government spending are just a hair different.

Precisely. Welfare for corporations (or unions) is still welfare, and just as bad (in fact worse, I think) than the sort handed out to individuals.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

>People that I have talked with face to face that are in favor of socialized have been more interested in what they can take than what they can give.

And how is that different from the self-interested means that capitalism is founded on, again?

It's different because the capitalist self-interest is founded on free choice. The government sponsored self-interest is founded on taking away other people's choices, by having the government force them to fund you.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[makeithappen40 0]

If you can't take away other's free choices, how can you always have the opportunity for exercizing your own free choice on behalf of self-interest?

(In other words, what happens when two people have clashing self-interests? Does the stronger simply take precedence over the weak? And if so, how does that answer remain consistent with what you mentioned about "not taking away other's free choices?)

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

If you can't take away other's free choices, how can you always have the opportunity for exercizing your own free choice on behalf of self-interest?

You don't always have that opportunity.

Your rights are bounded by the rights of others, and your right to self-determination does not include forcing other people to do what you want. You have a right to your own property, and your own choices, and not to anyone else's. You can't steal someone else's car, even if you want it. You may want to have sex with that supermodel, but she has free will, and the only fair role of government is making sure her free will is respected in the matter.


I'm not sure I understand the question in this context. Can you give a specific example?

More generally, you do not have a right to free choice which imposes upon others. In other words, you can choose to swing your arm around in the air, unless it happens to intersect someone else's nose. When you do that, you have imposed on their choices without their consent.

When two people have opposing interests, they resolve them through negotiation, outright purchase, or whatever other peaceable means are available. Currently, we run into problems because it's often cheaper for the stronger to get the government to force the weaker to his will, rather than having to go to the trouble of making it worth the other parties while.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Darius11 12]

Quote

Find me some incentive more effective than profit potential to drive improvement and innovation. The potential to make a ton of money drive drug companies to develop better medication.

Well if profit is the only thing drug companies care for and I am sure they do it would make sense that they would never cure anything, and that they would make drugs that can keep you alive but never fully cure you does it not? Or do you think in that instance all of a sudden they would do the right thing?


Also only caring about profit when it comes to our health could explain why we have so many drugs that get recalled and kill people.


For me profit is not a valid excuse to endanger people’s health, and to trust the conscience of huge corporations.

Last I checked most doctors where actually becoming doctors to help people, not to become the apprentice.

I know its hard to believe but there are more important things then money, like health.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[TomAiello 25]

Dude, have you read the WSJ article I've linked 3 times in the last week?

The one where the non profit hospital charged 5 times as much as it's for profit competitor across town? And the non-profit hospital paid it's executives 7 figure salaries (about 5 times as much as the executives at the for profit hospital made)? About one of the hospitals that President Obama held up as a model for the healthcare system?

I know I've said this before, but I'm going to post it again in hopes that you will read it this time:

My wife is a physician. One of her former partners decided to go in with the local (non-profit) hospital. They doubled his rates. That's right--the patients now pay twice as much for any given appointment or procedure, under the new "non-profit" system. The hospital just took his previous billings and added a "hospital fee" equal to the previous fee onto them, doubling the cost to the patients--and pocketing the difference, since the doctor still gets paid the same.

Please look at how the non-profits really behave before you decide that they are all goodness and light.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

anyone think 'they' will be happy paying doctor / hospital bills for us dummies on motorcycles or dumb skydivers ?? think about it.

Easy enough to ban motorcycles and skydiving then. It's only fair that if I pay for your healthcare I can make you stop doing things that might raise my costs.

Is skydiving banned in Canada? France? Britain?

Are motorbikes banned in Canada? Britain? France?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,400]

>Also, I have yet to hear of a county banning motorcycles.

You're sort of proving my point here. Yes, counties/states could ban motorcycles - but they don't, outside of very specific areas (i.e. parks or whatever.) They don't keep people from riding them even though they tend to increase costs at the hospitals that the counties and states run.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

>Also, I have yet to hear of a county banning motorcycles.

You're sort of proving my point here.

I don't think so.

My point was that I'm happier with those sorts of decisions being made at a county, rather than a federal level. That's because I think a county is less likely to take action restricting people's freedom to ride motorcycles, skydive, or whatever.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com