Warp wrote:
>   I wonder why. Would it be unfair that *all* people could get health care
> for free, that rich and poor people would be treated equally?

Yes, because (the argument goes) "if person x doesn't have to pay for it 
(because they don't have any money), why should I (even though I have 
more than enough)?  person x is just a lazy deadbeat who's stealing *my* 
money!"  :P

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:17:08 -0500, Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:

>
>	They're not opposed to *national* health care (we already have that). 
>They're opposed to *universal* health care.

Could you explain the difference between universal and national to a Brit?
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   I wonder why. Would it be unfair that *all* people could get health care
> > for free, that rich and poor people would be treated equally?

> Yes, because (the argument goes) "if person x doesn't have to pay for it 
> (because they don't have any money), why should I (even though I have 
> more than enough)?  person x is just a lazy deadbeat who's stealing *my* 
> money!"  :P

  If that's someone's honest opinion, it has one major flaw: Basically the
person is saying that poor people should be left to die because society (in
other words, the citizens of the country) should have no obligation of
keeping poor people alive and healthy. In other words, that poor people
deserve no help from people who can afford helping them.

  While in a completely inhuman and technical society it could make logical
sense to get rid of people who don't contribute positively to the society
(by letting them die), that's not the kind of philosophy civilized society
is founded on. Human rights exist for a reason.

  I think Americans should stop complaining about things like taxes. They
should take a look at Finland, where rich people pay up to 60% of their
income in taxes. And that's not a typo. Americans have it quite easy with
their, what, 20% tax roof? They could well increase that a bit.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4a849ed2@news.povray.org...
> On 08/13/09 17:24, somebody wrote:

> > magically become better or worse because it's public or private. Health
care
> > in both USA and Canada stinks, and the latter is public (and arguably
stinks
> > more, since well to do Canadians rely on USA for their timely health
care
> > needs). Granted, the private vs public or how much of each is a major
>
> And the Americans rely on India for their timely health care needs as
well.
>
> Your point?

That both systems/implementations are flawed.

> I have an article sitting around here somewhere that claims that in
> Canada (or at least some of the provinces) if someone gets put on a very
> long waiting list, and the doctor feels that it could be really
> dangerous/fatal to wait that long, they're allowed to seek treatment
> elsewhere (e.g. US) and get refunded.
>
> Can't find a way to confirm it...

Possible in some life threatening cases. But health care is not just about
keeping dying people alive. Quality of life should be a big part of health
care. With limited and mismanaged resources, Canada has no option but to act
retroactively and in panic mode, keep pushing life threatening conditions to
the front of the long and growing wait lines. In the meantime, some in the
months or years long list either progress to the point of becoming life
threatening (a mixed blessing, for then they will be pushed to the front),
or if they are wealthy enough, or if they value their quality of life, seek
threatment out of the country with out of pocket expenses. Late treatment in
this manner is a losing battle.

Recently publicized story (and sometimes mis-publicized as a life
threatening case):

http://www.mayoclinic.org/patientstories/story-339.html

Sure, it's not life threatening, but if I were in her shoes, I'd not wait to
risk blindness either, not should I be expected to, in a developed country.

Besides the obvious months and years long waiting lists (6 months for MRI,
another 2-3 years for surgery is fairly common for knee surgeries, for
instance), and risks associated with late diagnosis and threatment, the
inability for a sizeable portion in some provinces of Canadians to have
access to family practicioners also overburderns an already stretched system
when patients are more or less left to use emergency rooms for diagnosis.

> The point being that the long wait times are not necessarily due to
> shortage of money, but due to shortage of doctors.

And where exactly do shortage of doctors and nurses come from? Are we saying
Canadian students are inherently dumber than their US counterparts and
cannot finish medical school? Of course not, it's mismanagement and/or
shortage of money. Many doctors and nurses move south of the border because
they can make more money, work under better conditions (which comes back to
money)... etc. Like it or not, money is what makes the world go around.

> And just as an FYI, health care in Canada is almost completely private.
> It's merely government funded. Doctors don't work for the government,
> though.

True (but it's more complicated - much of drugs, vision or dental care are
not government funded either, and government funding also brings government
regulation, of course, so it's not "merely" funded by government), but the
difference may be without distinction anyway. I don't believe Canada's
health care problems are due to doctors not working directly under
government payroll. Either implementation could be made to work equally
well, should there be enough money and good management.

Post a reply to this message

>> OK I know that not all Americans feel that way but it seems that the majority of
>> vocal ones do.
> 
>   I think it's because most of them still have this misconception that
> national health care = communism (a view promoted by many prominent figures,
> among others, Ronald Reagan).

Question: What the **** is communism anyway? And why is it bad?

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Question: What the **** is communism anyway? And why is it bad?

  I once came up with this description:

  The basic idea of communism is that everyone should have the same wealth
as everyone else. That is: nothing.

  The idea of communism may sound good on paper, but in practice it doesn't
work very well because in order for communism to be upheld, people's freedom
and rights must be limited.

  Another reason why communism doesn't work is because it discourages
success: When you don't own anything, there's no point in earning more
or improving what you have. Why improve what you have when you don't
actually own it, and you could lose it at any time? This causes people
to simply do what they are forced to do in order to survive and not get
into problems, but nothing more. There's no point in doing anything more
because success is inconsequential.

  Capitalism may sound "bad" on paper (at least if you believe the hype),
but in practice it just works. It encourages people to succeed, which in
turn improves the whole society. Yes, it causes large gaps between rich
and poor, but if the government works right, even the poor will have at
least as good living conditions as even in the best of communist countries.
(Yes, this isn't true for many capitalist countries, but that's because
their government is not perfect. It's not really because of capitalism
itself.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> and therefore needs 
> to be counterbalanced by some other regulatory mechanisms if it is to 
> work for good.

  Btw, that's true to *all* forms of economy. It's not exclusive to
capitalism.

  At its core, a government has two roles: Managing resources and stopping
people from hurting other people. How well different forms of government
succeed in these two goals depends, in the end, on how much they limit the
freedom and rights of their citizens.

  As far as I can see, democratic capitalism is the form of government which
succeeds in this with the least amount of freedom and rights limits. Other
forms of government and economy may sound good on paper, but they don't seem
to work very well in practice.

  That doesn't mean that capitalism is perfect. It just means that it seems
to be the best we have. Other forms don't seem to work in practice, no matter
how utopistic they sound in theory.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> Question: What the **** is communism anyway? And why is it bad?
> 
>   I once came up with this description:
> 
>   The basic idea of communism is that everyone should have the same wealth
> as everyone else. That is: nothing.
> 
>   The idea of communism may sound good on paper, but in practice it doesn't
> work very well because in order for communism to be upheld, people's freedom
> and rights must be limited.
> 
>   Another reason why communism doesn't work is because it discourages
> success: When you don't own anything, there's no point in earning more
> or improving what you have.

I see. I think...

>   Capitalism may sound "bad" on paper (at least if you believe the hype),
> but in practice it just works.

What's capitalism?

And, for that matter, we still have socialism, fashism, fuedalism, and 
all those other isms that nobody understands...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >   Capitalism may sound "bad" on paper (at least if you believe the hype),
> > but in practice it just works.

> What's capitalism?

  In essence: Free commerce and the right for individuals to own wealth.

> And, for that matter, we still have socialism, fashism, fuedalism, and 
> all those other isms that nobody understands...

  I don't think capitalism should be confused with those because capitalism
is more an economic model than a governmental one. While some governmental
models also imply a certain economic model (such as is mostly the case
with communism), capitalism is not so much tied to the specific govermental
model. For example, AFAIK, China is some kind of mixture of communism and
capitalism at the same time (I'm not exactly sure how it works there because
I haven't studied the subject).

  Of course capitalism seems to work best with democracy because they are
both based on the same concept: Freedom.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 08/14/09 03:02, clipka wrote:
>> Yup. One leads to prosperity, and the other doesn't. And neither is
>> capitalism.

> And I guess we don't have to discuss how prosperous communist sovjet
> Russia was.

	Obviously not. That was the one that wasn't prosperous.

	It was a joke. The point is that every country (that's still around) is 
pretty much a mix of socialism and capitalism.


-- 
Doctor to patient: Although it's nothing serious, let's keep an eye on 
it to make sure it doesn't turn into a major lawsuit.

Post a reply to this message