Socialized Medicine and its consequences

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
No, this is one consequence.

Now imagine 40 million people arguably worse off than him who have no access to non-emergent medical care.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
They should show that to all medical students and politicians
 
BklynWill said:
No, this is one consequence.

Now imagine 40 million people arguably worse off than him who have no access to non-emergent medical care.
Click to expand...

Nah.. 40 million arent worse than him.. Brain cancer is pretty bad stuff.

Oh and I assume you know about 50% of those 40 mil can get insurance either from the govt or they can afford it but choose not to..

Dont confuse the facts with reality.

Health care IS NOT a right.. Look through our laws and show me otherwise.

I as a doc dont want to be a servant of the government.
 
Healthcare is NOT a right - BUT many people feel that it should be a right.

In fact, I would say given the level of complexity that our society has reached (in the post-industrial developed nations) - healthcare is a human right.

If you think that healthcare is a privelege, then you are just plain cold.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I just saw the video - the Canadian healthcare system is definitely in need of serious fixing. The wait times are a big problem but that's the compromise we make when we have socialized healthcare.

Now, in terms of quality of care, technological advancement, and world-renowned hospitals - we are certainly not short on this. It's not as if our healthcare system is backward or third-world.

At the sametime, it's quite evident that the American system is not better than the Canadian one. Our popluations and political systems are different - so our respective systems are best for our respective countries. Healthcare in the US is in need of serious fixing too. I mean, let's assume that Lindsay did not have the money to pay for the MRI and brain surgery...in Canada, he would have eventually received it. In the US, he would've died.

Also, I'll give the OP a very sarcastic kudos for posting a video that was intensley one-sided and biased (like Moore's 9/11 doc) and using that as an example of why the Canadian system is no good. Same goes for the film maker who used ONE incident to make his biased point.

We can go on and on about which system is better, and for every example you have for the sucess of the US system, we will have an example demonstrating the sucess of the Canadian system. Both are good systems - but both are not PERFECT. The world is changing, so are our economies, and our populations - with this, stress is placed on our healthcare systems, and this needs to be addressed.

But with a US govt willing to spend a large chunk of its funds for wars and a Canadian govt unwilling to even consider a modified US two tiered system b/c of ideals - don't expect anything to be fixed anytime soon.
 
xylem29 said:
I just saw the video - the Canadian healthcare system is definitely in need of serious fixing. The wait times are a big problem but that's the compromise we make when we have socialized healthcare.

Now, in terms of quality of care, technological advancement, and world-renowned hospitals - we are certainly not short on this. It's not as if our healthcare system is backward or third-world.

At the sametime, it's quite evident that the American system is not better than the Canadian one. Our popluations and political systems are different - so our respective systems are best for our respective countries. Healthcare in the US is in need of serious fixing too. I mean, let's assume that Lindsay did not have the money to pay for the MRI and brain surgery...in Canada, he would have eventually received it. In the US, he would've died.

Also, I'll give the OP a very sarcastic kudos for posting a video that was intensley one-sided and biased (like Moore's 9/11 doc) and using that as an example of why the Canadian system is no good. Same goes for the film maker who used ONE incident to make his biased point.

We can go on and on about which system is better, and for every example you have for the sucess of the US system, we will have an example demonstrating the sucess of the Canadian system. Both are good systems - but both are not PERFECT. The world is changing, so are our economies, and our populations - with this, stress is placed on our healthcare systems, and this needs to be addressed.

But with a US govt willing to spend a large chunk of its funds for wars and a Canadian govt unwilling to even consider a modified US two tiered system b/c of ideals - don't expect anything to be fixed anytime soon.
Click to expand...

;)
 
If the Supreme Court has determined that prisoners have the right to basic health care based on its interpretation of the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution, then why can't all Americans be granted this right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
xylem29 said:
Healthcare is NOT a right - BUT many people feel that it should be a right.

In fact, I would say given the level of complexity that our society has reached (in the post-industrial developed nations) - healthcare is a human right.

If you think that healthcare is a privelege, then you are just plain cold.
Click to expand...

Certainly then access to food, water, shelter and clothing are rights. Afterall, these are certainly much more necessary for survival than healthcare.

The idea that healthcare is a right is patently absurd and speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of the idea of a natural right.
 
BklynWill said:
If the Supreme Court has determined that prisoners have the right to basic health care based on its iterpretation of the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution, then why can't all Americans be granted this right?
Click to expand...

It's not a moral question of right or wrong...but it's really a financial question of who will pay for the less fortunate.
 
BklynWill said:
If the Supreme Court has determined that prisoners have the right to basic health care based on its iterpretation of the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution, then why can't all Americans be granted this right?
Click to expand...

Prisoners are denied the ability to work to pay for their own healthcare.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Shah_Patel_PT said:
It's not a moral question of right or wrong...but it's really a financial question of who will pay for the less fortunate.
Click to expand...

It can be a moral question. The question is are we willing to use violence (being that all taxes are necessarily taken at the point of a gun) to force those who work to pay for the healthcare of those who dont.
 
logos said:
Certainly then access to food, water, shelter and clothing are rights. Afterall, these are certainly much more necessary for survival than healthcare.

The idea that healthcare is a right is patently absurd and speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of the idea of a natural right.
Click to expand...

Natural rights have little to do with what is necessary for survival. Food is needed but it is not a right. Shelter is needed but it too is not a right. Nothing can be a natural right which requires someone else to provide it for you. Look at our basic 'rights'. They all involve people NOT doing something; people can't kill you (right to life) people can't imprision you (right to liberty), they cant keep you from voting (right to suffrage) and so on. The way Locke as well as our Founding Fathers framed what constitutes a right is something which necessarily cannot impinge on someone's rights (ie forcing them to do something).

Therefore, since health care must be provided by someone who is trained in medicine, nursing, dentistry etc it cannot be a right.


As to the whole supreme court ruling about prisoners, it has to do with right of access to health care, which is just an extension of freedom to choose. It does not have to do with right to health care:

Since someone is imprisoned they cannot seek health care on their own. Thus if it is not offered by the prison it would be tantamount to the prison denying the prisoners access to health care. Again note how this is prohibiting one group from STOPPING another group from doing something.

So, the Gov't cant keep you from getting water but that does not mean that they have to provide it for you. Same idea fits for health care.
 
Instatewaiter said:
Natural rights have little to do with what is necessary for survival. Food is needed but it is not a right. Shelter is needed but it too is not a right. Nothing can be a natural right which requires someone else to provide it for you. Look at our basic 'rights'. They all involve people NOT doing something; people can't kill you (right to life) people can't imprision you (right to liberty), they cant keep you from voting (right to suffrage) and so on. The way Locke as well as our Founding Fathers framed what constitutes a right is something which necessarily cannot impinge on someone's rights (ie forcing them to do something).

Therefore, since health care must be provided by someone who is trained in medicine, nursing, dentistry etc it cannot be a right.


As to the whole supreme court ruling about prisoners, it has to do with right of access to health care, which is just an extension of freedom to choose. It does not have to do with right to health care:

Since someone is imprisoned they cannot seek health care on their own. Thus if it is not offered by the prison it would be tantamount to the prison denying the prisoners access to health care. Again note how this is prohibiting one group from STOPPING another group from doing something.

So, the Gov't cant keep you from getting water but that does not mean that they have to provide it for you. Same idea fits for health care.
Click to expand...


:thumbup: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Someone else got schooled... :laugh:
 
Instatewaiter said:
Natural rights have little to do with what is necessary for survival. Food is needed but it is not a right. Shelter is needed but it too is not a right. Nothing can be a natural right which requires someone else to provide it for you. Look at our basic 'rights'. They all involve people NOT doing something; people can't kill you (right to life) people can't imprision you (right to liberty), they cant keep you from voting (right to suffrage) and so on. The way Locke as well as our Founding Fathers framed what constitutes a right is something which necessarily cannot impinge on someone's rights (ie forcing them to do something).

Therefore, since health care must be provided by someone who is trained in medicine, nursing, dentistry etc it cannot be a right.

As to the whole supreme court ruling about prisoners, it has to do with right of access to health care, which is just an extension of freedom to choose. It does not have to do with right to health care:

Since someone is imprisoned they cannot seek health care on their own. Thus if it is not offered by the prison it would be tantamount to the prison denying the prisoners access to health care. Again note how this is prohibiting one group from STOPPING another group from doing something.

So, the Gov't cant keep you from getting water but that does not mean that they have to provide it for you. Same idea fits for health care.
Click to expand...
That's because you only believe in negative rights and not positive rights, and take a libertarian stance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

What you say above is not carved in stone, it is just your opinion of what human rights include. You have a much narrower view of human rights than do the major international bodies, as well as many countries' constitutions.

And, as mentioned in Wikipedia...

"Critics argue that the distinction between negative and positive rights is a false dichotomy. Some draw attention to the question of enforcement to argue that it is illogical for certain rights traditionally characterised as negative, such as the right to property or freedom from violence, to be so categorised. While rights to property and freedom from violence require that individuals refrain from fraud and theft, they can only be upheld by 'positive' actions by individuals or the state. Individuals can only defend the right to property by repelling attempted theft, while the state must make provision for a police force, or even army, which in turn must be funded through taxation. It is therefore argued that these rights, although generally considered negative by libertarians and classical liberals, are in fact just as 'positive' or 'economic' in nature as 'positive' rights such as the right to an education."

The video is indeed one-sided; it does not explore what would happen to Americans who don't happen to inherit a substantial sum of money at around the same time they get brain cancer. Hint: they die.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
It is wrong to steal money/property/anything from one person who has earned it and give it to someone who has not. Taking earned money from someone and paying someone elses medical bills while not giving the productive person just compensation is always wrong.

It doesn't matter if the topic is health care, wellfare, or social security....Stealing is wrong.
 
The difference between what the Gov't should provide to improve its society and what is a right is a distinction that is not made, and should be made, when talking about positive rights. Sure it is a good idea to have an educated citizenry but you cannot impose your will on one group to provide the right for another group. That violates their most basic rights (which trump your silly positive rights).

Note that our founding fathers, in order to maintain personal rights intentionally steered the country away from a strong central gov't. They were concerned about protecting the citizenry from the gov't. It was not about providing for the citizens; it was about leaving them alone.

So lets use the police as an example of a postive 'right.' You are gauranteed the right to property, not the right to have someone protect your property. The right to property is an idea that you are allowed to have property and it is not right for anyone to take it unjustly from you. Again this has nothing to do with helping you keep the property.

So back to our police example to show why positive rights become problematic. The inaleinable rights are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (or property if going by Locke). Everyone will agree that these are paramount, the most important rights. Let us assume that there are not enough people who want to be policemen. But according to the idea of positive rights you must provide protection. That means that you have to FORCE people to be policemen. This is the problem with positive rights; when people are unwilling to provide the positive right you have to subjugate their right to liberty. That is just a ridiculous notion.


Now the only way to get around the above argument is to say that there is no hierarchy of rights, that is right to protection or right to healthcare or right to education are equal to right to life, right to liberty etc.
Again this is obscene. Which would you be more outraged by: a cop who did not stop a burglar from stealing someone's TV for no reason or a cop who murders someone in cold blood for no reason? Despite the fact that the Superbowl is coming up so most of you value that TV, I think the inaleinable rights (life) have it.

Note that even when all rights are equal we dont completely disrupt the argument above. Above I was saying that exchanging a smaller 'right' for a more important one is ridiculous for obvious reasons. Now, if these rights were equal you would still be subjugating someones rights. When they are equal in weight and you are giving one at the expense of another. It is the same as never giving them the first right. Give one & take one away and you have nothing.

Look I agree that there are certain "public goods" that people won't pay for. It is a good idea that the government provide these since no one else will. There are also other services such as education that will make the country run more smoothly if everyone receives 'em. Sure, I will even say that the Gov't has a responsibility to provide these goods and services. So, these ARE right then?

No! Rights have nothing to do with govenments. Rights are not things that the Gov't feels charitable enough to give you. You don't derive your rights from any governement; the are completely independent. Any 'right' that must be provided by the Gov't is no right at all.
 
fun stuff.. ill leave the deep discussion to those of you with more time than me. Anyways.. I will say it again.. Dont force me to do ANYTHING. Health Care is NOT a right. Finished.. the end.. Finis..
 
random-dude said:
It is wrong to steal money/property/anything from one person who has earned it and give it to someone who has not. Taking earned money from someone and paying someone elses medical bills while not giving the productive person just compensation is always wrong.

It doesn't matter if the topic is health care, wellfare, or social security....Stealing is wrong.
Click to expand...
You must explore the meaning of "earned", or "just compensation". Do we compensate people justly in this system (or any system for that matter)? When somebody makes money, does that mean they have automatically "earned" it (which is a moral judgment)? Is the market the best moral arbiter of the amounts that people "deserve" i.e. "earn"?

I am not claiming to know the answers to these questions. I do suspect that people are not always compensated justly in the current system. Why do some people make lots of money for "work" of little social value (or no work at all)? I'm not talking welfare bums here, but rather currency speculators and the like. Why do some not get financially compensated at all, despite doing work that is enormously valuable to the collective? Here, I mean those who provide quality child care, elder care, domestic work, volunteering, political/civic involvement, etc...

It's not that cut-and-dried, is all I'm trying to say.
 
Well when you live in reality the market is the force that drives salaries/compensation. The market is blind to right and wrong it only goes based on need/want. I'm saying that some things are cut and dry like STEALING IS WRONG.....ie: taxation without compensation.

Income tax is taken without you getting to say where that money goes so it is basically giving you nothing in return. I can't say I want my money to go to defense/police/courts only, so I don't know where it is going. It could be going to a service that I will never use (wellfare/social security/medicaid) so it is essentially stealing at the point of a gun (ie:jailtime) which is clearly wrong.

so in closing Stealing is wrong (just in case no one got it the first three times)
 
random-dude said:
Income tax is taken without you getting to say where that money goes so it is basically giving you nothing in return. I can't say I want my money to go to defense/police/courts only, so I don't know where it is going. It could be going to a service that I will never use (wellfare/social security/medicaid) so it is essentially stealing at the point of a gun (ie:jailtime) which is clearly wrong.
Click to expand...

Look I agree that a lot of your tax money goes to things that I don't agree with. However 'market forces' will not provide for everything, like 'public goods.' Left to the market and people's interests we would not have a police force or an army or a good infrastructure such as nice paved roads.

As to the whole social security/welfare issue they are actually a good thing in theory. I do not agree with their growth since first installed or how they are run but they DO strengthen the economy. During down turns these end up creating a safety net that puts money in the hands of the consumer. This money helps fuel the economy and moves us back toward an up turn.

Personally I agree with a smaller, less bureaucratic central gov't so that people are left to their own. Gov'ts job is to hold order and provide things that the citizens cannot (or would not) provide for themselves. For this reason you should not have a major say in where your taxes go.
 
But the issue of rights and responsibilities are always subservient to the politics of the day... Which means if both the Executive Branch and Congress and feel something is a right it becomes a right :rolleyes:

Of course being the strict libertarian I am, I'm somewhat aghast at the government taking over our health care system. Although "government work" usually means you can do a crappy job and leave work at 2, in medicine that's probably not (and should not) going to fly. And when the government likes to pass rules if you break those rules, you don't get fined or sued or angry calls from collections agents at 3 am, you get arrested, put on trial and sent to prison. Perhaps a less sensationalistic thing -- the NIH has passed rules that prevent any of its employees from investing in any bio/biotech firm. Let's not get started about the government and stem cell research. Basically, once you get the government involved unlike private industry you can't just find another firm -- you're stuck with the politics of the highest leader, no matter how smart or stupid he (she) is.

One important remedy would be for a unified payor/payee insurance system arbitor, kind of like transunion for credit checks. In other words, let there be a service which collates all of the health insurance bills from the various companies and deals with the overhead/etc and simply refunds physicians promptly and with much less paperwork. Let the insurance companies fund the service -- do this by having most physicians refuse to accept insurance without such a service. Instant overhead remedy and no government involvement! Another way would be towards a sole capitation model-- so long as it fairly compensated physicians, it might also be far simpler.

There may be a way to have most of the 40ish million to get some kind of basic care, maybe primarily from NPs and PAs or "minute-clinics" who would refer to a doctor when serious complications arise. Basic care should be paid by the individual. If there were catastrophic costs involved, maybe have a private foundation try and collect donations and help patients pay those enormous costs without having to resort to bankruptcy. In England they have both Internet and phone services that can help direct patients for self-care in case of mild problems which can be taken care of at home with over the counter remedies. As part of that system there can be preventive health care models, say having part of the tobacco settlement fund fund tobacco cessation programs, etc.

The real danger is that the government will take over insurance companies and then begin to progressively decrease reimbursement to 50% of what they are now, over a period of 10-15 years. At least insurance companies can be limited if there is negotiation between associations of physicians and the companies. The government can basically do what it wants by fiat of the president or congress.
 
Instatewaiter said:
As to the whole social security/welfare issue they are actually a good thing in theory. I do not agree with their growth since first installed or how they are run but they DO strengthen the economy. During down turns these end up creating a safety net that puts money in the hands of the consumer. This money helps fuel the economy and moves us back toward an up turn.
Click to expand...

Well, sort of. That is called keynesian economics and it probably works to a small extent. The problem is that if the government didnt distribute that money in the form of welfare and the like, it would have either spent it or never taken it as taxes in the first place, both of which would essentially have the same stimulatory effect on the economy. ie no net difference.
 
I hate it that things like roads and police and firefighters are financed with MY stolen money. These should all be financed with private money. What a great world that would be!
Oh wait, they used to do that already. Firefighters used to not save houses that didn't have the firefighter medallions on them since they hadn't paid for these services. But guess what, society deemed that it was important to pay for these with public funds because it was a benefit to society as a whole.
You see no person is truly an individual, so going of of purely "individual rights" no matter how they are defined is incomplete. Eg, my right of the "pursuit of happiness" would be curtailed if it involved killing people, or in some places even not cutting my grass often enough (which I personally think is ridiculous, but anyway)!
The money you make is NOT YOURS! It exists because you have made it within a certain environment. That environment must be paid for by *gasp* taxes. A government without taxes is no government. By following your logic, then all elected official are stealing our money with their salaries and we should basically have anarchy. I don't think doctors would do very well under those circumstances.
This is not only about what is constitutionally considered a right, because that has been and will be interpreted differently at different times. It is also about whether society is better off or not. Excessive social inequality (whether it be by education, health care, etc...) is bad for society. Some inequality, especially income, is unaviodable and in fact beneficial. Society of course needs economic winners and loser to create incentives. But there are basic things that as a rich nation many agree we should all have, for the best functioning society. Excessive inequality leads to crime, prejudices, addictions, and more. You're a bunch of docs and should stop pretending to be economists. Adam Smith was 1776, hopefully we come up with something better since then. And if any of you had actually read him, you would find that he actually is not for "unrestricted" capitalism (an oxymoron because capitalism is in fact a system, so of course is made of rules and restrictions) and has some support for socialism practices.
The fact is, we are have some socialism, which as we all should know is what brought us out of the great depression (i'd call this better for society, wouldn't you?)
The Canadian is in fact being very polite. He is correct when he states that different countries are different and placing some other country's system plop right on top of another country's system. But he was too nice to press for the fact that the US can and should devise its own universal system for its citizens.
I also doubt the statistics of the fact that half can afford it. I have many friends working hourly jobs that can't afford healthcare. If you have a pre-existing condition, be it even just OCD or irritable bowel syndrome, then health care can be out of reach on a waitress' salary. Even if it is "within reach" we all have a cost-benfit system, and many choose to gamble rather than use the small amount of disposable income on health. To force everyone to pay into this system is needed? If it can be made affordable for everyone, then yes. Even if this means that some may only be able to afford a 55 inch TV instead of a 70 inch plasma screen.
 
logos said:
Certainly then access to food, water, shelter and clothing are rights. Afterall, these are certainly much more necessary for survival than healthcare.

The idea that healthcare is a right is patently absurd and speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of the idea of a natural right.
Click to expand...

How does it go, Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? I would say these three things imply certain rights to all members of society if not implicitly. I would further say that healthcare is a greater fundamental necessity than say education, but we all agree that all americans have a right to an education.
It also seems to me that there is most likely more to this story than the film makers let on. Is there a shortage of medical facilities in canada capable of performing MRI's, why the long wait time? Why is it that there is so much crowding in the MRI system in canada but not the U.S.? Clearly the U.S. has the capacity to treat all the individuals who need MRI's if we are able to handle the canadian overflow in a month, maybe it's the 40 million uninsured that have no access that are freeing up the system but I doubt it.
Honestly I see this problem as not a fault of the program, but a problem of the implementation strategy which can easily be resolved by structuring facilities to handle the greater demands for MRI. This may mean more to the canadian taxpayer but when stretched over the entire population, and if it really is as a big problem as they make it seem, one I am sure they can easily tolerate.
 
Thomasss,

Your right my money is not mine, just like my medical degree (hopefully in 6 months) will not be mine. Just as my state license is not mine because all of these things are part of systems. In fact by that logic nothing is mine or yours or anybodies. If that is true then why do we need police, judges, courts or anything. Since nothing belongs to anyone then anyone has a right to it (money, property, ideas) why do we get upset when someone robs a bank, or steals a car, or kills someone.

That sounds like anarchy to me.

People will pay for services such as police, firefighters, courts, military, even roads if there is incentive to do it. Owning property is an incentive to pay for most of these things.

But since I don't own property by your logic then your right, f*** it I don't need to pay for anything because I can't benefit from it in anyway. If my house burns down I'll steal my neighbors since he doesn't own his house and I have a right to it.
 
Thomass, (funny name heh) think about what you're saying for a moment. Think hard. I'm a libertarian not an anarchist!

Fortunately we don't live in a country that says individuals have no right to property. My parents fled that kind of crappy system. No one said we need to abandon the dying on the streets. This country does need to fix a horribly broken health care system; and the fact is, there does seem to be a need for some kind of basic covered care for everyone. Besides which, the overhead alone is sucking 10% of our GDP.

But that doesn't mean everyone should get the same care, or that everyone _deserves_ the same thing. Obviously if a person is acutely ill/near death, as a physician it is ethically obligatory to treat the person. But at the same time physicians are people too; and our work and our innovation should be fairly rewarded.

Anyway, this is a moot point. The US is a mostly capitalistic country, and not a socialist nor communist one. We have the right to property, free speech and ownership of firearms because the founding fathers determined individual liberty > communal well being in most cases during peacetime. The tide was somewhat turned in the 30s but we are not Sweden, Israel or Belarus. For better or worse. I'm still against the horrendous taxes on investment and estate taxation. (since you're getting taxed twice or three times for the same income!)

By the way, the notion of a strong state trumping individualism is the hallmark of a fascist society (not necessarily nazi though).
 
I like my name Thomasss, I use it in a few different forums. It gives people a cheap shot at me. Everyone loves cheap shots, so I like to provide to them. That way I can take em as well! ;)
I have thought about this. A lot. I understand a lot about foreign societies and governments. What Americans don't realize is that WE are the extreme, not those with socialist practices. Any thought that carries a trend towards socialist or the idea of the common good occasionally having an effect gets tarred as facist and communist in the US. This is a lack of understanding.
Actually, absolute individualism would be anarchy. If anybody could do as they please, this is lack of anything.
There is plenty of accountability in the US. Many people that don't pursue a practical path to a more stable and productive life do so because of inequity, lack of perceived opportunity and such. Sure there are rich and middle income kids that do nothing, but higher incomes aren't gonna motivate them, they're dissillusioned and/or spoiled.
A lack of a nuanced picture leads to extremeness and fundamentalism. Think hard. Any extreme form of government and economic system has its faults. What should be done is to uphold that system, but have a damage control to minize the negatie effects of the system. Capitalism is the best we have and for all its faults provides pretty darn well. But socialist interventions can help pick up where the system lacks. Our capitalist system would even be supported by some interventions. One of the many reasons our auto companies are dying and creating large pockets of crime and poverty-- expensive healthcare. A social network of healthcare would move away from emplyee-based care that is a burden on our businesses. One reason why China is as well of today is due to providing (for its income level) decent healthcare and education. Interventions like this are a far cry from anarchy or fascism, two completely opposing ideologies which my thoughts simultaneously somehow got accused of.
To say nothing should belong to anyone is indeed an extreme view, and I admit I don't truly advocate that. I also took an extreme side, but it was to show that you DO owe society something for where you are today and are not completely justified in no paying back for where you are today.
Now as for choosing where your money, I suppose we could each have on our taxes box to check which program our money goes to. Sounds pretty scary and inefficient to me though.
 
I have thought about this. A lot.
Click to expand...
So have I.

I understand a lot about foreign societies and governments. What Americans don't realize is that WE are the extreme
Click to expand...
There is nothing wrong with being "the extreme" if you are right (and I believe we are)

Actually, absolute individualism would be anarchy. If anybody could do as they please, this is lack of anything.
Click to expand...

Individualism is not anybody doing as they please, or at least not the way that I mean individualism. You can be an individual and still respect the rights of other individuals. In this type of society the individuals recognize that others have the same rights to life, liberty, property that you have.


Think hard.
Click to expand...
I'll try. Also you alluded earlier that we are doctors not economists. Well some of us were workin' stiffs before medical school and were economists, philosophers ("do you want fries with that?"), and read books by Adam Smith/John Locke/Fredrick Bastiat/and here it comes Ayn Rand. Just because I'm going to be a doctor doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.

you DO owe society something for where you are today and are not completely justified in no paying back for where you are today.
Click to expand...
Look I'm not saying that people don't rely on each other. I rely on others all the time. What I am saying is that I never force someone to give me something that they do not want to give me. I don't cheat/steal/use force first. And no I don't feel I owe society anything.

I believe taxing = stealing. At least the way we do it in this country right now. Programs like social security/welfare/medicaid are wrong and I don't want to see any more of my earned money stolen to pay for services I don't use.

I love this discussion by the way...
 
The philosophy of state before individual is acutely demonstrated in Starship Troopers-- I'd advise you to see it Thomas, if you haven't already. Its genius is not the action movie quality of the film, but the satire of fascism -- albeit in a state of war against...er alien bugs. But it's effective. Also in the film you see a tearing down of ethnic and gender roles, the president is a black woman, the best pilots women (not to mention that men and women do everything together, infantry). But the society/government is inherently fascist-- military service for citizenship etc etc. The bugs are actually responding to the colonization of their space by humankind... It's a fascinating movie.

Much of Chinese government economic strategy is likewise fascist-- the government is highly involved in many stages of its "capitalistic" framework. And it also downgrades individual rights and bans people from freely associating (Falun Gong).
 
thewebthsp: I've already stated that I am not into the extreme gov't of fascism. I need not state this again and will no longer respond at attempts to tar me as supporting fascist and communist regimes. The world is not black and white. Every gov't chooses to sometimes put the good of the many above the good of the individual. It is simply where the balance lies that we differ. I am for a free scoiety, but occasionally yes, these freedoms must be restricted in order for the good of society. They already are in the US. You need a driver's liscense to drive, you can't support a terrorist organizations, you can't just build a house wherever you like. DO you really even believe the right to bear arms should be totally unrestricted? How about small independent organisations getting WMDs? As bad as the gov't has acted lately, I trust them above individuals in usage of those!
 
Randomdude:
I'm truly glad you're here to kick me off my soapbox. It needed to be done. My thinking statement was more directed towards someone else who told me to "think hard", but you are correct in nailing me on my assumption that I'm smarter than everyone else, cuz I'm not.
And congra-rats on your soon-to-be medical degree. Your a smartie and should do well.
And while you are more well read than me on Western philosophy I'm sure (never read Bastiat), I will note that everything you've noted is within the same liberatarian category. Other influence should hopefully be included. Even when I read the daily news, I read alternet and the national review online to get opposing POVs (however, most extreme news sources like both of those are 80% ideological garbage). I'll go ahead and say it: even read *gasp* Marx. Believe it or not, he was also a smart cookie and has a lot of interesting things to say. It's those lousy Lenin and Mao characters that screwed everything up into the extreme socialist ideologies that the US sees Marxism as these days.
Anyway, the discussion is fun, but both of our minds are essentially closed. The differences come from a difference of basic world view which lead to a difference in morals and ethics. The same fact can be seen in different ways by both of us. Say if both of us have a poor childhood and arrived to the success of where we are today (which may we be the truth for both of us). You would take the POV that an extreme individualist and capitalist system led you to work hard and take the opportunities that drive to a greater productivity. However I would say productivity in not the ends, but a means, and that I should not have been put as such a large disadvantage (and continue to be) because I was born in such an unfortunate situation.
I believe that you know that the system provided you for your success, but I don't believe you truly feel it. I believe this very strongly to the core, down to the fact that free-will in actually an illusion. But lets not get into that.
What are the purposes or rights and freedoms? It is not some absolute right or wrong, cuz there is no such thing. All rights are actually determined by human societies. It was (correctly) determined by modern Western societies that many individual rights need to be protected. This is actually done because it is best for all the individuals in that society. However, occasionally the common good must take precedent for the common good of society. The individual must pay back for what has been given AND earned by him in order for the betterment of society as a whole. I could go on and on, but its gotten out of hand...
 
oh and if you wanna get into falun gong and the western misconceptions about that situation, we would need to start a new thread. they are not simply a "freely associating" organization.
 
e_phn said:
If I were the Canadian govt., I would change their health care system...

Also, I heard somewhere that lots of Canadian docs come to the US to practice medicine....not sure if that's true or not...
Click to expand...

I personally have lots of friends who are personally trying to get out of Canada.

Lot of medical students are desperately trying to match in the USA.
 
Nationalized healthcare is bad.. unless you think the guy flipping burgers should outearn you.

If you do get to it.. when it happens Ill be lining up for a job at Wendys.. The fringe benefits are better..
 
Or maybe walmart.. when the govt is done with them they will become a big slumbering wasteful corp who will be wasting money.

Hmm sounds like the government we have now..

I guess our Congress doesnt want to be shown up..
 
Shah_Patel_PT said:
I personally have lots of friends who are personally trying to get out of Canada.

Lot of medical students are desperately trying to match in the USA.
Click to expand...

I heard it's because it's too tough to get into medical school in Canada. What I have read is that a U.S. student has almost no chance of getting in with a Canadian med school.
 
EctopicFetus said:
Or maybe walmart.. when the govt is done with them they will become a big slumbering wasteful corp who will be wasting money.

Hmm sounds like the government we have now..

I guess our Congress doesnt want to be shown up..
Click to expand...

Hi Ectopic: I'm pro single-payer myself. Will it make medicine unbearable? I doubt it. It might even raise our pay for a while.
 
Likely pay would become more uniform.. instead of 300-1,000 K for specialists and 120K for generalists, pay would be 160-180K for everyone. SOunds very communistic.
 
thewebthsp said:
Likely pay would become more uniform.. instead of 300-1,000 K for specialists and 120K for generalists, pay would be 160-180K for everyone. SOunds very communistic.
Click to expand...

Seems like it would be difficult to predict the future precisely. It would be a good idea for physicians to participate in the political process as much as they can given their limited time.

Why do you think pay would become more uniform? Why do you think pay is not more uniform now and what do you expect will change this?
 
http://www.pnhp.org/
The U.S. spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care, $7,129 per capita. Yet our system performs poorly in comparison and still leaves 46 million without health coverage and millions more inadequately covered.

This is because private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consume one-third (31 percent) of every health care dollar. Streamlining payment though a single nonprofit payer would save more than $350 billion per year, enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans.

*********

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/february/migration_of_canadia.php
Over the past five years, the proportion of Canadian physicians moving in and out of the country has decreased by 30.6%. While both the number leaving and the number returning to the country are on the decline, Canada has seen a larger decrease in the number of physicians leaving the country. As a result, the proportion of physicians returning to the country is now greater than the proportion leaving.
 
Even in countries with nationalized healthcare like Canada, pay scale will NEVER be uniform. It's still procedure-oriented but they used different codes (not CPT codes). The surgical fields still come on top but some family practitioners can make as much money (especially those trying to kill themselves working) as some non-surgical specialists. I've worked there, and there is just too many burnouts (especially FPs and Emerg. Meds). You have to work a LOT harder to get the same income.
 
In other words, while the income disparity isn't totally reduced, it is much reduced...

I can see this being good in some ways, with docs choosing fields based more on their love of the specialty than on money... but the problem is that it still causes a disincentive for quality, and innovation that a more free market system encourages. Medicine I agree isn't exactly amenable to a purely supply and demand system. Still I'd like to avoid the Canadian system, wherein some doctors actually have a "salary cap."
 
random-dude said:
Stealing is wrong.
Click to expand...

Correct, stealing is wrong.
Taxes are not stealing.
We all have a choice. We are free to opt out of the system and renounce citizenship in order to live elsewhere.

You make a choice to belong to a system that includes requirements you don't like (US citizenship, hospital bylaws and policies, union membership, homeowners' association, church or temple, etc.). Don't just complain. Have the courage to do what you think is right: either comply with the rules to which you agreed, work to change them, or drop out of that system. If you choose to attempt to change the rules by defying them, have the courage to do it openly and accept the consequences.
 
As much as I disagree with random-dude, I don't think that is really relevant either. He has a right to try to stay in the US and vote for changes in the system that follow his ideology. Everyone has things they don't like about where they live, it doesn't mean they should all just leave. Dude will vote for conservative of the liberatarian flavor leaving the underprivelaged to rot and I will vote for a bunch of fascist commies to come and support deadbeats and criminals and decrease the productivity of our capitalist society. Criticism from all sides is necessary on issues, not kicking out the dissenters.
 
taxation isn't per se stealing, but uncontrolled government spending usually is...

Basically -- people in the government --> friends of these people --> get massively inflated contracts and sometimes do a decent job, and sometimes a terrible job...

For example --> outsourcing of "rebuilding" in Iraq --> billions of dollars missing

That's why so many republicans are in arms about how massively the executive branch expanded the government

social security and medicare are in theory good systems, but highly inefficient
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

H
Socialized Medicine
2
Replies
56
Views
5K
doctalaughs
D
9
  • Locked
  • Poll
Survey of intergenerational opinions on socialized medicine/single payer/'medicare for all'
2 3 4
Replies
151
Views
9K
gyngyn
gyngyn
D
Cancel culture at its finest?
Replies
0
Views
2K
dantt
D
C
Technology social media help!
Replies
0
Views
2K
coast22
C
Lawpy
Policy Pharma finds its feet in fight against climate change
Replies
0
Views
885
Lawpy
Lawpy
Top