|
On February 24 2013 08:17 waxypants wrote:
I like the nationalized Canada and Euro healthcare in theory. However, it sort of scares me when I read (for example) that the wait time for an MRI can be weeks, months, or even years (depending on urgency). Whenever I had an MRI ordered for my arm pain, I called to schedule the MRI and the lady was sorry that I couldn't get it done THE SAME DAY, so I had to wait an entire day to get it. And this was for some arm pain, probably near the bottom of the urgency list in the grand scheme of things.
As you said, it depends on the urgency. But if you don't want to wait -for whatever reason- you can always use the private/expensive alternative, and get it done without the waiting. In fact this is not uncommon at all. Still, I'm glad I get to choose.
|
On February 24 2013 08:17 waxypants wrote:
I like the nationalized Canada and Euro healthcare in theory. However, it sort of scares me when I read (for example) that the wait time for an MRI can be weeks, months, or even years (depending on urgency). Whenever I had an MRI ordered for my arm pain, I called to schedule the MRI and the lady was sorry that I couldn't get it done THE SAME DAY, so I had to wait an entire day to get it. And this was for some arm pain, probably near the bottom of the urgency list in the grand scheme of things.
I have never heard of someone waiting years for an MRI scan. The worst case I have heard was 6 months and doing the scan in the first place was a dubious assessment.
|
Well, it is kinda old storry, really.
The goverment doesn`t need to strongly regulate a lot of markets, you do not like new celphones or cars? No problem use your old, buy used or do not use it at all.
With food, water, healthcare, law enforcement and to an extend education it is not like this, and that is why strong goverment regulations are needed. And the goverment actions need to be strongly overseen by public, to ensure as little corruption as possible.
Goverment is not some sort of remote body. Goverment is representatives and employes of we the people, and it is perfectly fine for we the people to bargan for prices as collective. And if current medical companies do not like it, we have money that we can spent to create new healthcare companies. They, on the other hand, will not get different customers.
And, we must finally fix the patent system, and "intelectual property" rights. Allow paralel importation. Make sure patents are not overprotecting producers from competition. That are things goverment does, that in fact make things worse. Need a fix, big time.
|
On February 24 2013 07:54 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:45 rusedeguerre wrote:
Because I never asked to use them. Lack of consent is the criteria which defines theft. If I buy you a cheeseburger I can't steal five dollars from your wallet. You didn't ask, you just used them. You also didn't ask for permission to use the streets or utilities, did you? You can't just take a cheeseburger and not pay just because no one asked if you wanted it. And, as I have mentioned several times over, which you have ignored just as many times, a large percentage of taxes aren't applicable until you are legally an adult. You had plenty of time to refuse to say no to taxes and move somewhere that wouldn't have them (or utilities or services).
Sorry, this argument doesn't work for you. All I have to do is show that there are government services I am not using and yet still being taxed for.
Again, showing that some taxation is justified does not mean that all taxation is justified. It depends upon the purpose employed. This is why it is important to regard taxation as morally justified theft. People make the mistake of justifying one taxation purpose and then make the erroneous leap that ALL taxation and all actions of government are now permissible.
|
On February 24 2013 09:10 naastyOne wrote:
Well, it is kinda old storry, really.
The goverment doesn`t need to strongly regulate a lot of markets, you do not like new celphones or cars? No problem use your old, buy used or do not use it at all.
With food, water, healthcare, law enforcement and to an extend education it is not like this, and that is why strong goverment regulations are needed. And the goverment actions need to be strongly overseen by public, to ensure as little corruption as possible.
Goverment is not some sort of remote body. Goverment is representatives and employes of we the people, and it is perfectly fine for we the people to bargan for prices as collective. And if current medical companies do not like it, we have money that we can spent to create new healthcare companies. They, on the other hand, will not get different customers.
It is funny that you use the example of cell phones as something that isn't necessary or doesn't need to be regulated. Because the US government is providing cell phones to the poor.
The problem with this sort of argument is that there are no limiting criteria. Anything can be justified or included. Why choose only food, water, health care, education, and law enforcement? Why not choose fewer, or more? Transportation could also be regarded as some sort of crucial necessity that needs to be regulated. In fact, anything could be included in this category. We could argue that failure to brush your teeth will have social costs because of the cavities and tooth decay, and so toothpaste and brushes need to be subsidized and regulated. This sort of logic can be applied to everything.
You either have to accept that the government should regulate absolutely everything in life, or you have to come up with some specific limiting criteria which can define and distinguish what is justified and what is not.
|
On February 24 2013 09:00 xN.07)MaK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 08:17 waxypants wrote:
I like the nationalized Canada and Euro healthcare in theory. However, it sort of scares me when I read (for example) that the wait time for an MRI can be weeks, months, or even years (depending on urgency). Whenever I had an MRI ordered for my arm pain, I called to schedule the MRI and the lady was sorry that I couldn't get it done THE SAME DAY, so I had to wait an entire day to get it. And this was for some arm pain, probably near the bottom of the urgency list in the grand scheme of things. As you said, it depends on the urgency. But if you don't want to wait -for whatever reason- you can always use the private/expensive alternative, and get it done without the waiting. In fact this is not uncommon at all. Still, I'm glad I get to choose.
Indeed. That's what I find rather peculiar, yes for all intents and purposes, socialized medicine means, allocating resources accordingly, giving emergency priority - and rationalize to some extent. Resources are endless, as is the money for a lot of insured(!) people in the US. However, if one is willing and capable to pay you get first class treatment very quickly even in countries with "socialized health care". Advocates for the "current"/"free market" US system seem to forget about that little detail.
|
Despite the attempts of the UK government to fuck it over, it's threads like these that make me glad of our NHS.
|
On February 24 2013 09:32 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 09:00 xN.07)MaK wrote:On February 24 2013 08:17 waxypants wrote:
I like the nationalized Canada and Euro healthcare in theory. However, it sort of scares me when I read (for example) that the wait time for an MRI can be weeks, months, or even years (depending on urgency). Whenever I had an MRI ordered for my arm pain, I called to schedule the MRI and the lady was sorry that I couldn't get it done THE SAME DAY, so I had to wait an entire day to get it. And this was for some arm pain, probably near the bottom of the urgency list in the grand scheme of things. As you said, it depends on the urgency. But if you don't want to wait -for whatever reason- you can always use the private/expensive alternative, and get it done without the waiting. In fact this is not uncommon at all. Still, I'm glad I get to choose. Indeed. That's what I find rather peculiar, yes for all intents and purposes, socialized medicine means, allocating resources accordingly, giving emergency priority - and rationalize to some extent. Resources are endless, as is the money for a lot of insured(!) people in the US. However, if one is willing and capable to pay you get first class treatment very quickly even in countries with "socialized health care". Advocates for the "current"/"free market" US system seem to forget about that little detail.
"current"/"free market"
Do you really think these are synonymous?
"If you are super rich, you can afford to pay for two health care systems at once" isn't a very compelling argument unfortunately.
|
On February 24 2013 09:38 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 09:32 Doublemint wrote:On February 24 2013 09:00 xN.07)MaK wrote:On February 24 2013 08:17 waxypants wrote:
I like the nationalized Canada and Euro healthcare in theory. However, it sort of scares me when I read (for example) that the wait time for an MRI can be weeks, months, or even years (depending on urgency). Whenever I had an MRI ordered for my arm pain, I called to schedule the MRI and the lady was sorry that I couldn't get it done THE SAME DAY, so I had to wait an entire day to get it. And this was for some arm pain, probably near the bottom of the urgency list in the grand scheme of things. As you said, it depends on the urgency. But if you don't want to wait -for whatever reason- you can always use the private/expensive alternative, and get it done without the waiting. In fact this is not uncommon at all. Still, I'm glad I get to choose. Indeed. That's what I find rather peculiar, yes for all intents and purposes, socialized medicine means, allocating resources accordingly, giving emergency priority - and rationalize to some extent. Resources are endless, as is the money for a lot of insured(!) people in the US. However, if one is willing and capable to pay you get first class treatment very quickly even in countries with "socialized health care". Advocates for the "current"/"free market" US system seem to forget about that little detail. "current"/"free market" Do you really think these are synonymous? "If you are super rich, you can afford to pay for two health care systems at once" isn't a very compelling argument unfortunately.
I did not equate the two, apparently my quotation marks have failed horribly.
|
On February 24 2013 09:38 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 09:32 Doublemint wrote:On February 24 2013 09:00 xN.07)MaK wrote:On February 24 2013 08:17 waxypants wrote:
I like the nationalized Canada and Euro healthcare in theory. However, it sort of scares me when I read (for example) that the wait time for an MRI can be weeks, months, or even years (depending on urgency). Whenever I had an MRI ordered for my arm pain, I called to schedule the MRI and the lady was sorry that I couldn't get it done THE SAME DAY, so I had to wait an entire day to get it. And this was for some arm pain, probably near the bottom of the urgency list in the grand scheme of things. As you said, it depends on the urgency. But if you don't want to wait -for whatever reason- you can always use the private/expensive alternative, and get it done without the waiting. In fact this is not uncommon at all. Still, I'm glad I get to choose. Indeed. That's what I find rather peculiar, yes for all intents and purposes, socialized medicine means, allocating resources accordingly, giving emergency priority - and rationalize to some extent. Resources are endless, as is the money for a lot of insured(!) people in the US. However, if one is willing and capable to pay you get first class treatment very quickly even in countries with "socialized health care". Advocates for the "current"/"free market" US system seem to forget about that little detail. "current"/"free market" Do you really think these are synonymous? "If you are super rich, you can afford to pay for two health care systems at once" isn't a very compelling argument unfortunately.
Apparently more than 33% of the population belong in the "super rich" group who can afford it without breaking a sweat. Furthermore the Danish social healthcare is on the same level as the healthcare for an insured american.
|
You either have to accept that the government should regulate absolutely everything in life, or you have to come up with some specific limiting criteria which can define and distinguish what is justified and what is not.
ehhm no, because in fact, the world is not black and white. And in fact i can give you some criteria on what government should regulate and what not.
As the poster you quoted said: food , water, healthcare, education. Why? because these things are essential for a working society. Food and water and healthcares for our body, education so people actually can get qualified work and be all nice and happy.
What government shouldn't regulate is basically everything that is not included above and what can be regulated by a free market itself.
Of course there are some grey zones, but thats actually what we should be talking about instead of discussing unpracticable fundamentalistic positions that don't make any sense at all.
And regarding the disadvantages of a public health - care sytem and waiting times:
well i can only speak for germany, but here it's really uncommon to wait several weaks for an important medical service. if you have something urgent you get it done as fast as it needs to be done, u probably have to wait just a few days.
And you can of course get complete or partial private insurance if you want everything done really fast and extra comfortable.
|
I didn't know it was that serious, but seeing the bill after I was discharged from my week and a half stay at the psych hospital gave me quite the shock.
|
On February 24 2013 07:18 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 07:15 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:12 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote:On February 24 2013 07:11 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:06 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 07:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 24 2013 07:00 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 06:56 mcc wrote:
[quote]
That is only because as all anarcho-capitalists you change the definition of words. Being member of society with a state is not being a slave. Only when you change the definition of slave you can even say nonsense that you say. I changed the definition of slavery? So slavery does not mean owning human beings? Or am I missing the eternal exception, "unless it's the government." And I am not anarcho-capitalist. So you've ignored every single thing everyone has said to you and still pretend that the government owns you. If that's how you want to live your life, by all means, pretend that your freedom has been sold to the government. You all were the one's arguing that government owns everything. I didn't start with that assumption, it was the basis for your arguments. No, actually. You even asked me that specifically, and I answered with a definitive "no". So let me repeat: The government doesn't own everything. No one said that. No one believes that. Please stop making shit up. But you believe that by virtue of being born into a society, I am indebted to that society? yes, obviously But this is not indentured servitude? no. indentured servitude is when you sell yourself into a labor contract for some specified period of time, usually in return for training or passage. the modern higher educational system is essentially a form of indentured servitude, if you want to look at it that way, only worse, because you're not even guaranteed to be able to find a job to pay off the debt. all of of this is a different question than that of the basic sociality of the human animal. But you cannot make the choice to sell yourself into the contract in this example. It is forced upon you simply by existing.
right, that's why it's not equivalent to indentured servitude. among other reasons.
|
On February 24 2013 09:57 fugs wrote:
I didn't know it was that serious, but seeing the bill after I was discharged from my week and a half stay at the psych hospital gave me quite the shock.
heh, and psych is supposed to be one of the cheaper ones as far as I know
|
On February 24 2013 09:56 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +You either have to accept that the government should regulate absolutely everything in life, or you have to come up with some specific limiting criteria which can define and distinguish what is justified and what is not. ehhm no, because in fact, the world is not black and white. And in fact i can give you some criteria on what government should regulate and what not. As the poster you quoted said: food , water, healthcare, education. Why? because these things are essential for a working society. Food and water and healthcares for our body, education so people actually can get qualified work and be all nice and happy. What government shouldn't regulate is basically everything that is not included above and what can be regulated by a free market itself. Of course there are some grey zones, but thats actually what we should be talking about instead of discussing unpracticable fundamentalistic positions that don't make any sense at all.
Ummm, what I described is not a "fundamentalist position," it is simple common sense. If you have limiting criteria, then it is limited. If you don't, then there is no limit. You can call that black and white thinking, but it is practically a logical truism.
You say "these things are essential" and leave it at that as if it is an argument. Transportation is essential, why didn't you include that? Could I not argue that toothpaste is essential? What about fruits and vegetables? What about internet service?
They can all be defined as essential, and they can all be provided by either government or a market. Just like education, etc.
You really have no argument here whatsoever, only ad hominems.
|
On February 24 2013 10:06 rusedeguerre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 09:56 Nyxisto wrote:You either have to accept that the government should regulate absolutely everything in life, or you have to come up with some specific limiting criteria which can define and distinguish what is justified and what is not. ehhm no, because in fact, the world is not black and white. And in fact i can give you some criteria on what government should regulate and what not. As the poster you quoted said: food , water, healthcare, education. Why? because these things are essential for a working society. Food and water and healthcares for our body, education so people actually can get qualified work and be all nice and happy. What government shouldn't regulate is basically everything that is not included above and what can be regulated by a free market itself. Of course there are some grey zones, but thats actually what we should be talking about instead of discussing unpracticable fundamentalistic positions that don't make any sense at all. Ummm, what I described is not a "fundamentalist position," it is simple common sense. If you have limiting criteria, then it is limited. If you don't, then there is no limit. You can call that black and white thinking, but it is practically a logical truism.
it's not a tautology. sometimes you just decide to limit things. then you have limits, but no "limiting criteria" in the sense of formally stated rules.
|
On February 24 2013 10:07 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 10:06 rusedeguerre wrote:On February 24 2013 09:56 Nyxisto wrote:You either have to accept that the government should regulate absolutely everything in life, or you have to come up with some specific limiting criteria which can define and distinguish what is justified and what is not. ehhm no, because in fact, the world is not black and white. And in fact i can give you some criteria on what government should regulate and what not. As the poster you quoted said: food , water, healthcare, education. Why? because these things are essential for a working society. Food and water and healthcares for our body, education so people actually can get qualified work and be all nice and happy. What government shouldn't regulate is basically everything that is not included above and what can be regulated by a free market itself. Of course there are some grey zones, but thats actually what we should be talking about instead of discussing unpracticable fundamentalistic positions that don't make any sense at all. Ummm, what I described is not a "fundamentalist position," it is simple common sense. If you have limiting criteria, then it is limited. If you don't, then there is no limit. You can call that black and white thinking, but it is practically a logical truism. it's not a tautology. sometimes you just decide to limit things. then you have limits, but no "limiting criteria" in the sense of formally stated rules.
If the limit set is both arbitrary and malleable, then it should not be defined as a limit at all.
|
Ummm, what I described is not a "fundamentalist position," it is simple common sense. If you have limiting criteria, then it is limited. If you don't, then there is no limit. You can call that black and white thinking, but it is practically a logical truism.
You say "these things are essential" and leave it at that as if it is an argument. Transportation is essential, why didn't you include that? Could I not argue that toothpaste is essential? What about fruits and vegetables? What about internet service?
They can all be defined as essential, and they can all be provided by either government or a market. Just like education, etc.
You really have no argument here whatsoever, only ad hominems.
Well regarding your specific examples, transportation is of course necessary so people can actually get education and food so yes, that should be supported by the state, as it is already is in most countries. and atleast i regard fruit and vegetables as essential parts of a diet, so yes. Same goes for information infrastructure like the internet which is necessary for education and communication. if you buy toothpaste is probably up to yourself, you probably won't die if you don't use any.
Well of course i see what you're trying to get at , but your argument isn't really going anywhere. it's clearly not that hard to distinguish to between whats necessary and what is totally not necessary as i just said before, so i still don't see why my argument should be invalid.
And your "it's arbitrary so it's unvalid" argument isnt going to get you anywhere. Every line we draw is arbitrary. Even in science. If something is statistically proven , that only means the chance its an coincidence is very very low, in fact below a mark we consider low enough so that we are pleased with it.
Theres no absolute truth nowhere, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt do research or we shouldnt regulate something. We just do it , look if it works , and if it does not we change it again.
|
@Ruse
You may not value some things you are being taxed for, but what you're basically saying is that you're being stolen from because a small amount of what you are paying for is not being used how you want. In theory, I think it'd be okay if people decided what taxes they paid, but then they would not be able to use the services that they didn't pay for. Except that isn't at all enforceable. Clearly though, many services like public education, transportation (includes roads), etc. are all necessary in order to have a functioning society. Would you argue against those?
Also, since a health system helps keep the whole society afloat by keeping people alive, every one of your interactions with any individual taking part in the socialized healthcare system would be affecting you personally. You fail to see how beneficial a socialized healthcare system could be to you personally, even if you never have to use any medical services yourself. Since you depend on society (you buy things constantly, gas, water, everything basically), and since society is benefited from socialized healthcare, you too are benefited. I'd gladly pay $10,000 out of a $60,000 salary just to have a healthcare system in place (those are made up numbers). It'd benefit the society as a whole a huge amount.
Edited: slight changes for neatness and clarification.
|
I'm surprised that singapore isn't mentioned anywhere in this thread
It's private healthcare over there - the way it works is that every person is forced to put x amount of money (of various subsidised levels) aside, and people can choose how to use this money to spend on their healthcare (expensive or cheap)
It's capitalism at it's best. Theres HUGE competition for specialists and healthcare over there. If i don't like the price of one guy i can literally move 10 minutes down the road to find a cheaper guy
Costs seem very reasonable. One time i had an emergency with my breathing as i could barely move and breathing was hurting, so i admitted into a hospital (driven by my parents). The whole cost for that day ended up being about 200-300 dollars to be seen to by a doctor, given some time in the hospital and given a diagnosis + some treatment
Saw a sinus specialist there once, he advised me specifically on prices of stuff before we did it and suggested the most cheap route for what he thought was appropriate. Did an endoscopy, some tests, prescribed all the right treatment and medicine, all amounted to about 300-400 dollars
The healthcare there is fantastic. You can see a doctor on the day (from hundreds to choose from) for about 50 dollars cheap to 100 dollars (or more depending on who you choose)
----
I suspect prices are cheap because it's capitalism. Everyone has money saved away to spend on healthcare, and naturally people will choose what they can afford. Many spend that money on insurance, others choose not to and there is tons of competition between doctors and specialists (and hospitals) to get stuff checked out
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
