The state of U.S. Health Care and our society
-
peterchen wrote:
Not knowing the real reason for this particular case, you haven't answered Joergens question, one that I see central in how a society organizes health care: If she can't afford it, should she still get treatment?
I missed it, but have now answered it. Charity to the poor should be an expression of private, individual conscience, not enforced by the state. The former is Jeffersonian, the latter is fascist.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Charity to the poor - maybe she is filthy rich, but forgot her purse in the other car? Would that be bad luck, then? I guess we can rule out filthy rich people hanging around hospitals waiting for comatose bums to be delivered so they can make a choice if they want to be charitable today. Also, I don't expect nurse collecting some money, or a hospital calling up you in the middle of the night and asking "we have a appendicitis costing $920 for an 18 year old girl from an unfortunate family. Every cent helps!" So, maybe every hospital creates a fund where anyone can donate, and as long as there's money in the fund she's lucky? How much would you, personally, donate to such a fund - every year? Would you agree to mandatory health care insurance of a county? a town? If yes: just because you can move away, or because you think it is ok on a smaller scale? Charity has the nice option that it is local - so it can adjust, and a failure, evil buerocrat or lazy leech, it just costs one life, not millions. But also, it seems to be the one answer to everything again: don't bother me. It doesn't help the doctor who, with $1000 left and two appendicitis patients has to decide who gets appendectomy and who gets some pain killers? Just to note, I don't think charity is the only thing to make that work, but let's discuss it - how would you make that work?
Stan Shannon wrote:
The former is Jeffersonian, the latter is fascist
Nah. The former is tyranny of the healthy over the sick, and the latter is the reverse.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist -
Charity to the poor - maybe she is filthy rich, but forgot her purse in the other car? Would that be bad luck, then? I guess we can rule out filthy rich people hanging around hospitals waiting for comatose bums to be delivered so they can make a choice if they want to be charitable today. Also, I don't expect nurse collecting some money, or a hospital calling up you in the middle of the night and asking "we have a appendicitis costing $920 for an 18 year old girl from an unfortunate family. Every cent helps!" So, maybe every hospital creates a fund where anyone can donate, and as long as there's money in the fund she's lucky? How much would you, personally, donate to such a fund - every year? Would you agree to mandatory health care insurance of a county? a town? If yes: just because you can move away, or because you think it is ok on a smaller scale? Charity has the nice option that it is local - so it can adjust, and a failure, evil buerocrat or lazy leech, it just costs one life, not millions. But also, it seems to be the one answer to everything again: don't bother me. It doesn't help the doctor who, with $1000 left and two appendicitis patients has to decide who gets appendectomy and who gets some pain killers? Just to note, I don't think charity is the only thing to make that work, but let's discuss it - how would you make that work?
Stan Shannon wrote:
The former is Jeffersonian, the latter is fascist
Nah. The former is tyranny of the healthy over the sick, and the latter is the reverse.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighistThere simply is no legitimate argument against the obvious fact that the US government simply has no authority to force US citizens to care for other people's health. If we want it there, all we need to do is to amend the constitution to make the federal government repsonsible for doing so. Problem solved.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
There simply is no legitimate argument against the obvious fact that the US government simply has no authority to force US citizens to care for other people's health. If we want it there, all we need to do is to amend the constitution to make the federal government repsonsible for doing so. Problem solved.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
I assume you don't want that to happen - That's why I asked if a non-federal but a state/county/city requirement would be acceptable.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist -
I assume you don't want that to happen - That's why I asked if a non-federal but a state/county/city requirement would be acceptable.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighistpeterchen wrote:
That's why I asked if a non-federal but a state/county/city requirement would be acceptable.
I would not support it, but I would accept it if it occured. Forcing people to care for one another is a Marxist concept. Our health care system worked much better when it simply required an individual patient paying an individual doctor for health care, with those unable to pay recieving christian charity from the community. That is the best health care system possible.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
No, its the result of a bureaucrat saying 'fuck it. Thats not my job'. Bureaucrats might be very responsible in other parts of the world, but American's suck at it.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, its the result of a bureaucrat saying 'f*** it.
No, its the result of people sitting there looking at a woman in distress and choosing not to do anything. Bunch of fucking selfish cunts who should be punished for failing their civic duties.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, its the result of a bureaucrat saying 'f*** it.
No, its the result of people sitting there looking at a woman in distress and choosing not to do anything. Bunch of fucking selfish cunts who should be punished for failing their civic duties.
As I said - bureaucracy in action. That is the future of American health care.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
As I said - bureaucracy in action. That is the future of American health care.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
As I said - bureaucracy in action.
I person drops dead in front of you and you step over them. How is this in any way related to bureaucracy?
Stan Shannon wrote:
That is the future of American health care.
Its already well and truly fucked
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
As I said - bureaucracy in action.
I person drops dead in front of you and you step over them. How is this in any way related to bureaucracy?
Stan Shannon wrote:
That is the future of American health care.
Its already well and truly fucked
Josh Gray wrote:
person drops dead in front of you and you step over them. How is this in any way related to bureaucracy?
Security guards and a member of the hospital's staff appeared to notice her prone body at least three times, but made no visible attempt to see if she needed help. One guard didn't even leave his chair, rolling it around a corner to stare at the body, then rolling away a few moments later. Green, who had been involuntarily committed the previous morning, and had waited overnight for a bed, stopped moving about half an hour after she collapsed. The New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, which runs the hospital, said six people have been fired as a result, including security personnel and members of the medical staff.
Josh Gray wrote:
Its already well and truly f***ed
Just as with our educational system, it worked fine before the government got involved.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
person drops dead in front of you and you step over them. How is this in any way related to bureaucracy?
Security guards and a member of the hospital's staff appeared to notice her prone body at least three times, but made no visible attempt to see if she needed help. One guard didn't even leave his chair, rolling it around a corner to stare at the body, then rolling away a few moments later. Green, who had been involuntarily committed the previous morning, and had waited overnight for a bed, stopped moving about half an hour after she collapsed. The New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, which runs the hospital, said six people have been fired as a result, including security personnel and members of the medical staff.
Josh Gray wrote:
Its already well and truly f***ed
Just as with our educational system, it worked fine before the government got involved.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Perhaps Im stupid but you didnt answer the question. Lets take the guard for example. He decided not to do anything. Where is the bureaucracy?
What do you think a guard in a hospital is? He is a bureaucrat working in a government position. Any non-military, non-elected person employed by the government is a bureaucrat.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
What do you think a guard in a hospital is? He is a bureaucrat working in a government position. Any non-military, non-elected person employed by the government is a bureaucrat.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
What do you think a guard in a hospital is? He is a bureaucrat working in a government position. Any non-military, non-elected person employed by the government is a bureaucrat.
Rubbish. he's a human being. If thats not enough reason to help a person in distress he should be ashamed.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
What do you think a guard in a hospital is? He is a bureaucrat working in a government position. Any non-military, non-elected person employed by the government is a bureaucrat.
Rubbish. he's a human being. If thats not enough reason to help a person in distress he should be ashamed.
Josh Gray wrote:
If thats not enough reason to help a person in distress he should be ashamed.
Sorry, being ashamed is not in the job description for his pay grade.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.