hmm u keep bringin point when even if u have money u cant get nothing done... this is a lie... i dont know about england or canada but in our contry if u dont want to wait u can go to private healtcenter where u pay for it by yourself and get instant care
Determining who lives or dies according to their ability to pay is unjust for the exact same reasons that it is unjust to let a convicted criminal pay off his prison sentence instead of serving it.
Just as Medicaid ultimately hurts the health & well-being of the poor, and Medicare ultimately hurts the health & well-being of the old, so too ObamaCare is going to lay waste to us all. People are going to be suffering & dying left & right! :-(
This is "change" & reform we don't want!
People think welfare statist government magic & coercion can defeat the laws of economics & provide us with something for nothing. The REAL answer is private savings, private insurance, & private charity.
Agreed in full. Thank you for your comments, and stay healthy!
My hope is that enough people will change their fundamental *approach* to health care by focusing on prevention first and treatment only when rigorous efforts at prevention fail. With the mess that is likely to come, it will be best to individually control as many aspects of one's health as possible -- so as to be minimally affected by what happens with professional medical care.
This is a very distorted view of how well a national health care system can work. Right now, if you get cancer in the US, there is a pretty good chance your health insurance provider will find any reason not to provide you with coverage. In Canada, when you get cancer it is absolutely free! Do you hear me... FREE! Watch sicko by Michael Moore and learn about Great Britain and France who have the best health care in the world!
you don't understand where the money comes from then. NOTHING IS FREE! you pay for the healthcare through taxes.
as well, since the government is so massive that it slows the system (as well as shutting out doctors who want a salary above the governments cap (which is quite alot)) thus creating a system that is a danger to even the least severe of patients.
It's not free, nor is it good, so you're argument is dead.
Of course not! I am against any government involvement in health care, beyond the enforcement of voluntary contracts and protections against fraud, as well as reasonable protections against malpractice.
I advocate voluntary communities, as I have already said. I was clear that if people want to organize collectivly that is there right. But still you argue with me. I can only assume that like all the other libertarian socialist I've met, when you say libertarian and voluntary, you mean people must submit to the tyranny of the majorty as you define it. Can people voluntary take part in a market economy based on property rights. (Yes or no will do)
China is not a free market, thats just a parenti talking point. Please who hasent heard of Libertarian socialism. That just means your somebody with a hierachcal relationship with Noam Chomsky. Your defending a state solution hear so please dont claim that Im making up your statism. Not only do you admit to supporting the state, you rationalize it.All your high minded libertarinism is bogus because you can not even bring yourself to say that people should be allowed to not be collectavists.
Fasism is a form or national socialism and rather far removed from the free market capitalism I'm talking about. If your going to be so crude as to say Franco was a capitalist, then I can say your anarcho syndacalism the same as Stalinism, since the Republicans including the syndacalists were primarily supported by the USSR.
Yeah they are subjective, some people willingly risk those things in pursuit of other goals they value more. Not all people value long healthy lives as much as other things and as such should not be forced to support you idealism.
Sorry, needs are based on value and as such are subjective. You are not in a posistion to declare what the needs of others are, only your own. Profit only means that a party derives increased value out of a new arrangement. If I expend and hour of my labor and procure of fish, I have profited because I preffered the fish to the labor nessisary to get it. If I didn't I would not have voluntarily done so. If two peole agree to an exchange, they BOTH profit, not just the one getting money.
Saying that I am against a state run healthcare system is not the same as standing asside. Why is it that when I say im against the government provision of a service you conflate this as being against the service entiraly. I dont think the government should have a monopoly on shoe production , but this does not mean I think people should go barefoot. Im just not willing to use force to make people conform to my will, by advocating a state solution, you do.
I agree that you should be allowed to live in the kind of society you wish, but I also think others should be allowed who disagree should be allowed to form a society they prefer. You obviously disagree, becuase you favor forcing everyone to support your system. If you want to form a commune (which did not work in spain or anywhere else) thats your perogative, but If I want to have private property and voluntarily engage in a market economy with others you've no right to stop me
Ethics and morality are not areas that can be empirically tested. If I help other people because it makes me feel good, its not actually altruism, because my action was selfishly motivated, ie I did it to feel good. If helping other people did not make me feel good, I would not voluntarily engage in it. Nor is it altruistic for you to force other people to help since A. your doing it to make yourself feel good, and B. if your forcing them, they arent acting voluntarily.
Firstly I am not now nore every have advocated the US system which is half socialized as it it. Im advocating a free market, something that has been absent in the US in the medical field for about 100 years. On a free market the incentive structurs of competition drives prices down, and quality of service up. In a socialized system the incentives are reversed. And what about all the canaidains who dont die, but are forced to wait years for simple treatments, where is your compassion for them?
What if I value a nice house and property more than healthy living? Should I be forced to sacrifice what I value more (like a nice house, car, vactaion time whatever) so that your concept of healthcare can be supported?
If that concept of healthcare covers everyone and even prevents one death, than yes you should be forced to support it. If you dont understand why you're nice car, nice house and vacation time comes second to helping save lives by providing coverage then i dont think any amount of reasoning will help you.
People die from preventable causes in state run healthcare systems all the time. If people are forced to pay, why do you keep useing terms like free? Since I know that most of my tax dollars will be used to pay beaurocrats I'm not going to be ashamed just because you invoke of the needy. Most of you taxes dont go to the neeedy, to go to rich people and the rest is dolled out in a careless and haphazard way. Government regulations raise the cost of healthcare and also hurt the needy.
You dont understand profit. You advocate a socialist system because you feel you have something to gain ie. profit. If two parties voluntarily agree to an exchange than they BOTH profit. On a free market (something absent in the US) profit seeking leads to a rise in quality and price cutting. I'm willing to bet that were you and I to be debating regulation you would claim that absent state interferience companies would price cut each other out of businees, but hear you claim the opposite.
Altruism and Individualism are mutualy exclusive. Single payer means that the state pays. Indeed paying for your own medical care is considered unCanadian, which is why so many canadians come to the US to pay for their own care. If you were actually paying for your own healthcare costs then there would be no reason for the pooling your talking about.
That you would claim the idea behind statist and coercive "healthcare" programs have anything to do with individualism is absolutely amazing. That you think statist coercion is "altruistic" is almost equally offensive. The liberals who genuinely care about the health and rights of others aren't statists. Statist liberals care about those who agree with them, and do not care about those who don't. Hence you will violate the rights of "the rich" and forcibly impose your whim on others via the gov.
So your advocating forcing others to pay for your healtcare because your selfless? If you care so much for others give up all your property to them. However forcing me to give up my property is not caring so stop pretending otherwise. There can be not system that is superior to all others because people have different values. If I value my health differently than you, who are you to say that this or that system is superior?
If I dont break my leg or catch the plague, why should I be forced to pay for somebody else who does? Why should I be forced to pay for your misfortune especially if im not complicit in it? You dont pay for your medical care? Really, do you not pay taxes, or are you exempted. I guess Im not paying for the war in Iraq because apparently what I'm taxed doesnt count. Hundreds of millions of people in the US have health insurance and millions more still get health care without it.
There is more healthcare availible in the US than there is in the UK. If you dont believe me ask yourself what would happen in the UK if it suddenly had to provide for more than 250 million people. Its a fallacy to think that since the government does not provide a service that there is a lack of said service. The government does not provide shoes, clothing, computers, or food, but that doesnt mean there is a lack of those goods.
He said "threaten to require everyone to purchase health insurance" which is absolutely correct. The proposal as it stands carries a requirement that all citizens who can afford to purchase health insurance do so.
Further, the advent of minimum coverage ensures that the available options will not actually be options, just different copies of the same insurance plan.
pfarabee, thank you for your posts corroborating my factual statement that the Obama administration's proposal would require individuals to purchase health insurance. It amazes me that many people are still unaware of this proposal, despite the fact that it is in the news so often. I hope that greater awareness of it will also motivate greater resistance to it.
I must agree with astrophysicistCUboul the non equation of health care and health insurance is completely logical and true although the second notion that there will be a socialist health care that will chose who will live and die is nothing more than scare mongering. In Britain we have the National Health Service but people are still free to purchase private health insurance, we, or at least most who I know, see the NHS as a system whereby we give a small amount of money to aid the ...cont....
Insurance companies already get to choose who lives, dies or becomes financially ruined. In fact if they could they'd literally push the idea of suicide once you spent your life paying your premiums. Check out this song from Roy Zimmerman.
watch?v=rAJ98iCMQeM
Health insurance should make little to no money and only be a public service.
... cont ... sick safe in the knowledge that when we are sick they will aid us. I should imagine that you would not hesitate to give money to one individual who needed it even without the notion of a returned favour. Furthermore I know of no-one that will seek medical aid unless they are sure they need it, that is not to say that the hypochondriacs do not exist, ... cont ...
... cont ... Im sure they do, but not in the numbers implied on the other had I know several people with conditions that require prolonged medical care that even with doctors giving reduced rates would not be able to afford the treatment.
Ouch. I must disagree with the latter portion of your essay. Rationing is an inevitability, and such delegation should be deteremined by the severity of illness, not the size of fianancial contribution to the system in question. This is essentially a moral imperative and essential for social justice. To suggest otherwise is somewhat objectivist and libertarian.
I will certainly agree with your other commentary, namely the distinction between insurance and care. Prevention seems most prudent.
My issue with objectivism only lies in its libertarian heart. I agree with most of the 'doctorine' pertaining to reality, as I am a scientist. I am a strong supporter of individual rights, but believe laissez-faire capitalism to be somewhat naive. It does not take full measure of the ill effects of unchecked greed. Private property is good motivation, but unbounded avarice is a disaster waiting to happen. I do not have a strong set of beliefs in terms of government structure.
I just don't understand how one could so casually (not you, but others) dismiss 'socialized medicine' as such a bane on society. The single payer system keeps much of Europe from suffering catastrophic medical bills. If you wish to discuss cost, a single payer system seems the best option. The United States pays outrageous costs for services that could be rendered for much less. As far as "punishing the rich" is concerned, I am not sure this is the case. I do not have the research to rebuke this
. I will say this. Though anecdotal evidence is virtually meaningless in this medium, I have known three wealthy people (all relatives) who have been financially eviscerated by medical bills. Two of these three were dropped by their insurers. Cancer, in many cases, is, unfortunately, far from preventable. Perhaps a single payer system focused on prevention (much like HMOs used to be) would be a way to integrate your insight into a more humanitarian way of caring for our sick. We need solidarity.
The mandate/fine situation is to create the illusion of less tax. Those who can afford the insurance pay for it out of pocket. If they can "afford" it and refuse to pay for it, they are fined. They recieve subsity if they can't "afford" it. The (false) justification is that they are a burden on the health care system if they are uninsured.
The other points of the proposals mean that insurance will be pricey, no matter what. Low-cost options (HSA, etc) will be a thing of the past.
It seems like there's a certain missing logic there as well. You say that people will begin to abuse the health care system by demanding medically unecessary procedures, and then criticize the activity of prioritizing demands for health care describing it as "deciding who lives and who dies". Doctors in all countries make decisions about who has what priority in waiting rooms, whether its a socialized or commercial system. The major difference is that in a commercial system, class decides it.
Polygamy is not necessarily a lot more dangerous as long as the circle of partners is closed, although I imagine the risk of infidelity increases a lot with more partners, as well as the risk of absorbing a partner into your circle that has a venereal disease and doesn't disclose it.
hmm u keep bringin point when even if u have money u cant get nothing done... this is a lie... i dont know about england or canada but in our contry if u dont want to wait u can go to private healtcenter where u pay for it by yourself and get instant care
fragelius 1 year ago
Determining who lives or dies according to their ability to pay is unjust for the exact same reasons that it is unjust to let a convicted criminal pay off his prison sentence instead of serving it.
xenocerebral 2 years ago
The government's been intentionally undermining healthcare for the sole purpose of taking it over for decades.
KenMacMillan 2 years ago
Just as Medicaid ultimately hurts the health & well-being of the poor, and Medicare ultimately hurts the health & well-being of the old, so too ObamaCare is going to lay waste to us all. People are going to be suffering & dying left & right! :-(
This is "change" & reform we don't want!
People think welfare statist government magic & coercion can defeat the laws of economics & provide us with something for nothing. The REAL answer is private savings, private insurance, & private charity.
PureLiberalRadio 2 years ago
Agreed in full. Thank you for your comments, and stay healthy!
My hope is that enough people will change their fundamental *approach* to health care by focusing on prevention first and treatment only when rigorous efforts at prevention fail. With the mess that is likely to come, it will be best to individually control as many aspects of one's health as possible -- so as to be minimally affected by what happens with professional medical care.
This is *much* easier said than done, of course.
GStolyarovII 2 years ago
This is a very distorted view of how well a national health care system can work. Right now, if you get cancer in the US, there is a pretty good chance your health insurance provider will find any reason not to provide you with coverage. In Canada, when you get cancer it is absolutely free! Do you hear me... FREE! Watch sicko by Michael Moore and learn about Great Britain and France who have the best health care in the world!
ingodidoubt 2 years ago
you don't understand where the money comes from then. NOTHING IS FREE! you pay for the healthcare through taxes.
as well, since the government is so massive that it slows the system (as well as shutting out doctors who want a salary above the governments cap (which is quite alot)) thus creating a system that is a danger to even the least severe of patients.
It's not free, nor is it good, so you're argument is dead.
CHUCKLZLORD 2 years ago
I like the way this guy thinks. Wait, is he pro-public option or what?
Notsorandomnumbers 2 years ago
Of course not! I am against any government involvement in health care, beyond the enforcement of voluntary contracts and protections against fraud, as well as reasonable protections against malpractice.
GStolyarovII 2 years ago
I advocate voluntary communities, as I have already said. I was clear that if people want to organize collectivly that is there right. But still you argue with me. I can only assume that like all the other libertarian socialist I've met, when you say libertarian and voluntary, you mean people must submit to the tyranny of the majorty as you define it. Can people voluntary take part in a market economy based on property rights. (Yes or no will do)
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
China is not a free market, thats just a parenti talking point. Please who hasent heard of Libertarian socialism. That just means your somebody with a hierachcal relationship with Noam Chomsky. Your defending a state solution hear so please dont claim that Im making up your statism. Not only do you admit to supporting the state, you rationalize it.All your high minded libertarinism is bogus because you can not even bring yourself to say that people should be allowed to not be collectavists.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Fasism is a form or national socialism and rather far removed from the free market capitalism I'm talking about. If your going to be so crude as to say Franco was a capitalist, then I can say your anarcho syndacalism the same as Stalinism, since the Republicans including the syndacalists were primarily supported by the USSR.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Yeah they are subjective, some people willingly risk those things in pursuit of other goals they value more. Not all people value long healthy lives as much as other things and as such should not be forced to support you idealism.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Sorry, needs are based on value and as such are subjective. You are not in a posistion to declare what the needs of others are, only your own. Profit only means that a party derives increased value out of a new arrangement. If I expend and hour of my labor and procure of fish, I have profited because I preffered the fish to the labor nessisary to get it. If I didn't I would not have voluntarily done so. If two peole agree to an exchange, they BOTH profit, not just the one getting money.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Saying that I am against a state run healthcare system is not the same as standing asside. Why is it that when I say im against the government provision of a service you conflate this as being against the service entiraly. I dont think the government should have a monopoly on shoe production , but this does not mean I think people should go barefoot. Im just not willing to use force to make people conform to my will, by advocating a state solution, you do.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
I agree that you should be allowed to live in the kind of society you wish, but I also think others should be allowed who disagree should be allowed to form a society they prefer. You obviously disagree, becuase you favor forcing everyone to support your system. If you want to form a commune (which did not work in spain or anywhere else) thats your perogative, but If I want to have private property and voluntarily engage in a market economy with others you've no right to stop me
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Ethics and morality are not areas that can be empirically tested. If I help other people because it makes me feel good, its not actually altruism, because my action was selfishly motivated, ie I did it to feel good. If helping other people did not make me feel good, I would not voluntarily engage in it. Nor is it altruistic for you to force other people to help since A. your doing it to make yourself feel good, and B. if your forcing them, they arent acting voluntarily.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Firstly I am not now nore every have advocated the US system which is half socialized as it it. Im advocating a free market, something that has been absent in the US in the medical field for about 100 years. On a free market the incentive structurs of competition drives prices down, and quality of service up. In a socialized system the incentives are reversed. And what about all the canaidains who dont die, but are forced to wait years for simple treatments, where is your compassion for them?
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
monogamy????
ModelAnarchist 2 years ago
What if I value a nice house and property more than healthy living? Should I be forced to sacrifice what I value more (like a nice house, car, vactaion time whatever) so that your concept of healthcare can be supported?
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
If that concept of healthcare covers everyone and even prevents one death, than yes you should be forced to support it. If you dont understand why you're nice car, nice house and vacation time comes second to helping save lives by providing coverage then i dont think any amount of reasoning will help you.
charlieapeshit 2 years ago
People die from preventable causes in state run healthcare systems all the time. If people are forced to pay, why do you keep useing terms like free? Since I know that most of my tax dollars will be used to pay beaurocrats I'm not going to be ashamed just because you invoke of the needy. Most of you taxes dont go to the neeedy, to go to rich people and the rest is dolled out in a careless and haphazard way. Government regulations raise the cost of healthcare and also hurt the needy.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
You dont understand profit. You advocate a socialist system because you feel you have something to gain ie. profit. If two parties voluntarily agree to an exchange than they BOTH profit. On a free market (something absent in the US) profit seeking leads to a rise in quality and price cutting. I'm willing to bet that were you and I to be debating regulation you would claim that absent state interferience companies would price cut each other out of businees, but hear you claim the opposite.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Altruism and Individualism are mutualy exclusive. Single payer means that the state pays. Indeed paying for your own medical care is considered unCanadian, which is why so many canadians come to the US to pay for their own care. If you were actually paying for your own healthcare costs then there would be no reason for the pooling your talking about.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
That you would claim the idea behind statist and coercive "healthcare" programs have anything to do with individualism is absolutely amazing. That you think statist coercion is "altruistic" is almost equally offensive. The liberals who genuinely care about the health and rights of others aren't statists. Statist liberals care about those who agree with them, and do not care about those who don't. Hence you will violate the rights of "the rich" and forcibly impose your whim on others via the gov.
EsotericThrone 2 years ago
So your advocating forcing others to pay for your healtcare because your selfless? If you care so much for others give up all your property to them. However forcing me to give up my property is not caring so stop pretending otherwise. There can be not system that is superior to all others because people have different values. If I value my health differently than you, who are you to say that this or that system is superior?
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
I agree and severely disagree with you.
devtamagi 2 years ago
If you break your leg or catch the plague you should have to worry about bankrupting yourself to call an ambulance.
One of the major reasons I would not move to the USA is the lack of health care provision. Being charged for dental work is bad enough.
KaelHunter 2 years ago
If I dont break my leg or catch the plague, why should I be forced to pay for somebody else who does? Why should I be forced to pay for your misfortune especially if im not complicit in it? You dont pay for your medical care? Really, do you not pay taxes, or are you exempted. I guess Im not paying for the war in Iraq because apparently what I'm taxed doesnt count. Hundreds of millions of people in the US have health insurance and millions more still get health care without it.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
There is more healthcare availible in the US than there is in the UK. If you dont believe me ask yourself what would happen in the UK if it suddenly had to provide for more than 250 million people. Its a fallacy to think that since the government does not provide a service that there is a lack of said service. The government does not provide shoes, clothing, computers, or food, but that doesnt mean there is a lack of those goods.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
Comment removed
KaelHunter 2 years ago
The government is 'threatening' people to have insurace? Really now? Kid, you have severely disappointed me.
Sav3TheWorld 2 years ago
He said "threaten to require everyone to purchase health insurance" which is absolutely correct. The proposal as it stands carries a requirement that all citizens who can afford to purchase health insurance do so.
Further, the advent of minimum coverage ensures that the available options will not actually be options, just different copies of the same insurance plan.
pfarabee 2 years ago
pfarabee, thank you for your posts corroborating my factual statement that the Obama administration's proposal would require individuals to purchase health insurance. It amazes me that many people are still unaware of this proposal, despite the fact that it is in the news so often. I hope that greater awareness of it will also motivate greater resistance to it.
GStolyarovII 2 years ago
I must agree with astrophysicistCUboul the non equation of health care and health insurance is completely logical and true although the second notion that there will be a socialist health care that will chose who will live and die is nothing more than scare mongering. In Britain we have the National Health Service but people are still free to purchase private health insurance, we, or at least most who I know, see the NHS as a system whereby we give a small amount of money to aid the ...cont....
AsifVidios 2 years ago
Insurance companies already get to choose who lives, dies or becomes financially ruined. In fact if they could they'd literally push the idea of suicide once you spent your life paying your premiums. Check out this song from Roy Zimmerman.
watch?v=rAJ98iCMQeM
Health insurance should make little to no money and only be a public service.
anubis2814 2 years ago
... cont ... sick safe in the knowledge that when we are sick they will aid us. I should imagine that you would not hesitate to give money to one individual who needed it even without the notion of a returned favour. Furthermore I know of no-one that will seek medical aid unless they are sure they need it, that is not to say that the hypochondriacs do not exist, ... cont ...
AsifVidios 2 years ago
... cont ... Im sure they do, but not in the numbers implied on the other had I know several people with conditions that require prolonged medical care that even with doctors giving reduced rates would not be able to afford the treatment.
AsifVidios 2 years ago
Ouch. I must disagree with the latter portion of your essay. Rationing is an inevitability, and such delegation should be deteremined by the severity of illness, not the size of fianancial contribution to the system in question. This is essentially a moral imperative and essential for social justice. To suggest otherwise is somewhat objectivist and libertarian.
I will certainly agree with your other commentary, namely the distinction between insurance and care. Prevention seems most prudent.
astrophysicistCUboul 2 years ago
Thank you for your comment.
Who says that being objectivist and/or libertarian is a bad thing? I openly admit to being quite a bit of both. :-)
GStolyarovII 2 years ago
My issue with objectivism only lies in its libertarian heart. I agree with most of the 'doctorine' pertaining to reality, as I am a scientist. I am a strong supporter of individual rights, but believe laissez-faire capitalism to be somewhat naive. It does not take full measure of the ill effects of unchecked greed. Private property is good motivation, but unbounded avarice is a disaster waiting to happen. I do not have a strong set of beliefs in terms of government structure.
astrophysicistCUboul 2 years ago
I just don't understand how one could so casually (not you, but others) dismiss 'socialized medicine' as such a bane on society. The single payer system keeps much of Europe from suffering catastrophic medical bills. If you wish to discuss cost, a single payer system seems the best option. The United States pays outrageous costs for services that could be rendered for much less. As far as "punishing the rich" is concerned, I am not sure this is the case. I do not have the research to rebuke this
astrophysicistCUboul 2 years ago
. I will say this. Though anecdotal evidence is virtually meaningless in this medium, I have known three wealthy people (all relatives) who have been financially eviscerated by medical bills. Two of these three were dropped by their insurers. Cancer, in many cases, is, unfortunately, far from preventable. Perhaps a single payer system focused on prevention (much like HMOs used to be) would be a way to integrate your insight into a more humanitarian way of caring for our sick. We need solidarity.
astrophysicistCUboul 2 years ago
Wait, what? A new policy that forces everyone to purchase insurance? Why isn't that all over the news yet?
Fjarhultian 2 years ago
You're kidding, right? Just look up the words "individual mandate"
Here's just one clip from CNN:
watch?v=87319b4j8jE
pfarabee 2 years ago
Huh, the more you know. That fine seems like an insane idea. Just tax it, if that money is really so desperately needed. Why the roundabout?
Fjarhultian 2 years ago
The mandate/fine situation is to create the illusion of less tax. Those who can afford the insurance pay for it out of pocket. If they can "afford" it and refuse to pay for it, they are fined. They recieve subsity if they can't "afford" it. The (false) justification is that they are a burden on the health care system if they are uninsured.
The other points of the proposals mean that insurance will be pricey, no matter what. Low-cost options (HSA, etc) will be a thing of the past.
pfarabee 2 years ago
That doesn't sound very well thought out. Like fixing a car with duct tape.
Fjarhultian 2 years ago
Oh, the good old days, when doctors worked charitably. Where hast thou perished? (sarcasm)
bezboznik84 2 years ago
Self-reliance, the best and most efficient form of health insurance. Thanks for a great video on the moral superiority of freedom.
ALittleBitPregnant 2 years ago
It seems like there's a certain missing logic there as well. You say that people will begin to abuse the health care system by demanding medically unecessary procedures, and then criticize the activity of prioritizing demands for health care describing it as "deciding who lives and who dies". Doctors in all countries make decisions about who has what priority in waiting rooms, whether its a socialized or commercial system. The major difference is that in a commercial system, class decides it.
Valefarous 2 years ago
Class, as you describe it, always decides.
ALittleBitPregnant 2 years ago
@valefarous Yeah, this sums up this part of it. "Triage" is practiced in ANY and EVERY system.
tattooskin72 2 years ago
Polygamy is not necessarily a lot more dangerous as long as the circle of partners is closed, although I imagine the risk of infidelity increases a lot with more partners, as well as the risk of absorbing a partner into your circle that has a venereal disease and doesn't disclose it.
Valefarous 2 years ago