Find answers, ask questions, and connect with our community around the world.

  • SAULBKNYC_904

    Member
    May 2, 2009 at 9:13 pm

    ORIGINAL: Frumious

    Dr J,

    There is a danger in a nanny-government, yes. But we already have something worse with the private insurance industry in that they can make coverage more expensive or just refuse to cover you, or cover you & then deny coverage or “renewal” if you live a dangerous lifestyle. It’s as much as having a “pre-existing condition.” The application is not much different. Do you know of patients who will pay out of pocket to ensure that some results are not part of their file? Why would they do that since there is no nanny-government health care?

     

     
    Sorry….I cannot agree with this. If you live a more dangerous lifestyle then you have to accept responsibility for you actions.  Why should I pay for your poor or risky choices.  I used to race cars and understood my regular health policy would not cover me while I was racing.  I had to pay for additional coverage through another company while racing.  I accepted that as part of the extra risk I assumed by an activity the increased my risk of injury or death.  It was not fair for you or others to assume that risk equally with me for MY choices.  Equally, if you are doing something stupid or risky, then I don’t want to pay for you either.
     

    ORIGINAL: Frumious
     
    The fact is that I do believe in public health. I think it serves society better than “you’re on your own” experience we have now. A majority of bankruptcies are caused by medical expenses. How many people do you know who have thoroughly read their coverage & fully understand it?

    I listened to Uwe Reinhardt recently discussing costs of health care. Your comment about the “collective good, (borg reference intentional) made me remember a specific point he made. He was discussing the argument between America’s “I can have it now” with Canada’s & Britain’s & Germany’s “scheduled” care. This of course assumes that you have insurance that will actually cover your care in America. His mother in Germany was scheduled for a hospital bed in 2 weeks, he didn’t say why. He volunteered to call to get her in sooner & she lectured him that he was asocial, if she got in sooner some other person would be forced to wait an additional 2 weeks. The question is, is this simply a Borg mentality, end of discussion? There are always compromises for any system chosen, assuming there are choices.

    The discussion of the subjects have been missing for years with examples that are extremes, as you note. Reinhardt finishes by warning all to be cautious of discussions calling these issues “socialism” because these labels won’t solve any problems. He notes that some say Americans don’t want Socialized Medicine but they do want immediate care & feel that society owes them to get them good & quick care. That’s a contradiction.

     
    You want to be taken care of.  I want to be allowed to take care of myself.   The freedom to succeed also allows me the freedom to fail.  A safety net so I don’t starve and die is a good role for gov.  A system that tries to make sure bad things never happen to good people is self defeating.  Even in your example of all the more enlightened people in Germany demonstrates that not only are their people who can manipulate the system to their advantage but that are willing to..So your example of the person willing to wait, are, in a way foolish.
     
    I want the ability to choose what happens to me as much as possible….at least not have the government choose for me.  If that means I carry more risk then fine….more risk usually = more reward.

    ORIGINAL: Frumious
    ——————
    I’m aware of your posting the GPS story. The fact is this can already be done with tom-toms, etc voluntarily installed by the owners. I don’t see it happening. If anything, private companies would be more interested in tracking your comings and goings & whereabouts.

     
    Tom-Toms aren’t registered to specific people and the government does not have access to do the tracking, the devices are not manditory.  all different than the big brother we would set up.

    ORIGINAL: Frumious
    You are concluding something I never said. I have no problems with real comparative religion classes in schools, but let’s not limit the classes to Christianity then, let’s make it more of a Joseph Campbell class & study them all & the ideas behind them all. Your discussion of the Reformation is limited to the Christian European history. Go back further to the origins of the Bible, what stories were chosen to be put in & which out & why, which books were written when & what the politics of the times were, the similarities of the Christ story with pagan mythologies and with Buddahism, Greek/Roman mythology and further back & other countries’ religious beliefs, even Islam. How about comparative interpretations of Judaism with Christian Old Testament? That would be comparative religion worth studying. If my children become Buddhists or Jains or Catholics is fine with me so long as they understand why.

     
    I never said it was limited ot the Reformation…just a specific example to illustrate a point.  Did you expect that I outlined the entire curruculum for 4 years?