![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Writer's Block: Health Care
[Error: unknown template qotd]
In a perfect world without need for "compensation," health care would be a right. In my next-to-perfect world, all hospitals would be charitable organizations as they once were...except with medically trained folks instead of nuns/clergy walking around just trying to keep folks comfy until they die.
Unfortunately, I think that emergency care is the only right that can be adequately secured via the Federal govt without converting to a socialist system. Unless being a doctor becomes a position of sacrifice (as one in our society typically expects of teachers, those that do charitable work, or actors/artists), the knowledge and equipment needed to work in medicine will demand extensive compensation. At this point, the debate goes to our society and how much people are willing to pay for themselves and for others. I would love the dynamic to evolve to society-supplied health maintenance programs better funded than the govt has them now with govt-assisted (but totally society-supplied) emergency care for all.
A blue collar family that has a member diagnosed with cancer shouldn't be in debt for hundreds of thousands of dollars the rest of their lives, but I don't think society should be paying for Bambi's chin implant and tummy tuck so she can get into the sorority she wants. Want vaccinations, sterilization, or a periodic physical - sure. I'd rather pay for those preventive measures than the emergency awaiting for that person down the road.
In a perfect world without need for "compensation," health care would be a right. In my next-to-perfect world, all hospitals would be charitable organizations as they once were...except with medically trained folks instead of nuns/clergy walking around just trying to keep folks comfy until they die.
Unfortunately, I think that emergency care is the only right that can be adequately secured via the Federal govt without converting to a socialist system. Unless being a doctor becomes a position of sacrifice (as one in our society typically expects of teachers, those that do charitable work, or actors/artists), the knowledge and equipment needed to work in medicine will demand extensive compensation. At this point, the debate goes to our society and how much people are willing to pay for themselves and for others. I would love the dynamic to evolve to society-supplied health maintenance programs better funded than the govt has them now with govt-assisted (but totally society-supplied) emergency care for all.
A blue collar family that has a member diagnosed with cancer shouldn't be in debt for hundreds of thousands of dollars the rest of their lives, but I don't think society should be paying for Bambi's chin implant and tummy tuck so she can get into the sorority she wants. Want vaccinations, sterilization, or a periodic physical - sure. I'd rather pay for those preventive measures than the emergency awaiting for that person down the road.
no subject
Interesting point. When I answered the question, I did it not considering purely cosmetic, elective treatments. I was thinking more of "maintaining/improving health."
no subject
medicine to keep you alive and healthy or to treat a disease that will kill you shouldnt be allowed to be in a for profit system. people should get paid, but no one should be making a dime off it.
do you support the idea of a socialized military, as we have (aside from some private firms/war profiteers)? or police, or firemen or roads, etc.
socialized doesnt mean federal money pit. it means that some things are too important to allow capitalism to milk for cash.
think about where more people would be RIGHT NOW if we had allowed the hard working investment bankers run social security. no system is perfect, but sometimes we have to take an imperfect workable rather than gamble that a cash driven business is looking out for you.
look at our new national insurance company, AIG. well it should be ours, your taxes and your children's taxes and probably their children's taxes will be paying for it.
we bail out bad leadership that loaned itself money to cover a foreseeable financial disaster, but we wouldnt stop those same vermin from kicking people out of homes.
hah, and people wonder why i think deregulation is bad. if you are trying to encourage growth and customer choice, its a nice sounding idea, but they system we have is to make as much cash as you can without getting caught and i'm sorry to say, humans are no where near honest enough to be trusted to do the right thing, ever, with other people's money. if you trust them fine, but use your own cash.
no subject
no subject
no subject
There is certainly nothing free about socialized medicine. In order to make the cost of providing the care (doctors, equipment, medicine, treatments) bearable, the govt will need to control prices for the materials used, the salaries of those doing the work, and the staff to run the whole medical machine. When the govt controls those things instead of the marketplace, it is "socialized."
medicine to keep you alive and healthy or to treat a disease that will kill you shouldnt be allowed to be in a for profit system. people should get paid, but no one should be making a dime off it.
Ok, so the for-profit companies that create these treatments should give their products away for free or only to recoup the cost of investment (like there won't be "million dollar toilet seats" put in those reimbursement forms)? Why should I have my company spend any money on R&D if I am not going to get a return on investment? Will that mean only the govt does research on actual medical concerns while the private industry focuses on vanity or "elective" medicine treatments? Will private industry cures be withheld from the govt-run system and only sold to the private medical industry supported by the wealthy?
do you support the idea of a socialized military
It is the constitutional duty of the federal govt to "provide the common defense." It is only practical to have one singular force under command of the Feds rather than many decentralized militias with various allegiances. While there are a wide variety of benefits given to those that serve, joining the military is seen as sacrificing oneself to the betterment of the govt/People. As I mentioned in the original post, if the medical field had the same culture of sacrifice for society, the situation would likely be different.
Police and firemen are local and not Federal employees. Although I classify myself as a libertarian, when it comes to local govts, if the people in a city want to tax themselves at 75% and provide a lot of govt services...more power to them. I don't have to live in that city if I don't like it.
On the other hand, my libertarian stance makes me a fan of "user fees" for govt provided services. I would rather pay for the Fed Interstate system via tolls/road fees than the gas tax we currently have. I'll gladly pay the honor box at parks than drive right by it and consider the whole thing a present from the govt.
RE: AIG/SocSec
The constitution says that the federal govt is to "promote the general welfare." Promote. Not provide.
The govt should promote education on financial issues: schools should have classes on investment, insurance, and other financial matters; every town should have a financial support office where folks can take classes, get debt counseling, or receive financial advice; and the govt should have enough regulation to provide the transparency needed so people can wisely make decisions on how to invest. The only economic training I received in school (other than the candy/drug blackmarket) was how to fill out a check in English class and one year of "Economics" my senior year. I learned nothing about the nuances of credit cards, little on investing, and nothing about budgeting (except for some basic evaluation on the cost for preparing meals in Home Ec class).
The federal govt shouldn't be propping anyone up (corporations or individuals) from their own mistakes. But since the govt doesn't help promote to the public how to do these things (or enforce the oversight and regulations it does have), it finds itself in a position where it is easier to throw money at the problem.
humans are no where near honest enough to be trusted to do the right thing, ever, with other people's money
This is exactly my point. The govt is filled with humans! Why are the humans in the govt somehow better than the humans in the private sector? As long as there is competition, I can leave one set of humans I don't trust to another group of humans I think I can trust. If the govt has control, I'm stuck with one group of humans that once I lose trust with them...tough luck.
no subject
you seem to think the current situation is fine and working great, good for you. but i think it is wrong to make a profit off human suffering. are you ok with war profiteers, but the idea of our taxes actually helping the public good offends you? soldiers dying for a lie in your name getting killed because a war profiteer didnt ground a light switch in a bathroom is a better use of our tax dollar than making sure people can get a checkup to catch cancer before it destroys their lives and put them hundreds of thousands of dollar into debt?
libertarian has always meant, to me personally, people that dont give a care for anyone but themselves. if someone else benefits from it, oh thats great, but the focus isnt on America, its on you and the things you care about. You like to quibble over 'provide' v 'promote'. what exactly is 'promote' the general welfare mean to you? to me it means making sure that an American doesnt starve or go homeless because they lose their jobs to China. it means controlling corporate greed to stop a bank from making a loan to a single mother with no job. it means seeing the people and putting in controls to prevent one group from profiting off the suffering of another.
we have speed limits and stop lights to make the public space more safe, thats a public welfare. should the government just stop with the rules since they cant provide anything, and instead just recommend ideas?
i am always amazed at the utter selfishness of people in this country. its always 'my money' or 'my right' but they never stop to think that its 'our country'. just look at the nonsense the GOP lead congress (94-06) and 8 years of corporate stoogery has done for 'promoting the general welfare. record debt, national and personal, one of the most negative standings in the world amongst 1st world nations, a dollar that has lost half its value and record profits in health and until recently the financial markets.
we have people dying because of this. dying for dollars so some crooked company can move their accounts offshore to avoid paying taxes. please, i beg you, show something this government is doing that is promoting the general welfare. because from where i stand they havent, and that should be grounds to impeach the entire lot of them and to condemn the well meaning citizens that choose to ignore it.
people deserve to be ok on the basis they are people. that doesnt mean we give them all they need, but when they have a real need and cant provide for themselves, we care enough to reach out and help them up. basic human kindness, but sadly, people look around and assume someone else is going to do it, or are too selfish to care, just as long as it isn't them.
no subject
No, I don't think libertarianism is selfish. I think:
1. The govt isn't always the best solution to problems
2. People who expect this "other" entity called the govt to solve all the problems and give us everything we want is selfish.
3. The constitution says the govt is to do its duties to "secure the Blessings of Liberty" and not the blessings of govt supplied programs.
And don't gimme crap like I'm some supporter of Bush and love his Iraq War or an anarchist against speed limits and that kind of thing. Please remove me from your basic "Them" argument that everyone that disagrees with you share all the same opinions. I like political discussions until my desire for PEOPLE to be actively involved in helping others instead of shirking that duty to others(aka, the govt) is somehow twisted into "less govt = you hate society" assertions.
How much charitable work do you do to help others, Daniel? I know you're not swimming in money right now, so have you donated your ample time to help the rest of the society that you are so passionate about in these replies? Or do you think it is the govt's job to do that for you? And I am selfish because I don't want the govt involved and I back up my words with actions by working with charities?
it means controlling corporate greed to stop a bank from making a loan to a single mother with no job. it means seeing the people and putting in controls to prevent one group from profiting off the suffering of another.
I agree. The biggest problem I have with the GOP is that not only are they for stripping regulations, but they allow the govt to ignore the regulations we have in place. A stock market with companies that are able to deceive customers and investors IS BAD! Making businesses transparent and accountable is in the best interest of society and the marketplace.
people deserve to be ok on the basis they are people. that doesnt mean we give them all they need, but when they have a real need and cant provide for themselves, we care enough to reach out and help them up. basic human kindness, but sadly, people look around and assume someone else is going to do it, or are too selfish to care, just as long as it isn't them.
I totally agree with that paragraph, I just don't believe that it is the govt's role to solve all problems of society. I believe people look around and assume someone else is doing it because Americans have been trained that the govt is doing something about it. There needs to be a push for people to become involved in charities of their choice and not just add those tasks to the wish list of what we want the govt to do FOR US. Americans shouldn't displace their desire to help society onto the govt, everyone should actually do something about it themselves. Is that a selfish assertion?