Health care - administrative incompetence

[TFian]

May I ask "Wildy", do you believe people should be protected from destitution and death (by means outside murder)? If so, why?

 

[3point14]

May I ask "Wildy", do you believe people should be protected from destitution and death (by means outside murder)? If so, why?

I strongly suspect, as you have confessed to having no empathy, that you won't understand the answer.

 

[Wildy]

Depends on what industry.

Which does not answer the question.

There are other ways we can go about that.

Such as?

Contributions that have meaningful positive impact on the nations defense, or on the profitability of private industry.

So a "necessary function of society" is helping the profitability of private industry or national defence?

A UHC system would be a great tool to protect all industry and people yes, but I'm not interested in that.

Why not?

Not quite. The government would protect them from going under and going bankrupt.

You are talking about the businesses here correct?

Say you have defense contractor A. Defense contractor A is critical to enhancing your military's ability to defend itself against it's enemies. Defense contractor A is therefore integral to your nation's survival, therefore it's in your best interests to make sure such a company does not fall under in financial ruin. It also relies on employees to make and design such weapons to enhance your defensive and offensive capabilities, so providing them health insurance is probably in your best interest. At least subsidizing it, IE like the Federal Government Employee Benefits system.

So in other words you are suggesting that the taxpayer should be forced to pay for the health of those in private industry because it helps the industry not go bankrupt?

I'm ok with some sort of VA benefits system if that's what you're asking.

Would those benefits cut out if the solider became disabled?

My bad, let me rephrase. Someone who is born with a disability that would prevent them from ever meaningfully contributing to society in a positive sense. Example, someone born with Down Syndrome.

Why do you think a person with Down Syndrome cannot make a positive contribution to society?

The same we deal with criminals today. Imprisonment, exile, execution, etc.

So if someone doesn't accept their fate with grace they should be imprisoned or exiled or executed? Maybe they should be sent to the poorhouse so they can be punished for being poor.

Maybe different in Australia(?), I can't say.

Yes, Australia. I fill in the location field for just that reason.

Once social security is gutted and Medicare is closed down, families will have to learn how to take care of their elderly again, or learn how to shoot them again. This happened in the past before #SS and Medicare, and it will happen again.

Too bad the ice floes don't reach all the way down to southern California.

The elderly won't be shot for the simple reason that it would still be murder, so the only people who would benefit from this would be the companies that operate prisons.

Oh well, I'd let the health insurance companies in the wholly private industries operate as they see fit ala a 100% free market.

Even though the actual need for healthcare can never, ever, exist in pure free market terms?

May I ask "Wildy", do you believe people should be protected from destitution and death (by means outside murder)? If so, why?

Yes.

Well quite simply it's in the interest of the public to ensure that everyone has a minimum standard of living.

Access to clean water, sanitation and access to health care improves the health of the people. As well as making people happy it also helps business because they know that their workers don't have to worry about getting sick from water-borne diseases, diseases caused by poor sanitation, and also with proper preventative healthcare, losing a valuable worker due to a disease that has a high cure rate if found early.

Proper housing helps with access to the above. It also allows emergency services easy access to houses/units/apartment blocks (it depends on where you live) in case of emergencies.

Income benefits help to let these families afford basic necessities like food and clothes which helps to lower crime rates because people don't have to steal to keep their families alive. It also helps to stimulate parts of the economy because it increases the number of potential buyers for goods.

 

[Architect]

Too bad the ice floes don't reach all the way down to southern California.

Yes, I was thinking that too.

 

[TFian]

Which does not answer the question.

Because your question is too vague.

Such as?

Such as digitizing them all.

So a "necessary function of society" is helping the profitability of private industry or national defence?

I just said that didn't I?

Why not?

Because I'm not interested in humanitarian governance or having my money stolen for freeloaders.

You are talking about the businesses here correct?

Yup.

So in other words you are suggesting that the taxpayer should be forced to pay for the health of those in private industry because it helps the industry not go bankrupt?

Yes, if the industry is necessary to national survival.

Would those benefits cut out if the solider became disabled?

If they obtained this disability during active duty, no.

Why do you think a person with Down Syndrome cannot make a positive contribution to society?

I can't tell, is this a joke or what? Have you ever meet a Downie?

So if someone doesn't accept their fate with grace they should be imprisoned or exiled or executed?

Depends, I don't care as long as they don't become a public disturbance. If so society has the remedies to deal with people like that.

Maybe they should be sent to the poorhouse so they can be punished for being poor.

I'd much rather the able bodied poor be put to work.

Yes, Australia. I fill in the location field for just that reason.

Do you eat Kangaroos?

Too bad the ice floes don't reach all the way down to southern California.

?

The elderly won't be shot for the simple reason that it would still be murder, so the only people who would benefit from this would be the companies that operate prisons.

It was hyperbole. Most of them will be euthanasia legally at hospitals anyway, at least in the states that allow it.

Even though the actual need for healthcare can never, ever, exist in pure free market terms?

Depends on how you define "need".

 

[TFian]

Yes, I was thinking that too.

Don't worry, we get our share of heat waves ourselves.

 

[Architect]

That's not what we're referring to.

 

[TFian]

That's not what we're referring to.

Ah, are you referring to Inuit tradition of putting elderly on ice floes?

 

[Wildy]

Because your question is too vague.

How is it vague? What I was responding to when I asked that was:

Not really. More like guidelines for private industry and the state to follow, so they can cut waste and obsolesce.

So who would determine these guidelines.

And you are saying that my question is too vague?

Such as digitizing them all.

And I already pointed out that you can get them online, but they are behind paywalls. But I'm not going to continue this line any further because it's starting to get off topic.

Because I'm not interested in humanitarian governance or having my money stolen for freeloaders.

As far as I can tell

Yes, if the industry is necessary to national survival.

So why doesn't the government just run all the businesses?

If they obtained this disability during active duty, no.

But if they can't do their job aren't they then freeloading?

I can't tell, is this a joke or what? Have you ever meet a Downie?

Clearly not the ones that you've met. My question still stands though.

I'd much rather the able bodied poor be put to work.

They would be. That was how the system worked.

Do you eat Kangaroos?

Yes. They are very delicious.

It was hyperbole. Most of them will be euthanasia legally at hospitals anyway, at least in the states that allow it.

Very poor hyperbole, probably because I honestly believe that you would permit such things in your world.

Still the families won't be able to take their elderly members to the hospital to get them euthanised against their will. It doesn't matter if it's legal there or not.

Depends on how you define "need".

How would you define need? I would use definition 4 in this case. A "necessity arising from the circumstances of a situation or case".

 

[TFian]

And you are saying that my question is too vague?

Yes, it's entirely dependent on which industry you're speaking of.

And I already pointed out that you can get them online, but they are behind paywalls. But I'm not going to continue this line any further because it's starting to get off topic.

So what? If they want them, they can pay for them. Simple as that. But indeed, it's off topic, so I won't continue it either...

So why doesn't the government just run all the businesses?

I'd rather it not, that's dangerously close to socialism for my tastes. Nationalisation should only be done when it's absolutely required.

But if they can't do their job aren't they then freeloading?

I'd agree, but I'm willing to make compromises for the sake of national security. And we do need loyal troops who will fight and die for us, and part of that is giving them a proper safety net.

Clearly not the ones that you've met. My question still stands though.

Clearly not. The one's I've met didn't know their elbow from their ass. But I've heard there is some variance in intelligence when it comes to downies, so they may not all be insufferable mouth breathers. But as to your question, why not? I guess that is subjective, but if someone is so mentally retarded they essentially can't live on their own, to me that means they can not positively contribute to society to any meaningful extent. If they never could be productive period, that is the very definition of defective. Defects only burden the deserving among us, specifically the deserving poor.

They would be. That was how the system worked.

As would I.

Yes. They are very delicious.

Sweet, I always wanted to try Kangaroo.

probably because I honestly believe that you would permit such things in your world.

Well ideally I'd like there to be a maximum age law so such things could be avoided, but I know that'd never fly under current circumstances.

Still the families won't be able to take their elderly members to the hospital to get them euthanised against their will. It doesn't matter if it's legal there or not.

True, but shunning could force their hand to accept it, or letting them die in a gutter is always the option as well, if the family sees fit.

How would you define need?

The same as you would, I don't agree though that needs should be universally met though. Too humanitarian for my liking.

 

[Ducky]

The same as you would, I don't agree though that needs should be universally met though. Too humanitarian for my liking.

No one is mistaking you for a humanitarian.

 

[TFian]

No one is mistaking you for a humanitarian.

Good. Today's definition of "humanitarian" would deeply insult me, if anyone mistook me for one.

 

[Tatyana]

Ah, are you referring to Inuit tradition of putting elderly on ice floes?

The elderly decided when they thought they would no longer be of any use and a burden on survival, not the other members of the group.

To clarify my earlier questions, full time employment = 37.5-40 hours/week.

Why no annual leave and/or no holidays last year? Were you a student or unemployed?

 

[TFian]

The elderly decided when they thought they would no longer be of any use and a burden on survival, not the other members of the group.

That's pretty commendable.

To clarify my earlier questions, full time employment = 37.5-40 hours/week.

Ok then yes, I do posses full employment.

Why no annual leave and/or no holidays last year? Were you a student or unemployed?

My employer offers neither. I also am a full time student so probably wouldn't be of much use anyway.

 

[jimbob]

A combination of reading specific literary works, some influential people in my life, and changing mindsets.

I thought said it was Atlas Shrugged, not literature.

Despite the fact that human nature doesn't work like that, and economics certainly doesn't work as suggested in that book

Rarely do books have perpetual motion machines as the most plausible plot device.

Back to your ideas. One of the many problems is that they suffer from the command-economy fault, in that they need someone to decide what or who is essential.

 

[TFian]

I thought said it was Atlas Shrugged, not literature.

That's so funny I forgot to laugh, really.

Back to your ideas. One of the many problems is that they suffer from the command-economy fault, in that they need someone to decide what or who is essential.

Not really. The government wouldn't decide who lives or dies, or who can produce or not. It would simply not extend a safety net to them, with few exceptions (and even then, I'd argue it wouldn't be a "safety net") Socialist safety nets are very new ideas anyway, so it's not like we can't exist without them. The Free Market would reign supreme, free from burdensome interference.

Who is John Galt?

 

[Tatyana]

That's pretty commendable.



Ok then yes, I do posses full employment.



My employer offers neither. I also am a full time student so probably wouldn't be of much use anyway.

Not related to the thread, but no annual leave? Seriously? How dreadful.

How can you be a full time student with a full time job?

I have worked full time and studied part time, in fact, I did my last two degrees that way.

I can't imagine doing it full time. Mind you, they were science degrees that had laboratories in addition to lectures.

When do you sleep?

 

[TFian]

Not related to the thread, but no annual leave? Seriously? How dreadful.

Not sure why I need it really? I mean it would be nice, but it's only a luxury from what I understand.

How can you be a full time student with a full time job?

Lots and lots of amphetamines! No but really, I'm able to balance the two with less sleep.

I have worked full time and studied part time, in fact, I did my last two degrees that way.

I probably will have to do that later.

I can't imagine doing it full time. Mind you, they were science degrees that had laboratories in addition to lectures.

Same here.

When do you sleep?

I sleep a few hours between 1 to 3 am.

 

[Wildy]

Yes, it's entirely dependent on which industry you're speaking of.

Why?

Nationalisation should only be done when it's absolutely required.

Such as?

I'd agree, but I'm willing to make compromises for the sake of national security. And we do need loyal troops who will fight and die for us, and part of that is giving them a proper safety net.

But you don't need loyal people in industries that you consider vital to the nation?

But as to your question, why not? I guess that is subjective, but if someone is so mentally retarded they essentially can't live on their own, to me that means they can not positively contribute to society to any meaningful extent. If they never could be productive period, that is the very definition of defective. Defects only burden the deserving among us, specifically the deserving poor.

So what do you think should happen to these "defectives"?

Well ideally I'd like there to be a maximum age law so such things could be avoided, but I know that'd never fly under current circumstances.

Just like in Logan's Run.

True, but shunning could force their hand to accept it, or letting them die in a gutter is always the option as well, if the family sees fit.

So in other words you want them to be euthanised under coercion. Again that is not legal.

The same as you would, I don't agree though that needs should be universally met though. Too humanitarian for my liking.

Yes, I think we've all got the point that you don't like humanitarianism

 

[Vorticity]

Socialist safety nets are very new ideas anyway

Not even remotely true.

The poor in the city of Rome largely depended on the corn dole to supply them with grain. During the From 122 BC onward a grain ration was available to the Roman poor at half price, having already previously been sold at a reduced market price, subsidized by the state. In 58 BC it became completely free. The in AD 274 emperor added small rations of pork, oil and salt to the meager dole.

Earlier examples exist as well.


The entire idea of human government is inherently Socialist in nature: A population collectively agrees to cede a certain degree of individual power and/or wealth to a collective authority, which in turn provides various desirable necessities: Goods, organization, defense, regulation. The point of balance between the personal and the collective varies from society to society, but the difference is generally quantitative rather than qualitative, with the exception of a few examples in which the state has collapsed entirely (e.g. Somalia).

Were the USA to adopt an NHS-style nationalized health care system, this would not represent a radical upheaval in our fundamental system of government but rather a very minor adjustment in the degree (but not the type) of Socialism present in our society.

I really don't see what the big deal is. "Socialism" is not a dirty word. If you have a government, you have Socialism.