Does anybody have a logical conservative argument against socialized healthcare?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Here's a nice quote that seems like a fairly logical reason:

I quit when medicine was placed under State control, some years ago.
Do you know what it takes to perform a brain operation? Do you know the kind of skill it demands, and the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill? That was what I would not place at the disposal of men whose sole qualification to rule me was their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that got them elected to the privilege of enforcing their wishes at the point of a gun. I would not let them dictate the purpose for which my years of study had been spent, or the conditions of my work, or my choice of patients, or the amount of my reward. I observed that in all the discussions that preceded the enslavement of medicine,, men discussed everything--except the desires of the doctors. Men considered only the 'welfare' of the patients, with no thought for those who were to provide it. That a doctor should have any right, desire or choice in the matter, was regarded as irrelevant selfishness; his is not to choose, they said, only 'to serve'. That a man who's willing to work under compulsion is too dangerous a brute to entrust with a job in the stockyards--never occurred to those who proposed to help the sick by making life impossible for the healthy. I have often wondered at the smugness with which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind--yet what is it that they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands? Their moral code has taught them to believe that it is safe to rely on the virtue of their victims. Well, that is the virtue I have withdrawn. Let them discover the kind of doctors that their system will now produce. Let them discover, in their operating rooms and hospital wards, that it is not safe to place their lives in the hands of a man whose life they have throttled.. It is not safe, if he is the sort of man who resents it--and still less safe, if he is the sort who doesn't.

Arakasi:
-snip-

Logical? It looks like just a bunch of whining and self-pity to me. This is what I would tell that person:

You take a job, you do your job. Sometimes they don't care what you want to do and only expect you to do what they told you to do?

Well. BOO. FUCKING. HOO.

How's that bloody different from, say...any other job that any other individual is working?

He speaks of feeling "enslaved" yet seems quite content to want to see your healthcare system burn, to want to people die, to want to see people's lives ruined in some self-righteous desire for vengeance for not getting his way. He trashes so many glass houses with the rocks he's throwing it's almost funny.

Logical? No. Self-serving. Self-centered, egomanical, and whiny raving of a child that didn't get his way. Good luck staying in any career for an extended time with that attitude.

Arakasi:
Here's a nice quote that seems like a fairly logical reason:

I quit when medicine was placed under State control, some years ago.
Do you know what it takes to perform a brain operation? Do you know the kind of skill it demands, and the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill? That was what I would not place at the disposal of men whose sole qualification to rule me was their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that got them elected to the privilege of enforcing their wishes at the point of a gun. I would not let them dictate the purpose for which my years of study had been spent, or the conditions of my work, or my choice of patients, or the amount of my reward. I observed that in all the discussions that preceded the enslavement of medicine,, men discussed everything--except the desires of the doctors. Men considered only the 'welfare' of the patients, with no thought for those who were to provide it. That a doctor should have any right, desire or choice in the matter, was regarded as irrelevant selfishness; his is not to choose, they said, only 'to serve'. That a man who's willing to work under compulsion is too dangerous a brute to entrust with a job in the stockyards--never occurred to those who proposed to help the sick by making life impossible for the healthy. I have often wondered at the smugness with which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind--yet what is it that they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands? Their moral code has taught them to believe that it is safe to rely on the virtue of their victims. Well, that is the virtue I have withdrawn. Let them discover the kind of doctors that their system will now produce. Let them discover, in their operating rooms and hospital wards, that it is not safe to place their lives in the hands of a man whose life they have throttled.. It is not safe, if he is the sort of man who resents it--and still less safe, if he is the sort who doesn't.

It's funny because he was "enslaved" by people that aren't medical practioners his whole career, especially considering he is a brain surgeon.

Before the healthcare bill he still had to answer to insurance providers, to lawyers, to the administrators of a hospital, to the law, and to his patients(and believe me patients can be unreasonable). It's not like somehow the government ends up telling you how to medicine is practiced it instead says how NOT to practice medicine.

Vegosiux:

Arakasi:
-snip-

Logical? It looks like just a bunch of whining and self-pity to me. This is what I would tell that person:

You take a job, you do your job. Sometimes they don't care what you want to do and only expect you to do what they told you to do?

Well. BOO. FUCKING. HOO.

The job description changed, and the job that he had wanted now had vanished. No longer could a man of skill work for the virtue of his own work, he could only work for others.

Vegosiux:

How's that bloody different from, say...any other job that any other individual is working?

Because when you choose a profession you get to choose how you want to use it, who you want to work for, for what pay, who your clients will be.

Vegosiux:

He speaks of feeling "enslaved" yet seems quite content to want to see your healthcare system burn, to want to people die, to want to see people's lives ruined in some self-righteous desire for vengeance for not getting his way. He trashes so many glass houses with the rocks he's throwing it's almost funny.

He does not want that, that is simply what is happening. Why should he work as a slave?

Vegosiux:

Logical? No. Self-serving. Self-centered, egomanical, and whiny raving of a child that didn't get his way. Good luck staying in any career for an extended time with that attitude.

What, I ask to you, is the point of having a job?

Arakasi:

The job description changed, and the job that he had wanted now had vanished. No longer could a man of skill work for the virtue of his own work, he could only work for others.

As I said. BOO. FUCKING. HOO. Have you looked around the world recently? With the recessions and all? Many people don't even have the luxury of being able to whine about hating their jobs.

Because when you choose a profession you get to choose how you want to use it, who you want to work for, for what pay, who your clients will be.

Excuse me what? Is this planet you live on in the same spiral arm as the one I live on?

He does not want that, that is simply what is happening. Why should he work as a slave?

Pray tell, how was he "working as a slave", or expected to? You do know what "slavery" is, right? Like, no pay, you're considered property, you have no rights as a citizen...

Well I suppose if you treat doctors like that over there I could understand that some get cranky.

What, I ask to you, is the point of having a job?

Social survival.

I'm lucky. I like my job. Yet there's a lot of parts in it that stress me out, frustrate me, and exhaust me. I keep doing those parts, and the parts I like. Because I'm and adult and know that you're just not going to get your way all the time, and nobody's going to hire you if you're a troublemaker who stomps his feet and cries bloody murder the moment he doesn't get his way.

Vegosiux:

Arakasi:

The job description changed, and the job that he had wanted now had vanished. No longer could a man of skill work for the virtue of his own work, he could only work for others.

As I said. BOO. FUCKING. HOO. Have you looked around the world recently? With the recessions and all? Many people don't even have the luxury of being able to whine about hating their jobs.

Because when you choose a profession you get to choose how you want to use it, who you want to work for, for what pay, who your clients will be.

Excuse me what? Is this planet you live on in the same spiral arm as the one I live on?

If I am going to continue to have this discussion with you, I would ask that you try be civil.
Anyhow, yes I do live on this planet. I also think that someone should have the right to choose what they wish to do with their lives.

Vegosiux:

He does not want that, that is simply what is happening. Why should he work as a slave?

Pray tell, how was he "working as a slave", or expected to? You do know what "slavery" is, right? Like, no pay, you're considered property, you have no rights as a citizen...

His mind became the property of the state the instant they socialised healthcare. Doctors are considered the property of the people in this system.

Vegosiux:

Well I suppose if you treat doctors like that over there I could understand that some get cranky.

What do you mean by "over there"?

What, I ask to you, is the point of having a job?

Vegosiux:

Social survival.

Originally you just had 'survival'. Why you changed it to social survival I don't know, nor do I know what it means. The purpose of having a job is to make money, the purpose of having money is to trade for goods, the purpose of trading for goods is so that you can get the goods that you need and want. Nowhere in there do I see any room for the term 'social'.

Vegosiux:

I'm lucky. I like my job. Yet there's a lot of parts in it that stress me out, frustrate me, and exhaust me. I keep doing those parts, and the parts I like. Because I'm and adult and know that you're just not going to get your way all the time, and nobody's going to hire you if you're a troublemaker who stomps his feet and cries bloody murder the moment he doesn't get his way.

It's a real pain when you keep adding more to your response.
You do your job, and you do it well, good. However if the terms of that job changed to that of a janitor would you continue it? That's the point I'm trying to make, you have a skill, you sell that skill for a price you and your employer set. If you are a professional, you get more of a chance to set that price, the price your skill is worth.

Arakasi:

If I am going to continue to have this discussion with you, I would ask that you try be civil.
Anyhow, yes I do live on this planet. I also think that someone should have the right to choose what they wish to do with their lives.

First of all, obnoxious whiny brats do not deserve civility, and I'll have you know my harsh vocabulary was directed at whoever wrote that egomanical piece; not you.

Second of all, let's make this quick and simple. Do you call yourself a "libertarian"?

Vegosiux:

His mind became the property of the state the instant they socialised healthcare. Doctors are considered the property of the people in this system.

[citation needed]

BADLY

Vegosiux:

What do you mean by "over there"?

Over there where you are. Because I'm over here, about half the world away.

Originally you just had 'survival'. Why you changed it to social survival I don't know, nor do I know what it means.

Yes, I corrected myself because technically you could "survive" in that Bear Grylls-y kind of way, but that wouldn't really leave you much space to function within the society

The purpose of having a job is to make money, the purpose of having money is to trade for goods, the purpose of trading for goods is so that you can get the goods that you need and want. Nowhere in there do I see any room for the term 'social'.

We're at an impasse here then. Obviously your opinion on this is so far removed from mine there's no point in discussing this.

You do your job, and you do it well, good. However if the terms of that job changed to that of a janitor would you continue it? That's the point I'm trying to make, you have a skill, you sell that skill for a price you and your employer set. If you are a professional, you get more of a chance to set that price, the price your skill is worth.

Before I answer that, I must ask... Why "janitor"? How does that have any relevance to the discussion?

Vegosiux:

Arakasi:

If I am going to continue to have this discussion with you, I would ask that you try be civil.
Anyhow, yes I do live on this planet. I also think that someone should have the right to choose what they wish to do with their lives.

First of all, obnoxious whiny brats do not deserve civility, and I'll have you know my harsh vocabulary was directed at whoever wrote that egomanical piece; not you.

Fair enough then, but I still consider it to do harm to whatever point you're making.

Vegosiux:

Second of all, let's make this quick and simple. Do you call yourself a "libertarian"?

No. I don't call myself anything, I am merely questioning this for the purpose of understanding your position.

Vegosiux:

Arakasi:

His mind became the property of the state the instant they socialised healthcare. Doctors are considered the property of the people in this system.

[citation needed]

BADLY

How are they not the property of the people? They are told to work at whatever rate the state sets, to those who the state claims are 'in need' as opposed to those who the doctor may wish to treat. When discussions of whether or not to socialise healthcare are considered, how often do you see anyone considering how those who work in the hospitals may feel about it?

Vegosiux:

Arakasi:

What do you mean by "over there"?

Over there where you are. Because I'm over here, about half the world away.

Where is over there?

Originally you just had 'survival'. Why you changed it to social survival I don't know, nor do I know what it means.

Yes, I corrected myself because technically you could "survive" in that Bear Grylls-y kind of way, but that wouldn't really leave you much space to function within the society[/quote]
How wouldn't it? You could still talk to people, have friends and a family.

Vegosiux:

The purpose of having a job is to make money, the purpose of having money is to trade for goods, the purpose of trading for goods is so that you can get the goods that you need and want. Nowhere in there do I see any room for the term 'social'.

We're at an impasse here then. Obviously your opinion on this is so far removed from mine there's no point in discussing this.

Well then, do you mind explaining to me your reason for having a job?

You do your job, and you do it well, good. However if the terms of that job changed to that of a janitor would you continue it? That's the point I'm trying to make, you have a skill, you sell that skill for a price you and your employer set. If you are a professional, you get more of a chance to set that price, the price your skill is worth.

Before I answer that, I must ask... Why "janitor"? How does that have any relevance to the discussion?[/quote]

Arakasi:

Vegosiux:

Arakasi:
-snip-

Logical? It looks like just a bunch of whining and self-pity to me. This is what I would tell that person:

You take a job, you do your job. Sometimes they don't care what you want to do and only expect you to do what they told you to do?

Well. BOO. FUCKING. HOO.

The job description changed, and the job that he had wanted now had vanished. No longer could a man of skill work for the virtue of his own work, he could only work for others.

I don't even understand the discussion... the job is still the same, whether you get paid by the individual or the insurance company. Additionally, brain surgery (or any big invasive surgery at that) is in any case only going to be performed at a hospital because of the huge requirements of staff and equipment, as such you're going to be an employee under pay and direct supervision from the hospital either way and I don't see how it matters from whence your salary is acquired.

And it's not like you can't in a system with social healthcare not still own a private practice and offer additional and ridiculously overpriced treatments not covered by insurance companies, like acupuncture.

Vegosiux:

How's that bloody different from, say...any other job that any other individual is working?

Because when you choose a profession you get to choose how you want to use it, who you want to work for, for what pay, who your clients will be.

And then you realize that you work in a competitive environment where, if you think you can have everything only your way, you're going to run into problems soon.

EDIT:

Arakasi:

Vegosiux:

Arakasi:

His mind became the property of the state the instant they socialised healthcare. Doctors are considered the property of the people in this system.

[citation needed]

BADLY

How are they not the property of the people? They are told to work at whatever rate the state sets, to those who the state claims are 'in need' as opposed to those who the doctor may wish to treat. When discussions of whether or not to socialise healthcare are considered, how often do you see anyone considering how those who work in the hospitals may feel about it?

Why should they be property of the people? Are policemen property of the people because the state tells them what laws to enforce instead of letting them set their own rules?

Then, I think you do not fully grasp the concept of socialized healthcare. The state doesn't set fixed rates for something and doesn't command anyone to treat someone. It's about giving all people access to the same level of good treatment and not barring them from a more effective one because the only therapy they can afford with minimum wage is a "get well soon" card.

And finally, the Hippocratic oath itself is about treating those in need, not only those you want to. Now, I can see a plastic surgeon having no problem sending someone away because he doesn't want to but if you're working in a proper hospital environment and you think you can choose who you work with you're not even fit for pathology.
Not that it isn't possible to work with the egoism approach as a private practitioner, I've oftentimes been this close to choking a doctor who thought he had better things to do than maybe wait for the ambulance together with the patient who just had a massive stroke.

Arakasi:

How are they not the property of the people? They are told to work at whatever rate the state sets, to those who the state claims are 'in need' as opposed to those who the doctor may wish to treat. When discussions of whether or not to socialise healthcare are considered, how often do you see anyone considering how those who work in the hospitals may feel about it?

I do not see how that could be defined as "property". Oh, and by the way; do people working in private companies get to pick and choose which clients they will attend to? Do they get to set the terms of their employment? Is the teller at a tourist agency able to go "I don't like that guy's beard, so I'll ignore him"?

Also, don't you think that treating healthcare as "business" is a little...demeaning and dehumanizing to those who need it?

How wouldn't it? You could still talk to people, have friends and a family.

I kind of doubt you would be too popular if you were surviving on carrion.

Well then, do you mind explaining to me your reason for having a job?

So I can pay my bills and afford to do stuff I like to do. With people I like doing it with.

Before I answer that, I must ask... Why "janitor"?

How does that have any relevance to the discussion?

It does have relevance. Changing terms of my employment to "janitor" might be closer to changing the terms of a doctor's employment to "bank teller", for example. In other words, it would be nonsensical.

Vegosiux:

Arakasi:

How are they not the property of the people? They are told to work at whatever rate the state sets, to those who the state claims are 'in need' as opposed to those who the doctor may wish to treat. When discussions of whether or not to socialise healthcare are considered, how often do you see anyone considering how those who work in the hospitals may feel about it?

I do not see how that could be defined as "property". Oh, and by the way; do people working in private companies get to pick and choose which clients they will attend to? Do they get to set the terms of their employment? Is the teller at a tourist agency able to go "I don't like that guy's beard, so I'll ignore him"?

No, because that isn't in the nature of their job. Their skill level is low, which is a common resource, thus making it less valuable than a doctor's. A professional can choose more freely because they have a valuable resource to sell.

Vegosiux:

Also, don't you think that treating healthcare as "business" is a little...demeaning and dehumanizing to those who need it?

How is it?
People pay to get fixed.

Vegosiux:

How wouldn't it? You could still talk to people, have friends and a family.

I kind of doubt you would be too popular if you were surviving on carrion.

One does not have to live in the wilderness to survive on one's own. One trades the talents they have for whatever they need.

Vegosiux:

Well then, do you mind explaining to me your reason for having a job?

So I can pay my bills and afford to do stuff I like to do. With people I like doing it with.

So what you're saying is that you go to your job to get money, and you happen to also enjoy your job. What's the problem here? You're doing a service, getting paid for it, using that payment to pay for other services (whatever your bills are).

Vegosiux:

Before I answer that, I must ask... Why "janitor"?

How does that have any relevance to the discussion?

It does have relevance. Changing terms of my employment to "janitor" might be closer to changing the terms of a doctor's employment to "bank teller", for example. In other words, it would be nonsensical.

You were the one who asked what relevance that had, I screwed up the quote chain.

Quaxar:

Arakasi:

Vegosiux:

Logical? It looks like just a bunch of whining and self-pity to me. This is what I would tell that person:

You take a job, you do your job. Sometimes they don't care what you want to do and only expect you to do what they told you to do?

Well. BOO. FUCKING. HOO.

The job description changed, and the job that he had wanted now had vanished. No longer could a man of skill work for the virtue of his own work, he could only work for others.

I don't even understand the discussion... the job is still the same, whether you get paid by the individual or the insurance company. Additionally, brain surgery (or any big invasive surgery at that) is in any case only going to be performed at a hospital because of the huge requirements of staff and equipment, as such you're going to be an employee under pay and direct supervision from the hospital either way and I don't see how it matters from whence your salary is acquired.

Valid point, although I'm still not sure it's right to force everyone to pay for something which only some will use.

Quaxar:

And it's not like you can't in a system with social healthcare not still own a private practice and offer additional and ridiculously overpriced treatments not covered by insurance companies, like acupuncture.

Why couldn't you charge whatever you wanted for treatments that are covered?

Quaxar:

Vegosiux:

How's that bloody different from, say...any other job that any other individual is working?

Because when you choose a profession you get to choose how you want to use it, who you want to work for, for what pay, who your clients will be.

And then you realize that you work in a competitive environment where, if you think you can have everything only your way, you're going to run into problems soon.

EDIT:

Arakasi:

Vegosiux:

[citation needed]

BADLY

How are they not the property of the people? They are told to work at whatever rate the state sets, to those who the state claims are 'in need' as opposed to those who the doctor may wish to treat.
When discussions of whether or not to socialise healthcare are considered, how often do you see anyone considering how those who work in the hospitals may feel about it?

Why should they be property of the people? Are policemen property of the people because the state tells them what laws to enforce instead of letting them set their own rules?

Policemen don't set their own rules because that's not what they were hired to do. Doctors however are simply professionals, they should be able to use their skill in any way they see fit, so long as it doesn't harm anyone.

Quaxar:

Then, I think you do not fully grasp the concept of socialized healthcare.

That is entirely possible. Practically likely.

Quaxar:

The state doesn't set fixed rates for something and doesn't command anyone to treat someone. It's about giving all people access to the same level of good treatment and not barring them from a more effective one because the only therapy they can afford with minimum wage is a "get well soon" card.

And how does the state do that?

Quaxar:

And finally, the Hippocratic oath itself is about treating those in need, not only those you want to.

That's not what the discussion is about.

Quaxar:

Now, I can see a plastic surgeon having no problem sending someone away because he doesn't want to but if you're working in a proper hospital environment and you think you can choose who you work with you're not even fit for pathology.

Why not? I mean, sure it could depend on the policies of those who hired you, but if those policies were open to allow you to choose your patients, what is the problem?

Quaxar:

Not that it isn't possible to work with the egoism approach as a private practitioner, I've oftentimes been this close to choking a doctor who thought he had better things to do than maybe wait for the ambulance together with the patient who just had a massive stroke.

Were you paying the doctor to wait there? Maybe he/she did have better things to do.

Arakasi:

How is it?
People pay to get fixed.

I think I'll ask you the same question in ten, fifteen years.

But, to put it in a nutshell, your worldview is so far removed from the reality I know that I'm going to just return to my "not in the same spiral arm" comment and get on with my life until then. I don't know what kind of life you live, but it's likely a very cozy one.

Vegosiux:

Arakasi:

How is it?
People pay to get fixed.

I think I'll ask you the same question in ten, fifteen years.

But, to put it in a nutshell, your worldview is so far removed from the reality I know that I'm going to just return to my "not in the same spiral arm" comment and get on with my life until then. I don't know what kind of life you live, but it's likely a very cozy one.

If you call a poor university student cozy, sure.
You still have failed to explain how my view is removed from reality.
The reality is that if you want someone to do something for you, you should pay them in kind, not merely expect people to do things for you.

Arakasi:
How are they not the property of the people? They are told to work at whatever rate the state sets, to those who the state claims are 'in need' as opposed to those who the doctor may wish to treat. When discussions of whether or not to socialise healthcare are considered, how often do you see anyone considering how those who work in the hospitals may feel about it?

Since when has setting fixed, non-flexible, non-scaled salaries been an inherent trait of a socialised healthcare system? Actually I don't know of any country that does that.

Arakasi:
Why couldn't you charge whatever you wanted for treatments that are covered?

Because that doesn't work. It makes the profit motive conflict with the motive of providing healthcare, and that's asking for trouble.

Recently here in the Netherlands a test with letting orthodontists set their own prices was rolled back and the prices for treatments re-stipulated by law again. In the first year the prices were free, the already considerably high rates jumped up by 11% on average and seemed bent on continuing that rise. It would've made orthodontic treatment unavailable to a large group of people, and that outcome would of course be unacceptable.

Arakasi:
And then you realize that you work in a competitive environment where, if you think you can have everything only your way, you're going to run into problems soon.

That doesn't function in most markets. For instance if there's a shortage of whatever it is you're providing, you can pull some pretty outrageous stuff; whomever leaves because they're dissatisfied shortens the waiting list (and lessens the quality as a result) and you're still getting the same amount of people.

But in the meantime, some people are being left out because they couldn't afford it, and thus that system will fail.

Arakasi:
Policemen don't set their own rules because that's not what they were hired to do. Doctors however are simply professionals, they should be able to use their skill in any way they see fit, so long as it doesn't harm anyone.

I'd argue doctors, like policemen, are hired/start a practise because of something other than 'setting their own rules'. Their task is to provide healthcare, help people and improve public health. The comparison with policemen is really good. We don't let policemen choose to make up laws because 'freestyle policing' like that wouldn't work. You'd get motives conflicting with the interest of law and order that would break such a system.

Just like that 'freestyle healthcare' doesn't work either, because you get a motive for greater profit, interfering with the interest of healthcare.

Arakasi:
That's not what the discussion is about.

The hippocratic oath is relevant though. You argued doctors should be able to do whatever they like, like only treating millionaires for instance. Well, to complete their education they swore an oath to help people, which effectively should prohibit them from ever doing something like that.

So there's no reason why healthcare shouldn't be regulated so it works, instead of being for a happy few; Doctors themselves already swore it wouldn't be.

Arakasi:
Were you paying the doctor to wait there? Maybe he/she did have better things to do.

It sounds extremely unlikely that someone could have better things to do than ensuring someone who just had a stroke doesn't end up a lot worse.

Society would become a pretty big mess if we took the libertarian/conservative approach to 'better things to do'. I can just imagine that happening at work. "Help Blablahb, I told this loonie he's not getting more meds, and now he's trying to kill me! You're hired for security, help!" and then respond with a very libertaran "Well, don't you think I've got better things to do you liberal socialist person? How much more money do you offer for pulling that guy off you and throwing him outside teeth-first?"

I don't see any reason to consider such an approach to life legit, even if you could find people who actually wanted to act like that.

Blablahb:

Arakasi:
How are they not the property of the people? They are told to work at whatever rate the state sets, to those who the state claims are 'in need' as opposed to those who the doctor may wish to treat. When discussions of whether or not to socialise healthcare are considered, how often do you see anyone considering how those who work in the hospitals may feel about it?

Since when has setting fixed, non-flexible, non-scaled salaries been an inherent trait of a socialised healthcare system? Actually I don't know of any country that does that.

I admit I know little about it, if you'll look at my other post.

Blablahb:

Arakasi:
Why couldn't you charge whatever you wanted for treatments that are covered?

Because that doesn't work. It makes the profit motive conflict with the motive of providing healthcare, and that's asking for trouble.

There are only 3 possible motives (in my mind) for doing any profession. 1. For a trade of equal value. 2. Because someone is forcing you to. 3. Because people have guilted you into it.
Why should a doctor stick to pre-determined prices? It's his/her skill to sell, if people will still buy that skill, then so be it.

Blablahb:

Recently here in the Netherlands a test with letting orthodontists set their own prices was rolled back and the prices for treatments re-stipulated by law again. In the first year the prices were free, the already considerably high rates jumped up by 11% on average and seemed bent on continuing that rise. It would've made orthodontic treatment unavailable to a large group of people, and that outcome would of course be unacceptable.

Why is that unacceptable? Why is it more acceptable to force people to bend to the will of the poor? Surely then there would be a gigantic untapped market of poor people to work with?

Arakasi:
And then you realize that you work in a competitive environment where, if you think you can have everything only your way, you're going to run into problems soon.

That doesn't function in most markets. For instance if there's a shortage of whatever it is you're providing, you can pull some pretty outrageous stuff; whomever leaves because they're dissatisfied shortens the waiting list (and lessens the quality as a result) and you're still getting the same amount of people.[/quote]
I have no idea what you're talking about here, in fact, I never said the quote that you attributed to me.

Blablahb:

But in the meantime, some people are being left out because they couldn't afford it, and thus that system will fail.

The people being left out represent an untapped market which someone could, if wise, tap. I fail to see how it fails.

Blablahb:

Arakasi:
Policemen don't set their own rules because that's not what they were hired to do. Doctors however are simply professionals, they should be able to use their skill in any way they see fit, so long as it doesn't harm anyone.

I'd argue doctors, like policemen, are hired/start a practise because of something other than 'setting their own rules'.

You're right, they do it for benift.

Blablahb:
Their task is to provide healthcare, help people and improve public health.

Their job is to provide individuals with healthcare, whilst that may improve public health, that's not their job.

Blablahb:
The comparison with policemen is really good. We don't let policemen choose to make up laws because 'freestyle policing' like that wouldn't work. You'd get motives conflicting with the interest of law and order that would break such a system.

We don't let policemen make their own laws because that wouldn't benifit anyone, and there would be no point in paying them. Doctors on the other hand, could make their own terms of practice, and practice them to anyone who is willing to be practiced upon.

Blablahb:

Just like that 'freestyle healthcare' doesn't work either, because you get a motive for greater profit, interfering with the interest of healthcare.

I fail to see how the two contradict.
If you are motivated by profit, you are motivated to do a better job, so that your skill is of higher value. Of course there would be people who would try to cheat the system (quacks) but that's what the law is for.

Blablahb:

Arakasi:
That's not what the discussion is about.

The hippocratic oath is relevant though. You argued doctors should be able to do whatever they like, like only treating millionaires for instance. Well, to complete their education they swore an oath to help people, which effectively should prohibit them from ever doing something like that.

Why must they take that oath? Are you aware how old that oath is? Surely it's outdated by now.

Blablahb:

So there's no reason why healthcare shouldn't be regulated so it works, instead of being for a happy few; Doctors themselves already swore it wouldn't be.

Doctors who take that oath only have themselves to blame, I admit that. However there are enough doctors that if there were a large disparity between those who can get healthcare and those who can't, there'd be a worthwhile market to tap.

Blablahb:

Arakasi:
Were you paying the doctor to wait there? Maybe he/she did have better things to do.

It sounds extremely unlikely that someone could have better things to do than ensuring someone who just had a stroke doesn't end up a lot worse.

Perhaps the doctor knew that if something else happened that there was nothing he/she could do? Perhaps the doctor had a heart attack patient that couldn't wait? Perhaps the doctor was late for a tea party, by what right do you force him/her to stay? You only attack by two possible means, by mutual agreement (aka payment) or by hanging him by his/her own virtue (altruism). Is it right to punish those who wish to help people by keeping them from their lives? That only sets up a system where the psychopath prevails.

Blablahb:

Society would become a pretty big mess if we took the libertarian/conservative approach to 'better things to do'. I can just imagine that happening at work. "Help Blablahb, I told this loonie he's not getting more meds, and now he's trying to kill me! You're hired for security, help!" and then respond with a very libertaran "Well, don't you think I've got better things to do you liberal socialist person? How much more money do you offer for pulling that guy off you and throwing him outside teeth-first?"

You'd be fired for not doing your job. I see no contradiction.

Blablahb:

I don't see any reason to consider such an approach to life legit, even if you could find people who actually wanted to act like that.

Because people should have the right to do as they wish provided it doesn't harm others? That's my morality.

EDIT: Oh, and I suppose you can keep the doctor their by the point of a gun (akin to making laws against leaving and threatening to throw him/her in jail). But there is really no difference between that and slavery.

Arakasi:
There are only 3 possible motives (in my mind) for doing any profession. 1. For a trade of equal value. 2. Because someone is forcing you to. 3. Because people have guilted you into it.
Why should a doctor stick to pre-determined prices? It's his/her skill to sell, if people will still buy that skill, then so be it.

The vast majority of physicians don't freelance. They work in some kind of healthcare organisation that handles the financials. Organisations that overcharge for pre-determined prices treatments may be fined or shut down by the healthcare inspection. Individual doctors moonlighting and doing that would be liable for disciplinary action by the profession, and removal from the BIG registration which is required to be allowed to practise medicine. Practising medicine without BIG registration is a criminal offense, hiring someone to practise medicine without checking BIG registration is gross negligence. This to combat quackery and moonlighting.

One group of people getting suspended for instance are mental healthcare professionals who abuse their position of trust to sexually exploit clients. For instance this case (source in Dutch) about a reformist and a psychiatrist who had a private practise for other reformists whose extreme religious convictions often don't match up with the normal healthcare which is of course based on normal Dutch culture. This was about a case where he diagnosed someone with dissociative personality disorder as a result of satantic rituals (which already could've lead to him being dismissed for incompetence and knowingly making incorrect diagnoses) and his idea of dealing with that was sexual abuse of the patient. The Disciplinary College for healthcare didn't find that to be funny, suspended him for life, destroyed his BIG registration and that man will never practise medicine or prey on patients again.

His choice to be a sex offender was clearly incompatible with his other choice of being a doctor, so they made it so that he can never call himself a doctor again. This is a good thing.

Arakasi:
Why is that unacceptable? Why is it more acceptable to force people to bend to the will of the poor? Surely then there would be a gigantic untapped market of poor people to work with?

Because as a society we (as in, Dutch people in my case) have decided that pure and utter selfishness, and a caste system based on personal wealth, is no way to run a society. People can disagree with that idea of course, but they'll have a hell of a time defending the questionable ethics.

It's not the will of the poor by the way, it's the demands of decent morality. "I don't extort my patients if I'm a doctor" falls in the same category as "I don't rape women because I feel horny" or "I don't ask people how much they'll pay to save their house if I'm a fireman".

Arakasi:
The people being left out represent an untapped market which someone could, if wise, tap. I fail to see how it fails.

'They could' is not a basis on which to run an essential service like healthcare however. Also there's often little money to be made doing that if you deregulate everything and let people pay individually for their own healthcare, so it becomes against the best interests of the providers.

A normal system where it's a collectively paid for service however, is self-fixing because you know the bills get paid. Where I work for instance, a foundation for (psychiatric) care for addicts, works a lot with uninsured people or people who would never ever be able to afford help. But because our privatised health insurance is sufficiently regulated, everyone has at least basic insurance or can get it, even homeless drug addicts. As a result, we know the bills get paid, and can help people.

And that matters, because that guy we dragged back into reality from a psychosis by chemical means, because we know his insurance covers it, could otherwise have been the guy who killed your family when 'the voices' ordered him to. Less dramatic, a lot of them would end up stealing and occasionally mugging, for which you as a citizen would pay in the form of higher retail prices thanks to theft damages and increase unsafety.
But because healthcare is an essential service open to all, our centre and many like it, can prevent such things from happening, and it benefits society greatly.

Like a few weeks ago, most recent memorable case, an addicted woman came in around 9.30 and wanted to get out of prostitution. Talked quite a lot with her as she had a lot of waiting time, it was a pretty sad story. So we made arrangements to have her detoxed and see a psychiatrist. When her pimp showed up to contest her decision, we also saw why our services are essential: As soon as his presence became clear, I made him leave, and we could ensure her she wouldn't see him ever again if she didn't want to because housing, benefits and treatment can all be taken care of. Without our services she'd have had nowhere to turn he'd have forced her to continue prostituting herself and using drugs. +1 lives saved for as far as I'm concerned, and I hope she gets through the program.

None of that would've been possible if we were a deregulated bunch that wanted people to pay their entire treatment by themselves. Heck, in her situation she would've needed to prostitute herself in order to pay for the least of help. That's certainly an undesirable outcome if ever there was.

Arakasi:
We don't let policemen make their own laws because that wouldn't benifit anyone, and there would be no point in paying them. Doctors on the other hand, could make their own terms of practice, and practice them to anyone who is willing to be practiced upon.

And they can. Provided it's a private clinic that operates within the rules. We just don't (and shouldn't) tear down the fabric of healthcare to facilitate that.

But as it turns out, when there's a working healthcare system, nobody wants a private practise for regular healthcare. The private sector busies itself with plastic surgery, extra-care luxury resthomes and religious institutions.

I'd conclude from that, that apparently private practises for regular healthcare are only a band-aid for when a real solution for healthcare has already failed like it has in the US. If healthcare is available, people don't want a private practise instead.

Arakasi:
I fail to see how the two contradict. If you are motivated by profit, you are motivated to do a better job, so that your skill is of higher value. Of course there would be people who would try to cheat the system (quacks) but that's what the law is for.

'Making as much money as possible at the expense of my patients' and 'helping my patients best as possible' are two motives that mutually exclude one another.

And in your system, why would there be anything against quacks? Shouldn't their skill in theatrics and manipulation be worth money?

Arakasi:
Why must they take that oath? Are you aware how old that oath is? Surely it's outdated by now.
Doctors who take that oath only have themselves to blame, I admit that. However there are enough doctors that if there were a large disparity between those who can get healthcare and those who can't, there'd be a worthwhile market to tap.

Medical ethics of that level do not get outdated and have always been part of the medical profession. But that would become a rather lengthy technical discussion.

For one thing I don't see an advantage to opening up the ability of unscrupulous doctors victimising their patients because they happen to have a medical degree and no morals.

Arakasi:
Perhaps the doctor was late for a tea party, by what right do you force him/her to stay?

Because: person's life > tea party.

Even though the Tea Party obviously would have no trouble if people died because of them. Still, someone who thinks differently probably should have their head examined, because something has to be wired incorrectly up there if they think leisure and convenience is more important than the lives of others which they could've saved.

Again, it would become quite a mess in society if we expected any different, wouldn't it?

Arakasi:
You'd be fired for not doing your job. I see no contradiction.

But if we follow your reasoning, accepting their money in exchange for security work, wouldn't require me to actually provide security.
After all you've just reasoned that becoming a doctor doesn't require one to help patients or to not extort them in exchange for help.

That's why it's a good example. If I didn't want to be obligated to resolve unsafe and threatening situations, I shouldn't have made the decision to take that job. Likewise if someone doesn't care about lives and only care about money, they shouldn't become a doctor as it obligates them to help people when they can.

You can apply that to any profession or activity really.

Blablahb:

Arakasi:
There are only 3 possible motives (in my mind) for doing any profession. 1. For a trade of equal value. 2. Because someone is forcing you to. 3. Because people have guilted you into it.
Why should a doctor stick to pre-determined prices? It's his/her skill to sell, if people will still buy that skill, then so be it.

The vast majority of physicians don't freelance. They work in some kind of healthcare organisation that handles the financials. Organisations that overcharge for pre-determined prices treatments may be fined or shut down by the healthcare inspection. Individual doctors moonlighting and doing that would be liable for disciplinary action by the profession, and removal from the BIG registration which is required to be allowed to practise medicine. Practising medicine without BIG registration is a criminal offense, hiring someone to practise medicine without checking BIG registration is gross negligence. This to combat quackery and moonlighting.

I disagree with that whole system then.

Blablahb:

One group of people getting suspended for instance are mental healthcare professionals who abuse their position of trust to sexually exploit clients. For instance this case (source in Dutch) about a reformist and a psychiatrist who had a private practise for other reformists whose extreme religious convictions often don't match up with the normal healthcare which is of course based on normal Dutch culture. This was about a case where he diagnosed someone with dissociative personality disorder as a result of satantic rituals (which already could've lead to him being dismissed for incompetence and knowingly making incorrect diagnoses) and his idea of dealing with that was sexual abuse of the patient. The Disciplinary College for healthcare didn't find that to be funny, suspended him for life, destroyed his BIG registration and that man will never practise medicine or prey on patients again.

Sexually exploiting people is quackery and should be against the governmental, federal law, not against some institution's rules.

Blablahb:

His choice to be a sex offender was clearly incompatible with his other choice of being a doctor, so they made it so that he can never call himself a doctor again. This is a good thing.

I agree. Doctors are in a position of trust, and should not violate that trust.

Blablahb:

Arakasi:
Why is that unacceptable? Why is it more acceptable to force people to bend to the will of the poor? Surely then there would be a gigantic untapped market of poor people to work with?

Because as a society we (as in, Dutch people in my case) have decided that pure and utter selfishness, and a caste system based on personal wealth, is no way to run a society. People can disagree with that idea of course, but they'll have a hell of a time defending the questionable ethics.

Ethics are all relative. It really depends upon your goal.

Blablahb:

It's not the will of the poor by the way, it's the demands of decent morality.

It's the demands of what most think is a decent morality.

Blablahb:

"I don't extort my patients if I'm a doctor" falls in the same category as "I don't rape women because I feel horny" or "I don't ask people how much they'll pay to save their house if I'm a fireman".

Extortion is illegal, because it is the obtaining of something through force or threats, neither of which a trade does. Trade itself is simply when two people agree upon swapping items, money for doctoring, money for food, money for a service. Raping is hardly comprable.

Blablahb:

Arakasi:
The people being left out represent an untapped market which someone could, if wise, tap. I fail to see how it fails.

'They could' is not a basis on which to run an essential service like healthcare however. Also there's often little money to be made doing that if you deregulate everything and let people pay individually for their own healthcare, so it becomes against the best interests of the providers.

If it is against the interest of the providers, why should they do it? Why would anyone do anything that's against their interest?

Blablahb:

A normal system where it's a collectively paid for service however, is self-fixing because you know the bills get paid. Where I work for instance, a foundation for (psychiatric) care for addicts, works a lot with uninsured people or people who would never ever be able to afford help. But because our privatised health insurance is sufficiently regulated, everyone has at least basic insurance or can get it, even homeless drug addicts. As a result, we know the bills get paid, and can help people.

And people should have to pay for these drug addicts to get help? Doesn't seem right to me. But that's a different discussion.

Blablahb:

And that matters, because that guy we dragged back into reality from a psychosis by chemical means, because we know his insurance covers it, could otherwise have been the guy who killed your family when 'the voices' ordered him to. Less dramatic, a lot of them would end up stealing and occasionally mugging, for which you as a citizen would pay in the form of higher retail prices thanks to theft damages and increase unsafety.

That's what the justice system is for. Rehabilitation, protection and deterence.

Blablahb:

But because healthcare is an essential service open to all, our centre and many like it, can prevent such things from happening, and it benefits society greatly.

Again, it depends on what your goal is. If your goal is to benifit society, then so be it.

Blablahb:

Like a few weeks ago, most recent memorable case, an addicted woman came in around 9.30 and wanted to get out of prostitution. Talked quite a lot with her as she had a lot of waiting time, it was a pretty sad story. So we made arrangements to have her detoxed and see a psychiatrist. When her pimp showed up to contest her decision, we also saw why our services are essential: As soon as his presence became clear, I made him leave, and we could ensure her she wouldn't see him ever again if she didn't want to because housing, benefits and treatment can all be taken care of. Without our services she'd have had nowhere to turn he'd have forced her to continue prostituting herself and using drugs. +1 lives saved for as far as I'm concerned, and I hope she gets through the program.

The only reason that situation occured is because of an inequality to begin with. I have to assume that prostitution is illegal there otherwise the pimp and hoe situation couldn't exist in that manner. Perhaps what is better than a cure is a prevention.

Blablahb:

None of that would've been possible if we were a deregulated bunch that wanted people to pay their entire treatment by themselves. Heck, in her situation she would've needed to prostitute herself in order to pay for the least of help. That's certainly an undesirable outcome if ever there was.

There's nothing inherently wrong with prostitution, like I said, if the laws were set up properly to allow it in the first place there would be no problem, she could have simply quit her job and got a job somewhere else instead.

Blablahb:

Arakasi:
We don't let policemen make their own laws because that wouldn't benifit anyone, and there would be no point in paying them. Doctors on the other hand, could make their own terms of practice, and practice them to anyone who is willing to be practiced upon.

And they can. Provided it's a private clinic that operates within the rules. We just don't (and shouldn't) tear down the fabric of healthcare to facilitate that.

I disagree with there being any rules that restrict the freedom of the doctor except in situations where the doctor causes harm. The 'do no harm' line, even though it is not in the Hippocratic Oath, is one I'd implement.

Blablahb:

I'd conclude from that, that apparently private practises for regular healthcare are only a band-aid for when a real solution for healthcare has already failed like it has in the US. If healthcare is available, people don't want a private practise instead.

Of course they don't. It's cheaper. But that is far from the point.

Blablahb:

Arakasi:
I fail to see how the two contradict. If you are motivated by profit, you are motivated to do a better job, so that your skill is of higher value. Of course there would be people who would try to cheat the system (quacks) but that's what the law is for.

'Making as much money as possible at the expense of my patients' and 'helping my patients best as possible' are two motives that mutually exclude one another.

Never did I say 'at the expense of my patients', that would go against the law because it would be harming the patients. Helping the patients get the best care possible would be part of the job, and a valid reason for you to have high prices.

Blablahb:

And in your system, why would there be anything against quacks? Shouldn't their skill in theatrics and manipulation be worth money?

Of course there would be something against quacks, that's what the law is for. I am not entirely for a laissez-faire society, I'd still want it regulated to ensure that cheats can get no profits. Fair trade would be enforced.

Blablahb:

Arakasi:
Why must they take that oath? Are you aware how old that oath is? Surely it's outdated by now.
Doctors who take that oath only have themselves to blame, I admit that. However there are enough doctors that if there were a large disparity between those who can get healthcare and those who can't, there'd be a worthwhile market to tap.

Medical ethics of that level do not get outdated and have always been part of the medical profession. But that would become a rather lengthy technical discussion.

I like the first line of the actual Hippocratic Oath:

I swear by Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement:

Blablahb:

For one thing I don't see an advantage to opening up the ability of unscrupulous doctors victimising their patients because they happen to have a medical degree and no morals.

I agree, hence the law.

Blablahb:

Arakasi:
Perhaps the doctor was late for a tea party, by what right do you force him/her to stay?

Because: person's life > tea party.

I would not however save the life of a person if it meant slavery for me or others.

Blablahb:

Even though the Tea Party obviously would have no trouble if people died because of them.

I didn't literally mean the 'Tea Party', fyi.

Blablahb:

Still, someone who thinks differently probably should have their head examined

That my friend is ad-hominem territory.

Blablahb:

...because something has to be wired incorrectly up there if they think leisure and convenience is more important than the lives of others which they could've saved.

I would tend to agree though, however that does not solve the conundrum I posed. By what means are you expected to force the doctor to stay? By equal trade, by the gun, or by his/her own values? By trade is fair, but it will cost you money, by the gun is slavery, and by their own values allows a psychopath to prosper by simply walking away, whilst taking money (time) from a good doctor who stays.

Blablahb:

Again, it would become quite a mess in society if we expected any different, wouldn't it?

It really depends.

Blablahb:

Arakasi:
You'd be fired for not doing your job. I see no contradiction.

But if we follow your reasoning, accepting their money in exchange for security work, wouldn't require me to actually provide security.

I do not see how that is the case. You are payed to perform security duties, thus you perform security duties.

Blablahb:

After all you've just reasoned that becoming a doctor doesn't require one to help patients or to not extort them in exchange for help.

I did no such thing. It requires one to help the patients who have paid them for their service, and nothing more.

Blablahb:

If I didn't want to be obligated to resolve unsafe and threatening situations, I shouldn't have made the decision to take that job.

I agree.

Blablahb:

Likewise if someone doesn't care about lives and only care about money, they shouldn't become a doctor as it obligates them to help people when they can.

I disagree.
Like any other profession all they are doing is selling an individual the service they provide, that of fixing the body of the client.

Arakasi:

Like any other profession all they are doing is selling an individual the service they provide, that of fixing the body of the client.

Just want to interject something. NEVER call a patient a "client", it aggravates doctors a lot when people do that. And it's probably exactly because medicine =/= business, a patient isn't just a client whom you sell a service to. Saying that is an insult to the healthcare personnel.

generals3:

Arakasi:

Like any other profession all they are doing is selling an individual the service they provide, that of fixing the body of the client.

Just want to interject something. NEVER call a patient a "client", it aggravates doctors a lot when people do that. And it's probably exactly because medicine =/= business, a patient isn't just a client whom you sell a service to. Saying that is an insult to the healthcare personnel.

I'll say as I wish when I percieve it to be the truth.
Though you're probably right these days, they aren't clients, only looters.

Arakasi:

generals3:

Arakasi:

Like any other profession all they are doing is selling an individual the service they provide, that of fixing the body of the client.

Just want to interject something. NEVER call a patient a "client", it aggravates doctors a lot when people do that. And it's probably exactly because medicine =/= business, a patient isn't just a client whom you sell a service to. Saying that is an insult to the healthcare personnel.

I'll say as I wish when I percieve it to be the truth.
Though you're probably right these days, they aren't clients, only looters.

Looters? really? So not having the luxury of being insured in a private healthcare system makes you a looter? Well, whatever makes you feel better about your cruel ideology of letting the poor die on the streets.

generals3:

Arakasi:

generals3:

Just want to interject something. NEVER call a patient a "client", it aggravates doctors a lot when people do that. And it's probably exactly because medicine =/= business, a patient isn't just a client whom you sell a service to. Saying that is an insult to the healthcare personnel.

I'll say as I wish when I percieve it to be the truth.
Though you're probably right these days, they aren't clients, only looters.

Looters? really? So not having the luxury of being insured in a private healthcare system makes you a looter? Well, whatever makes you feel better about your cruel ideology of letting the poor die on the streets.

The luxury is afforded to those who work for it, not those who do nothing and expect it.
As for 'my ideology', this is not mine, I am merely representing it in this discussion.
And I not bow to your appeal to guilt, it is a poor argumentative tactic.

Arakasi:

Quaxar:

And it's not like you can't in a system with social healthcare not still own a private practice and offer additional and ridiculously overpriced treatments not covered by insurance companies, like acupuncture.

Why couldn't you charge whatever you wanted for treatments that are covered?

You can certainly try but I think the insurance companies, private or public, are a lot better at judging what a therapy is worth than a layman.
And that is a good thing because it regulates pricing in a way. Pretend you had no idea what a new spark plug for your car costs and the mechanic tells you it's a 1000$ but unfortunately you depend on that car and that is the only garage in the area... the insurance company is the experienced father that tells the mechanic he's charging ridiculous amounts for the part and you're only going to pay 50$ (I have no idea what a spark plug is worth).

Arakasi:

Quaxar:

The state doesn't set fixed rates for something and doesn't command anyone to treat someone. It's about giving all people access to the same level of good treatment and not barring them from a more effective one because the only therapy they can afford with minimum wage is a "get well soon" card.

And how does the state do that?

By collecting a small amount of health tax distributed over a large working population and giving that to a state-run insurance agency that don't work much differently from a private one except they have to take on every working man that isn't insured at another company. Like here there's seperate other state agencies for example one for civil servants, or one for railway workers who automatically pay into theirs instead.

Hopitals actually receive more money since there's less hassle to get the costs covered and the uninsured ones (that can still exist under certain conditions) are easier stomached.

Arakasi:

Quaxar:

Not that it isn't possible to work with the egoism approach as a private practitioner, I've oftentimes been this close to choking a doctor who thought he had better things to do than maybe wait for the ambulance together with the patient who just had a massive stroke.

Were you paying the doctor to wait there? Maybe he/she did have better things to do.

Why should I? The insurance already pays him to do a proper job. I should be able to expect a professional to diagnose and stabilize an obvious stroke that I can notice with over 5 years of medical training less than him, not call an ambulance for a fever and walk off. If you've got better things to do than even have a proper look at your patients you are at best incompetent and at worst a danger.

Arakasi:
I disagree with that whole system then.
Sexually exploiting people is quackery and should be against the governmental, federal law, not against some institution's rules.

It's not an institution, the disciplinary college is a semi-governmental institution. It both handles the disciplinary side of medical ethics, as well as government guidelines.

And since it works in that form, the government lends it legitimacy by backing up their registration by legislative force. The lawyer's 'guild' the Order of Advocates is another example of that. If they scrap you off their registry for misconduct, you're not allowed to work as a lawyer anymore. This because the function of lawyers too, is too important to leave to mere chance in the form of an unregulated environment.

This ensures for instances that lawyers do not get entangled in the crime they inherently deal with. Examples of people who got scrapped from the books recently are Ashwin Balrak (caught cutting up 81 kilograms of cocaine in his living room) and Moskovicz (for accepting and not reporting large sums of cash, bad practise, deception of clients and possible money laundering).

Arakasi:
If it is against the interest of the providers, why should they do it? Why would anyone do anything that's against their interest?

Because if they didn't, they'd be out of a job. Helping addicts who can't afford to pay huge amounts of money makes one bankrupt, not helping addicts who can't afford to pay huge amounts of money makes one bankrupt too.

This explains why such services lack in countries where a small part of a rich elite determines the political decisions.

Basically, if you let selfishness and the free market determine things, everybody loses because not only do people not get the help they need, but it also destroys jobs because such services can't be set up.

Arakasi:
And people should have to pay for these drug addicts to get help? Doesn't seem right to me. But that's a different discussion.

If they don't agree with tax money being used to prevent problems with crime and help people who really need it, they are always free to depart to a country that does share their values, like Somalia, or North Korea.

Figures on addiction and crime however suggest that drug addicts cause huge amounts of small crimes like theft, burglary and shoplifting, so helping them prevents a lot of crime. Even someone who doesn't care about other people will have to admit it's just an investment in society's safety.

This explains why we Dutch people don't sleep with assault rifles under our pillows, don't shoot black people that happen to walk through our neighbourhood, tend not to murder our classmates or co-workers if things get a little stressfull, and generally aren't all that paranoid.

Arakasi:
That's what the justice system is for. Rehabilitation, protection and deterence.

I think treating someone's condition is a lot better than throwing them in a prison cell and knowingly let them suffer constantly.

Arakasi:
There's nothing inherently wrong with prostitution, like I said, if the laws were set up properly to allow it in the first place there would be no problem, she could have simply quit her job and got a job somewhere else instead.

I can tell by this you don't know anything about the life. They're people who deserve help and pity in equal measure, and there's a lot wrong with prostitution. To quote the chairwoman of the prostitutes interest group the Rode Draad "Happy whores do not exist".

It's just that within that situation, legalisation is better than keeping it illegal. It doesn't solve all problems, or justify turning your back on people, but it does allow for better tackling of some problems surrounding it.

Although the legalisation seems to be failing, since it's been mostly a tool for local governments to get rid of sex institutions without caring in the least about the people involved in that sad trade. The legalisation should've been accompanied with a legal obligation for local governments to take care of problems surrounding prostitution.

The city of Amsterdam for instance has been wasting millions of tax euros buying up property of former brothels, because they're conservative douchebags to whom an image is more important than anything. Then they try to turn them into art galleries, which of course instantly collapse and require constant subsidies because nobody gives a fuck about buying crappy art for which there never was a market. The prostitution trade gets driven underground, and the real criminals (like the Turkish pimp syndicate active in the Amsterdam underworld) have gained more power as a result.

All the more proof how thorough legislation is better than laissez faire.

Arakasi:
I disagree with there being any rules that restrict the freedom of the doctor except in situations where the doctor causes harm. The 'do no harm' line, even though it is not in the Hippocratic Oath, is one I'd implement.
Of course they don't. It's cheaper. But that is far from the point.

Then why would anyone want to destroy a working healthcare system, in order to make people forced to do business with more expensive private practises, while many people get left out?

Why would you want to trade in a win-win situation for a lose-lose situation in order to gain supposed freedom while that 'freedom' is nothing else than a pretense under which to fuck over and exploit people?

Arakasi:
Never did I say 'at the expense of my patients', that would go against the law because it would be harming the patients. Helping the patients get the best care possible would be part of the job, and a valid reason for you to have high prices.

There's no law in the US against harming people by not treating them, unfortunately.

Although that greedy prioritising of profit over healthcare inherently comes at the expense of the patient. Endorse a system that makes that possible, and you endorse it going at the expense of the patients. It's either one or the other.

Arakasi:
Of course there would be something against quacks, that's what the law is for. I am not entirely for a laissez-faire society, I'd still want it regulated to ensure that cheats can get no profits. Fair trade would be enforced.

How? After all, all regulations are apparently teh evilz, so how are quacks going to get stopped? (without appealing to myths like 'the free market will fix it' or 'you can always sue them and fix it' or 'charity will fix it')

Also note that it needs to be a certainty, not a small chance, that quacks get taken care of.

Arakasi:
I would not however save the life of a person if it meant slavery for me or others.

I don't understand why you say that. Slavery has nothing to do with this, at all, whatsoever. Let's not go offtopic.

Arakasi:
That my friend is ad-hominem territory.

Definately, but very much an accurate diagnosis nonetheless. It's an open judgement though; Being in favour of utter objectivist-like selfishness is a free choice, one that people can change at any time.

I do however expect no complaints if someone first argues that utter selfishness should be what society is about, and then complain when I attack them for being selfish, because that would be hypocritical. If they want to be selfish, they should expect to be called selfish.

Arakasi:
I would tend to agree though, however that does not solve the conundrum I posed. By what means are you expected to force the doctor to stay? By equal trade, by the gun, or by his/her own values? By trade is fair, but it will cost you money, by the gun is slavery, and by their own values allows a psychopath to prosper by simply walking away, whilst taking money (time) from a good doctor who stays.

Abandoning someone in need is a crime, that's how. The vast majority of people will never even need to worry about that because they do the right thing automatically. It's not often that someone gets the book thrown at them using that law, but for instance if you're right next to someone, while holding a medical degree, and something happens to them and they'd just shrug and walk away, they could be in trouble.

That law applies to everyone by the way. Everyone is expected to do the least they can to help others. The most common conviction for breaking that law is a scenario where someone causes a traffic accident with injuries, and then leaves the scene without even calling for an ambulance. I also remember a case where they were a disagreement, they threw someone into a canal, and then left the scene, leaving their victim to drown (who was in a coma after drowning for a while before a passing ship owner managed to get them out of the water).

We call it 'civilization', and it is a good thing.

Arakasi:

generals3:

Arakasi:

I'll say as I wish when I percieve it to be the truth.
Though you're probably right these days, they aren't clients, only looters.

Looters? really? So not having the luxury of being insured in a private healthcare system makes you a looter? Well, whatever makes you feel better about your cruel ideology of letting the poor die on the streets.

The luxury is afforded to those who work for it, not those who do nothing and expect it.
As for 'my ideology', this is not mine, I am merely representing it in this discussion.
And I not bow to your appeal to guilt, it is a poor argumentative tactic.

Isn't that what you do? Make those who disagree appear as supporting "looting" ? Isn't that appealing to guilt? I find it rather ironic you blame me for doing something you started doing. You call people who can't afford insurance "looters", i call people who think it's right to let the poor die on the streets cruel. Seems rather fair.

And not everyone can work for it. So you are by default dooming people to die, because despite everyone's best intentions it will probably never occur that everyone has healthcare insurance.

Arakasi:

The luxury is afforded to those who work for it, not those who do nothing and expect it.

Continued existence is a "luxury", eh? You're beginning to sound a lot like a Disney villain at the moment. The world in which continued life is a luxury, and must be bought once you get ill, is a world I don't wish to live in.

Actually pretty monstrous.

Quaxar:

Arakasi:

Quaxar:

And it's not like you can't in a system with social healthcare not still own a private practice and offer additional and ridiculously overpriced treatments not covered by insurance companies, like acupuncture.

Why couldn't you charge whatever you wanted for treatments that are covered?

You can certainly try but I think the insurance companies, private or public, are a lot better at judging what a therapy is worth than a layman.

It wouldn't be a layman charging for treatments, it would be the doctor, or the hospital.

Quaxar:

And that is a good thing because it regulates pricing in a way.

So does competition.

Quaxar:
Pretend you had no idea what a new spark plug for your car costs and the mechanic tells you it's a 1000$ but unfortunately you depend on that car and that is the only garage in the area...

You'd be stupid for buying it without researching it in the first place, but the mechanic could, under my system, be arrested for lying to you about the actual value of the sparkplug.

Quaxar:

...the insurance company is the experienced father that tells the mechanic he's charging ridiculous amounts for the part and you're only going to pay 50$ (I have no idea what a spark plug is worth).

Or you could do some research yourself so you don't get ripped off. There's nothing stopping today's people from doing that either by your logic, if someone doesn't have insurance.

Quaxar:

Arakasi:

Quaxar:

The state doesn't set fixed rates for something and doesn't command anyone to treat someone. It's about giving all people access to the same level of good treatment and not barring them from a more effective one because the only therapy they can afford with minimum wage is a "get well soon" card.

And how does the state do that?

By collecting a small amount of health tax distributed over a large working population and giving that to a state-run insurance agency that don't work much differently from a private one except they have to take on every working man that isn't insured at another company. Like here there's seperate other state agencies for example one for civil servants, or one for railway workers who automatically pay into theirs instead.

Interesting, if it were part of the job description - that you would have to pay into medical insurance, then I'd have absolutely no problem with it.

Quaxar:

Hopitals actually receive more money since there's less hassle to get the costs covered and the uninsured ones (that can still exist under certain conditions) are easier stomached.

As I said above.

Quaxar:

Arakasi:

Quaxar:

Not that it isn't possible to work with the egoism approach as a private practitioner, I've oftentimes been this close to choking a doctor who thought he had better things to do than maybe wait for the ambulance together with the patient who just had a massive stroke.

Were you paying the doctor to wait there? Maybe he/she did have better things to do.

Why should I? The insurance already pays him to do a proper job. I should be able to expect a professional to diagnose and stabilize an obvious stroke that I can notice with over 5 years of medical training less than him, not call an ambulance for a fever and walk off. If you've got better things to do than even have a proper look at your patients you are at best incompetent and at worst a danger.

Did the insurance company pay him to stay there? Either way, he was clearly a bad doctor if he assumed it was a fever when it was a stroke, assuming he weren't though, see my dilema in the discussion with Blablahb.

Blablahb:

Arakasi:
I disagree with that whole system then.
Sexually exploiting people is quackery and should be against the governmental, federal law, not against some institution's rules.

It's not an institution, the disciplinary college is a semi-governmental institution. It both handles the disciplinary side of medical ethics, as well as government guidelines.

I wouldn't trust anything bar the criminal justice system with anything so large.

Blablahb:

And since it works in that form, the government lends it legitimacy by backing up their registration by legislative force. The lawyer's 'guild' the Order of Advocates is another example of that. If they scrap you off their registry for misconduct, you're not allowed to work as a lawyer anymore. This because the function of lawyers too, is too important to leave to mere chance in the form of an unregulated environment.

Again, I don't think it should be done by a private institution. Once you aren't dealing with the law in black and white missuses and issues can occur.

Blablahb:

This ensures for instances that lawyers do not get entangled in the crime they inherently deal with. Examples of people who got scrapped from the books recently are Ashwin Balrak (caught cutting up 81 kilograms of cocaine in his living room) and Moskovicz (for accepting and not reporting large sums of cash, bad practise, deception of clients and possible money laundering).

Again, I think that should be handled directly by the justice system, and that the man should be fired and blacklisted. People should still have the option to hire him if they wish, but the black list would still be there to provide them with the nessecary information not to.

Blablahb:

Arakasi:
If it is against the interest of the providers, why should they do it? Why would anyone do anything that's against their interest?

Because if they didn't, they'd be out of a job.

Having a job is generally in one's own interest.

Blablahb:
Helping addicts who can't afford to pay huge amounts of money makes one bankrupt, not helping addicts who can't afford to pay huge amounts of money makes one bankrupt too.

I fail to see how this works. Helping addicts may make you bankrupt, but I don't see how not helping them makes you bankrupt.

Blablahb:

This explains why such services lack in countries where a small part of a rich elite determines the political decisions.

Don't get me wrong, I disagree entirely with plutocracies, and politics of pull.

Blablahb:

Basically, if you let selfishness and the free market determine things, everybody loses because not only do people not get the help they need, but it also destroys jobs because such services can't be set up.

People can still get the help they need through donation, or getting a job to get money, it is just those who don't that may have troubles. I also fail to see how jobs can't get started through the free market. If anything I think more jobs would open up.

Blablahb:

Arakasi:
And people should have to pay for these drug addicts to get help? Doesn't seem right to me. But that's a different discussion.

If they don't agree with tax money being used to prevent problems with crime and help people who really need it, they are always free to depart to a country that does share their values, like Somalia, or North Korea.

That's practically an ad-hominmen. Neither of those contries support objectivism or libertarianism or anything remotely similar.

Blablahb:

Figures on addiction and crime however suggest that drug addicts cause huge amounts of small crimes like theft, burglary and shoplifting, so helping them prevents a lot of crime. Even someone who doesn't care about other people will have to admit it's just an investment in society's safety.

So is the justice system (if done right, which it isn't).

Blablahb:

This explains why we Dutch people don't sleep with assault rifles under our pillows

That can be explained by both gun regulations, safety awareness and the justice system.

Blablahb:

...don't shoot black people that happen to walk through our neighbourhood

That can be explained by lack of racism and in the interests of not being arrested for murder.

Blablahb:

...tend not to murder our classmates or co-workers if things get a little stressfull, and generally aren't all that paranoid.

Justice system still applies.

Blablahb:

Arakasi:
That's what the justice system is for. Rehabilitation, protection and deterence.

I think treating someone's condition is a lot better than throwing them in a prison cell and knowingly let them suffer constantly.

Clearly you missed the first word on the list: Rehabilitation

Blablahb:

Arakasi:
There's nothing inherently wrong with prostitution, like I said, if the laws were set up properly to allow it in the first place there would be no problem, she could have simply quit her job and got a job somewhere else instead.

I can tell by this you don't know anything about the life.

You're probably right there, but that's a little irrelevant in my opinion.

Blablahb:
They're people who deserve help and pity in equal measure

Deserve it by means of needing it? How do you judge who needs more help and pity than others? How do you know some of them aren't fine with what they are doing (in a country that has it legalised)?

Blablahb:

...and there's a lot wrong with prostitution. To quote the chairwoman of the prostitutes interest group the Rode Draad "Happy whores do not exist".

That neither constitutes evidence nor is relevant. Lots of people aren't happy with their jobs, that's why they get paid for it.

Blablahb:

It's just that within that situation, legalisation is better than keeping it illegal. It doesn't solve all problems, or justify turning your back on people, but it does allow for better tackling of some problems surrounding it.

I both agree and disagree, regulation is needed, but there isn't much you can do when you start with an initially flawed system.

Blablahb:

Although the legalisation seems to be failing, since it's been mostly a tool for local governments to get rid of sex institutions without caring in the least about the people involved in that sad trade. The legalisation should've been accompanied with a legal obligation for local governments to take care of problems surrounding prostitution.

Again, make it legal with some laws, and vola, no more problems.

Blablahb:

The city of Amsterdam for instance has been wasting millions of tax euros buying up property of former brothels, because they're conservative douchebags to whom an image is more important than anything. Then they try to turn them into art galleries, which of course instantly collapse and require constant subsidies because nobody gives a fuck about buying crappy art for which there never was a market. The prostitution trade gets driven underground, and the real criminals (like the Turkish pimp syndicate active in the Amsterdam underworld) have gained more power as a result.

Everyone is an idiot in that scenario. I'll agree with that.

Blablahb:

All the more proof how thorough legislation is better than laissez faire.

I'm yet to see any laissez-faire society be represented in the situations you presented. Most of the problems you mentioned were caused by the society not being laissez-faire to begin with.

Blablahb:

Arakasi:
I disagree with there being any rules that restrict the freedom of the doctor except in situations where the doctor causes harm. The 'do no harm' line, even though it is not in the Hippocratic Oath, is one I'd implement.
Of course they don't. It's cheaper. But that is far from the point.

Then why would anyone want to destroy a working healthcare system, in order to make people forced to do business with more expensive private practises, while many people get left out?

I wouldn't force anything, people are able if willing to set up systems like that on their own, or continue with their system in a private context, but those who don't wish to can work outside that privately.

Blablahb:

Why would you want to trade in a win-win situation for a lose-lose situation in order to gain supposed freedom while that 'freedom' is nothing else than a pretense under which to fuck over and exploit people?

Because I don't see it as 'nothing else than a pretense under which to fuck over and exploit people'?

Blablahb:

Arakasi:
Never did I say 'at the expense of my patients', that would go against the law because it would be harming the patients. Helping the patients get the best care possible would be part of the job, and a valid reason for you to have high prices.

There's no law in the US against harming people by not treating them, unfortunately.

Good, I wouldn't be for that law. It would make doctors slaves to their patients. One could run up to you with a problem, 50 could run up to you with a problem, and you'd have to stay there until all 50 were done, and if one were to die waiting, their family could probably sue you for not getting your priorities straight and dealing with that patient first. Sounds like a terrible system.

Blablahb:

Although that greedy prioritising of profit over healthcare inherently comes at the expense of the patient. Endorse a system that makes that possible, and you endorse it going at the expense of the patients. It's either one or the other.

I support a system whereby the person who has the skill sets at what price they wish to sell that skill for, whether people will buy it or not. It is just a commodity.

Blablahb:

Arakasi:
Of course there would be something against quacks, that's what the law is for. I am not entirely for a laissez-faire society, I'd still want it regulated to ensure that cheats can get no profits. Fair trade would be enforced.

How? After all, all regulations are apparently teh evilz, so how are quacks going to get stopped? (without appealing to myths like 'the free market will fix it' or 'you can always sue them and fix it' or 'charity will fix it')

I never said regulations were 'teh evilz'. And quacks are going to be stopped via the law, like they are now. They directly cause harm, and thus deserve the full force the justice system can provide. Again, I am not an objectivist or a libertarian, I am currently just throwing out ideas to see how they would be handled. I have no idea what political ideology to support or what system to subscribe to, or even if I should subscribe to one.

Blablahb:

Also note that it needs to be a certainty, not a small chance, that quacks get taken care of.

I agree, to the extent that it is possible. My system would also stop psychcis and faith healers and the kind of bullshit that still prevails today.

Blablahb:

Arakasi:
I would not however save the life of a person if it meant slavery for me or others.

I don't understand why you say that. Slavery has nothing to do with this, at all, whatsoever. Let's not go offtopic.

I beg to differ, and you'll see why shorty.

Blablahb:

Arakasi:
That my friend is ad-hominem territory.

Definately, but very much an accurate diagnosis nonetheless. It's an open judgement though; Being in favour of utter objectivist-like selfishness is a free choice, one that people can change at any time.

There are no free choices (you know I'm a Hard Determinist don't you?). And it is hardly an accurate diagnosis, just because some are different than others does not mean they need to have their 'head examined'.

Blablahb:

I do however expect no complaints if someone first argues that utter selfishness should be what society is about, and then complain when I attack them for being selfish, because that would be hypocritical. If they want to be selfish, they should expect to be called selfish.

Of course, but those people reject the notion that selfish is a bad thing, which is what you were saying when you said: "Still, someone who thinks differently probably should have their head examined"

Blablahb:

Arakasi:
I would tend to agree though, however that does not solve the conundrum I posed. By what means are you expected to force the doctor to stay? By equal trade, by the gun, or by his/her own values? By trade is fair, but it will cost you money, by the gun is slavery, and by their own values allows a psychopath to prosper by simply walking away, whilst taking money (time) from a good doctor who stays.

Abandoning someone in need is a crime, that's how.

By what value is one to determine exactly what is in need? And what kind of need? And isn't that just a way to enslave people? I am in need of you to produce me all the food I need to survive and live propserously because that will ensure I live a long time, so now you have to do it? That's slavery to eachother, and I see that as ridiculous.

Blablahb:

The vast majority of people will never even need to worry about that because they do the right thing automatically.

Mostly they do yes, and don't get me wrong, I'd be one of them.

Blablahb:

It's not often that someone gets the book thrown at them using that law, but for instance if you're right next to someone, while holding a medical degree, and something happens to them and they'd just shrug and walk away, they could be in trouble.

And I disagree with that, they should be allowed to walk away, it's their life, who are you or anyone else to decide what they should do with it, what their priorities are, you are basically putting a gun to their head to get them to stay, and that's how I define slavery. You are the property of your fellow man.

Blablahb:

That law applies to everyone by the way. Everyone is expected to do the least they can to help others.

So you're saying that those who can least help others get off more freely? Way to enourage people to help others.

Blablahb:

The most common conviction for breaking that law is a scenario where someone causes a traffic accident with injuries,and then leaves the scene without even calling for an ambulance.

If they cause the situation, then I would call that a different situation to the doctor.

Blablahb:

I also remember a case where they were a disagreement, they threw someone into a canal, and then left the scene, leaving their victim to drown (who was in a coma after drowning for a while before a passing ship owner managed to get them out of the water).

Again, they caused that situation, so it comes down to it being murder/manslaughter.
The doctor does not cause the stroke in the patient.

Blablahb:

We call it 'civilization', and it is a good thing.

That's subjective.

generals3:

Arakasi:

generals3:

Looters? really? So not having the luxury of being insured in a private healthcare system makes you a looter? Well, whatever makes you feel better about your cruel ideology of letting the poor die on the streets.

The luxury is afforded to those who work for it, not those who do nothing and expect it.
As for 'my ideology', this is not mine, I am merely representing it in this discussion.
And I not bow to your appeal to guilt, it is a poor argumentative tactic.

Isn't that what you do? Make those who disagree appear as supporting "looting" ? Isn't that appealing to guilt? I find it rather ironic you blame me for doing something you started doing.

No, if anything that is an ad-hominem. But in my view, it is true, how is it not looting to take that which you did not earn?

generals3:

You call people who can't afford insurance "looters", i call people who think it's right to let the poor die on the streets cruel. Seems rather fair.

I never said those who can't afford insurance are "looters". It's those who take money not earned by themselves who are looters. Apples and oranges.

generals3:

And not everyone can work for it. So you are by default dooming people to die, because despite everyone's best intentions it will probably never occur that everyone has healthcare insurance.

If someone has a child that will never be in a condition to work, and they choose not to terminate it they should be the ones who bear the responsibility of that child. Not society.

Silvanus:

Arakasi:

The luxury is afforded to those who work for it, not those who do nothing and expect it.

Continued existence is a "luxury", eh?

Did I say continued existence was was a luxury? No. I said that medical care was.
Luxury
-The state of great comfort and extravagant living.
I'd call medicare a great comfort.

Silvanus:

You're beginning to sound a lot like a Disney villain at the moment.

Of course I am, Disney villians are often strawmen of objectivist or libertarian positions.

Silvanus:

The world in which continued life is a luxury, and must be bought once you get ill, is a world I don't wish to live in.

You're lucky you were born in the last 100 years then.

Silvanus:

Actually pretty monstrous.

Welcome to reality.

Arakasi:

Did I say continued existence was was a luxury? No. I said that medical care was.

Uhrm... can you read what you just wrote, please?

Arakasi:

Welcome to reality.

It's not reality for me; I live in a civilised country, where the lives of the sick are saved whether they're rich or poor.

Arakasi:

Quaxar:

Arakasi:

Why couldn't you charge whatever you wanted for treatments that are covered?

You can certainly try but I think the insurance companies, private or public, are a lot better at judging what a therapy is worth than a layman.

It wouldn't be a layman charging for treatments, it would be the doctor, or the hospital.

I think there's a bit of a mix-up. I meant that an insurance company is much better at judging a treatment's worth because it's their job so they aren't as likely to fall for overpriced treatment. As such, I doubt any company would pay 100$ for a "Taiwanese special acupuncture" that is really just a renamed 10$ an hour procedure while a layperson would be more prone to trying that.

Arakasi:

Quaxar:
Pretend you had no idea what a new spark plug for your car costs and the mechanic tells you it's a 1000$ but unfortunately you depend on that car and that is the only garage in the area...

You'd be stupid for buying it without researching it in the first place, but the mechanic could, under my system, be arrested for lying to you about the actual value of the sparkplug.

Quaxar:

...the insurance company is the experienced father that tells the mechanic he's charging ridiculous amounts for the part and you're only going to pay 50$ (I have no idea what a spark plug is worth).

Or you could do some research yourself so you don't get ripped off. There's nothing stopping today's people from doing that either by your logic, if someone doesn't have insurance.

The value of a spark plug isn't that hard to find. However, I'd like to see you get a good estimate for a medical procedure.
For example the cost of dialysis can vary vastly depending on the procedure, machines, medications, care staff size and additional comforts like seats with built-in mini TVs. And that's just scraping the top of all the cost factors much harder to calculate for you as an outsider.

Arakasi:
Interesting, if it were part of the job description - that you would have to pay into medical insurance, then I'd have absolutely no problem with it.

I believe in the US if the job comes with a insurance it is already in there somwhere. But anyway, in a general social healthcare system it's silly to put it in a job description since it is already a given.

My girlfriend recently caught her finger in a blender. It was a stupid mistake, exacerbated by a poorly designed machine, but it left her with a shattered bone, a host of deep cuts and the ability to spray blood in all directions impressively. She was lucky she didn't lose any flesh, but went into shock and nearly passed out.

We called a friend who drove us to the hospital, where we filled out a brief form and were taken to the Accidents and Emergencies room. A nurse stemmed the bleeding and gave her some painkillers. Barring filling in the form we were taken from the front door to a bed within a minute. Her condition fixed for now, we waited for a little under an hour for a doctor to come by and schedule an X-ray and order a proper cleaning and dressing. With that done, we picked up our stuff and walked out, without paying a cent. They wrote us a prescription for some heavy-duty painkillers and antibiotics, which we then bought for under $40, not a small expense but affordable. We live in Australia, for the record.

I read a lot about the problems of socialized medicine, but none of the doomsday scenarios or archy-written proclamations concerning freedom line up with the reality experienced by myself, or in fact any of my friends or family. Our doctors are well paid (richly, in fact), our treatment is of a high standard and we're all healthy, fit individuals.

I just thought it worth mentioning. As somebody who lives in a country with a system like Medicare (our version), it's been nothing but helpful.

Silvanus:

Arakasi:

Did I say continued existence was was a luxury? No. I said that medical care was.

Uhrm... can you read what you just wrote, please?

I did, and I responded.

Silvanus:

Arakasi:

The luxury is afforded to those who work for it, not those who do nothing and expect it.

Continued existence is a "luxury", eh?

Arakasi:

Welcome to reality.

Silvanus:

It's not reality for me; I live in a civilised country, where the lives of the sick are saved whether they're rich or poor.

If you were to die if you weren't given a gold bar would anyone give you that gold bar?

Quaxar:

Arakasi:

Quaxar:

You can certainly try but I think the insurance companies, private or public, are a lot better at judging what a therapy is worth than a layman.

It wouldn't be a layman charging for treatments, it would be the doctor, or the hospital.

I think there's a bit of a mix-up. I meant that an insurance company is much better at judging a treatment's worth because it's their job so they aren't as likely to fall for overpriced treatment.

In that case someone could easily make money from an advisory system in my hypothetical society. Besides, people will pay whatever something is worth to them, and there will be competition between companies to offer the lowest price for the best value, so really there should be no problem.

Quaxar:

As such, I doubt any company would pay 100$ for a "Taiwanese special acupuncture" that is really just a renamed 10$ an hour procedure while a layperson would be more prone to trying that.

A double blind study would have to be done to see whether or not acupuncture was quackery or not (I'm not sure of its current status) but if someone is willing to pay $100 for it, that would be their own problem. If the company was falsely advertising it as something different, then it would fall into the 'against the law' category.

Quaxar:

Arakasi:

Quaxar:
Pretend you had no idea what a new spark plug for your car costs and the mechanic tells you it's a 1000$ but unfortunately you depend on that car and that is the only garage in the area...

You'd be stupid for buying it without researching it in the first place, but the mechanic could, under my system, be arrested for lying to you about the actual value of the sparkplug.

Quaxar:

...the insurance company is the experienced father that tells the mechanic he's charging ridiculous amounts for the part and you're only going to pay 50$ (I have no idea what a spark plug is worth).

Or you could do some research yourself so you don't get ripped off. There's nothing stopping today's people from doing that either by your logic, if someone doesn't have insurance.

The value of a spark plug isn't that hard to find. However, I'd like to see you get a good estimate for a medical procedure.
For example the cost of dialysis can vary vastly depending on the procedure, machines, medications, care staff size and additional comforts like seats with built-in mini TVs. And that's just scraping the top of all the cost factors much harder to calculate for you as an outsider.

The better companies that provide that sort of information would get more customers. Also the cheaper companies that do the bare minimum (which is really what I expect when I go for medical treatment, the best possible care at the lowest possible price, without extranious crap).

Quaxar:

Arakasi:
Interesting, if it were part of the job description - that you would have to pay into medical insurance, then I'd have absolutely no problem with it.

I believe in the US if the job comes with a insurance it is already in there somwhere. But anyway, in a general social healthcare system it's silly to put it in a job description since it is already a given.

See, I think you should be able to opt out, if you don't want that insurance. Of course it will be your own problem if you end up hurt and have no money, but at least it's not other people's problem.

Arakasi:

I did, and I responded.

I said read what you wrote, not what I wrote.

Arakasi:

Did I say continued existence was was a luxury? No. I said that medical care was.

Take a good long look and see if you can't spot what I'm talking about. I'll wait.

Arakasi:
If you were to die if you weren't given a gold bar would anyone give you that gold bar?

What a simplistic, fallacious, reductionist justification.

"A gold bar" (seriously?) is not the equivalent of a portion of tax subsidizing a healthcare system that provides life-saving treatment for all who are in need of it. You know, a tax that millions of people willingly pay.

And even if it was (which is utterly ludicrous), then I would still imagine that somebody would. I would certainly give away a gold bar, if I had one, if it saved a life.

But I don't have to. A portion of earnings as tax is enough.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked