The Glade 4.0

Elmo has been using that term, or slavery, for quite some time when discussing forced labor for the benefit of others.

But he's in that RP Cult, and they have crazy notions.

RP Cult?

_________________

You know, the transvestite celebrity.

Originally I'd say Hayek.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Sounds like a smart guy.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Ah, that's what I was missing. Danke!

_________________

Bitte

Tas, he was.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Like Germany, essentially?



TNSTAAFL.



I would largely disagree with this assumption.



Are you saying you think a two-tier system such as perhaps NZ would be what you'd like?



Why do you list plastic surgery here? Do you believe plastic surgeons (which any physician can practice, btw) do not provide care to patients?



Many doctors do go into medicine for that reason. They are not, IMO, the majority. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that a removal of the profit motive would result in an increased supply of physicians. I think you need to more closely examine the privatization of certain elements of care in the UK to see what happens when the profit motive is reintroduced, in order to retrospectively predict what would happen if that same profit motive were removed.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

It's also impossible to say that it would result in a decreased supply of physicians, or in lower quality physicians. Plenty of countries have brilliant doctors working within a nationalized system.

I don't think it's necessarily a negative thing for doctors to seek profit in medicine. However, I do think it's a negative thing to weigh that desire over the health care needs of our citizens. In other words, I think a better balance can be struck. I have great faith in our ability, as a nation, to look for a solution that's a win for everyone. The trouble is political will and demagoguery. You mention a public option, and all of the sudden you're trying to assassinate everyone's grandmother. It makes it impossible to have a sober conversation about the issue.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Yes, they do have them. They also have a lesser supply, seen via greater shortage. There is statistical evidence to support this and if necessary I will cite it for you. As to quality, I made no mention of quality of care.



Let me ask you this:

Why do you think the focus of "the health care needs of our citizens" should be on medicine and not public health?

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I see them as two facets of a multifaceted problem. And I certainly don't see it as a binary relationship. High quality health care would include public health, health education, medical treatment, preventative care, life-saving trauma surgery, and so on and so forth.

I firmly believe there are some things within the private sphere that are incompatible with the profit motive. Health care is one of those things. When the goal is a bottom line, and not the health and well being of your patients, I think we miss the mark. I look at education, police and rescue, the military, and other "industries" similarly. There are just some things, in my book, that do not qualify as a commodity.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Quality healthcare does respond to a bottom line, because the providers need to met it, and therefor cannot provide substandard care, or they will go out of business.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

They don't need to avoid providing substandard care. They need to avoid getting caught providing substandard care. They need to carefully pick and choose where they apply substandard care with a mind towards maximizing profits. They can screw the pooch on the poor so long as they can keep the poor quiet. They can cover up wrong doing with cunningly laid out advertising strategies and highly paid "experts". They can pay lawyers to grind detractors into the dirt. And it's just part of the cost of doing business.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Then why does the US have the highest quality care in the world?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

And government will somehow not adhere to this model? They'll be under some impetus not to have the appearance of "cutting costs" and "providing quality care"?

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

The liberal version of the welfare queen driving the caddy.

Of course it encompasses those things, but you haven't answered my question.



The practice of medicine has always been about the profit motive throughout the history of the planet, going back to the shaman who traded a chicken or position of authority in the tribe for his magic ju-ju. What makes you think it should change now?

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

The real problem come when you start thinking that things like health care and education are just like the police or the military - that the goal is making sure everyone has them. It's great if everyone has them, but they should be things people acquire for themselves. Thankfully, education will always be that way, you can't educate someone who doesn't want to learn. That won't stop people from continuing to spend exorbitant sums trying to do it anyhow.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Assuming that (i) patients are able to accurately judge whether the care is substandard, (ii) they have the time and ability to seek care elsewhere, and (iii) there are alternative providers available in the relevant geographic area. Given that patients generally lack expert medical knowledge and can't exactly choose when and where they get sick, the first and second assumptions are dubious, and given the barriers to entry in the medical profession (e.g. time and cost of training, licensing, etc.), it's by no means certain that alternative providers will even be available.

And a government run health care system does nothing to alleviate the first two conditions (which is education and responsibility based), and according to general patterns, exacerbates the 3rd problem. Then there is the added detriment of the nature of government jobs and getting rid of substandard practitioners. You need look no further than our current education system to see what a public health care system would be in 15 years.

Aside from the fact that, as Ladas pointed out, government-run healthcare does nothing to alleviate any of those things, people do not usually need to be experts to know that they are not being treated to their own satisfaction. While there may not be another specialist in their immediate area, there are very few areas where at least some sort of other physician, especially a family, general, or pediatric doctor can't be had. Even if it takes a few hours or even a full day trip for a second opinion, its not unreasonable to expect people to put some time into their own health concerns.

There's also the ability to consult with other people, and see what their experiences are with the doctor in question.

Finally, while people can't choose when and where they get sick, most medical conditions do not prohibit movement.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Since this was directed to me, I will mirror Ladas' and DE's responses, and then will simply add: why then does the United States offer the best care, on demand, for nearly all ailments?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Private doctor's jobs don't depend on a person's vote. The depend on profit margins, and so long as those margins are high, it's all good. If a congressman gets thrown out of office because his constituents are pissed about underfunded hospitals, he doesn't get a multimillion dollar golden parachute to bail him out.

It is *much* easier to hold politicians accountable than it is to hold private businesspersons.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show