I’ll wait for it to come out on video. I am not a big Chris Kyle fan and I’m sure the movie is as embellished, or more so, than the book. Time will tell for me.
It’ll be hard to watch knowing how big of a liar Chris Kyle was…
Unheralded facts about American health care
-
In Norway the health system is pretty good, but the health care system is run by people, and not all people are pretty smart…
Some politicians and health care executives think and act like it’s their hospitals and like the doctors are there employees. No system is better than the people at the top making decisions which affect both health care workers and patients. To less money is definitely the biggest problem, not the system by itself, and Norway spends less on health care than the US, in % relative to the GNP.
Some years ago people started complaining, because patients in Germany didn’t have to wait several months to get a surgical treatment.
-
Let me clarify, the items denoted by letters a through j are direct quotes from Scott Atlas. If he distorted something that is his issue, I am not distorting anything, I am just putting down what he wrote and then at the bottom, delineated by a horizontal rule, my comments.
I think there are bigger issues today than universal or centrally controlled health care for everyone.
However, I do believe that the best method of health care for our citizenry is the one we currently have because the alternative - at least the one we know about - is far worse, as demonstrated in Scott Atlas’ report. Just about every nation that is currently employing a centrally organized health care plan (regardless of who the central controlling agency is) has a worse plan than what we currently have.
So the thought comes to mind, if I had a Corvette, brand new, with a full warranty and someone offered me a Stock Delorean with 250,000 miles on it, no warranty in trade for the Corvette, why in the world would I make the trade? The Corvette’s still in perfectly working order and is functioning way better than the delorean could possibly be performing!
U-505:
I do not believe that America is the “richest country in the world.” I believe China might have that honor now.
America is the most technologically and medically advanced country in the world and I believe this is due in great part to the fact that our doctors, hospitals and medical equipment manufacturers need to be the best in order to get the money. If we took away the need for them to be the best and instead, evened the playing field so even the worst doctor got the same income as the best doctor - like in systems run by central controlling agencies - then our technological and medical edge would dissolve and some nation that is currently using competition to produce the best would have the best instead of us.
Also, your car analogy is off.
More Realistic:
My neighbor has a Volvo and I have a Prius.
Yes, the Volvo will get you to work and back just like the Prius, but why would I give up the technology, the comfort and the fuel efficiency of the Prius and get forced to drive a Volvo?
Why should I give up the comfort, efficiency and technology of the American health care system and get forced to use a worse system that may result in my untimely death like the ones in Europe and Canada when I have something better? Sure, if I don’t have anything better than what Canada or Europe has, then it’d be great to have what they have, but if I have better, why should I downgrade?
Anyway, A44bigdog, what state are you in that the VA is actually doing a decent job for you?
I’m 6 weeks into a 24 week waiting period to get an MRI, my VA facility is over 40 miles from my house, there is no VA provided transportation nor reimbursement on travel expenses to get there, I do not have any control over what quack they assign to my case (and it changes on a semi-annual basis), when i get there I have to wait 4 hours, even when I am early and the machine is antiquated technology.
Honestly, the worst thing in the world is the VA system, I bet it’s even worse than the Canadian or European system! Hell, if it were not for the piles of aspirin in their pharmacy, it’d be worse than the Cuban system! I’ve actually contemplated if it would be worth it or not to cut off my breast instead of going to the Illinois VA, Centralized Universal Health Care facility - since with my breast removed I could legitimately go to a real hospital (like Alexian Brothers which is in walking distance, or Northwest Community which is world renowned) and be allowed to “miss” my appointment without jeopardizing my service connected disability payments. (Lousy arsed gov’t is always trying to short change us War Vets with War Wounds. Sure, frazzin good for nothing gang bangers get their welfare checks, but may the gods forbid those of us who stood up and took a bullet for our nation get our pay without jumping through 40 billion hoops then explaining why we were able to get through the hoops!)
-
@Cmdr:
However, I do believe that the best method of health care for our citizenry is the one we currently have because the alternative - at least the one we know about - is far worse, as demonstrated in Scott Atlas’ report. Just about every nation that is currently employing a centrally organized health care plan (regardless of who the central controlling agency is) has a worse plan than what we currently have.
I can’t fathom saying that our system is the best one, especially when ever-greater numbers of people are forced to go without health care and more companies are forced to exclude health insurance from their benefits just because of the costs (There are some good statistics over at the NCHC)
Not every nation that has nationalized health care is having problems with their system. There are several countries in the Far East that have systems that appear to work well. Take Japan, for instance. It works because of the culture there. Ultimately, health care will work if it addresses the culture of the nation it is being implemented into. There are a myriad of ways to implement it, so to think of nationalized health care as a single static entity isn’t quite correct since there are many flavors around the world.
@Cmdr:
I do not believe that America is the “richest country in the world.” I believe China might have that honor now.
Nope. Not even close. According to the CIA World Factbook, GDP for 2008:
USA - 14,330,000,000,000
China - 4,222,000,000,000No other single country even approaches the GDP of the US. Only the European Union as a whole has a greater GDP.
-
Not really looking at GDP. China owns the United States by owning our debt. So how can we possibly be richer than they are?
Anyway, not saying our system is the best system possible, but it is better than the systems that are centrally controlled by an agency without competition. (Whether that is a government, a company or another single controlling agency)
-
@Cmdr:
Not really looking at GDP. China owns the United States by owning our debt. So how can we possibly be richer than they are?
GDP sure seems to me like an adequate measure of national wealth. You’re also blowing our debt owned by China way out of proportion. As of 11/08, China only owns 22% of our debt, or $682 billion. How is 682 > 14,330???
@Cmdr:
Anyway, not saying our system is the best system possible, but it is better than the systems that are centrally controlled by an agency without competition. (Whether that is a government, a company or another single controlling agency)
Define “better”.
-
A system that leaves about 10-15 % of population (not sure about the exact percent but anyway is enough great) without health care is not the better system. In Spain, 100 % of population gets health care (even inmigrants have the right of using it), and waiting times issues could be solved by proper use of the money and human resources (and we could get that with better politicians, a thing we cannot have while we stick to crappy two-parties-closed-lists system :-P, but that’s another issue )
-
Revise what I posted. China owns 22% of the debt owned by foreign nations. This translates to only ~6% of our total debt.
-
How does your chart stack compared to total US Debt (including citizens) to domestics and foreigners?
Just curious.
Anyway, you asked for my definition of “better.”
Better: To be a better health care system it must have superior technology, superior medical knowledge, superior medicine, superior infant and elderly survival rates and/or superior disease and injury survival rates.
Obviously, a system does not have to be superior in all aspects to be better than another system. Being superior in significantly more aspects than the other system would allow the system to be called better.
For instance, if the Nation of Ik had a universal health care system but had no aspirin or other drugs to treat illnesses and injuries, the doctors were trained witch doctors with no university level medical training, but everyone had equal access to medical treatments, it would not be “better” than the system in a Nation of Ugtir where every medical professional has to graduate in the top 50% of their class to get a medical license, drugs and medical technology is plentiful and available, but people had to chose between hospital and doctor A vs hospital and doctor B where A may be more or less expensive and qualified than B is.
In the above example, with two made up, non-existent nations as examples, it is obvious that the health care system in Ugtir is far superior, and thus better, than system in Ik.
Given that Ugtir has a far superior system, one which is not perfect, one where some people just plain out cannot afford the absolute best medicine available for their needs, but one where the medicine needed at least exists to be bought, why would they voluntarily hamstring themselves and move to the system employed by Ik?
-
@Cmdr:
For instance, if the Nation of Ik had a universal health care system but had no aspirin or other drugs to treat illnesses and injuries, the doctors were trained witch doctors with no university level medical training, but everyone had equal access to medical treatments, it would not be “better” than the system in a Nation of Ugtir where every medical professional has to graduate in the top 50% of their class to get a medical license, drugs and medical technology is plentiful and available, but people had to chose between hospital and doctor A vs hospital and doctor B where A may be more or less expensive and qualified than B is.
European Union countries have aspirin, other drugs and pretty good well doctors with pretty good academical knowledge and, in the mine, they have to pass 6 years of university and 2 years of MIR (google that one) AND we have a universal health care system AND we can choose hospital and doctor, a bunch of things that many poor people in a private healthcare system cannot do
-
I did not say that European Nations did not have that. I created two fictional nations on purpose to show a dichotomy in an effort to explain the way I am using the term “better”.
I can say that the current incarnation of universal health care in the United States (the VA system) is an abysmal failure. There are long waiting lists for the most basic of treatments, your case manager does not even know what you look like, you’re just a number on a form, you cannot establish a re pore with your physician since you never see the same guy more than two or three times before being assigned to a new doctor and if that was not bad enough, the technology is pretty antiquated compared to the stuff available to private doctors and hospitals.
Since this is the current incarnation of universal health care in the United States, it only stands to reason that this would be the model used by the United States if it were to adopt a universal health care for every citizen instead of the poor schmucks who got injured fighting this nation’s wars.
Keep in mind, the current system is designed for American Heroes. I can well imagine a system far worse for the average citizen if this is how the heroes are treated. (Hero being a war veteran who was injured in the line of duty defending this nation against a perceived threat, regardless of if you approve or disapprove that the the other nation was a threat or that the war should or should not have been fought.)
-
@Cmdr:
How does your chart stack compared to total US Debt (including citizens) to domestics and foreigners?
Just curious.
The pie chart, as a whole, accounts for ~$3.1 trillion. Our total Federal debt as of Feb. 2009 is ~$10.8 trillion. The Federal public debt is ~$6.5 trillion. Public debt is all federal debt held by states, corporations, individuals, and foreign governments, but does not include intragovernmental debt obligations or debt held in the Social Security Trust Fund.
@Cmdr:
Anyway, you asked for my definition of “better.”
Better: To be a better health care system it must have superior technology, superior medical knowledge, superior medicine, superior infant and elderly survival rates and/or superior disease and injury survival rates.
Obviously, a system does not have to be superior in all aspects to be better than another system. Being superior in significantly more aspects than the other system would allow the system to be called better.
For instance, if the Nation of Ik had a universal health care system but had no aspirin or other drugs to treat illnesses and injuries, the doctors were trained witch doctors with no university level medical training, but everyone had equal access to medical treatments, it would not be “better” than the system in a Nation of Ugtir where every medical professional has to graduate in the top 50% of their class to get a medical license, drugs and medical technology is plentiful and available, but people had to chose between hospital and doctor A vs hospital and doctor B where A may be more or less expensive and qualified than B is.
In the above example, with two made up, non-existent nations as examples, it is obvious that the health care system in Ugtir is far superior, and thus better, than system in Ik.
Given that Ugtir has a far superior system, one which is not perfect, one where some people just plain out cannot afford the absolute best medicine available for their needs, but one where the medicine needed at least exists to be bought, why would they voluntarily hamstring themselves and move to the system employed by Ik?
I agree that, by your definition, our health care system is better (than most at any rate). Somebody else’s definition may also include the ability to keep costs down so that everybody can afford it. But that is a semantic argument, which will get us nowhere fast. What you seem to be assuming, though, is that the quality of care will necessarily decrease as an effect of nationalization. How did you reach this assumption?
EDIT - Your last post pretty much answers my question. Commentary to follow…
-
It seems to be historically accurate that whenever a monopoly is created, the value of the services or goods decreases.
For instance, domestically in the United States, we have:
Universal Health Care for Disabled American Soldiers - Care? Abysmal. Worse than abysmal. It’s a crime really.
vs
Publicly Traded Health Care - Short waiting lists for services needed, easy access to drugs (needed or not!), good samaritan laws requiring physicians to perform life saving, limb saving or sight saving services on patients regardless of ability to pay for services rendered or reimburse for supplies used or not. (Life, Limb or Eye Sight is guaranteed no matter what, if a physician or hospital refuses those services, they can be sued and shut down.)
We could look at the post office:
Government program: Postal employees might get your mail delivered within a week, as long as it is within the contiguous 48 states and there is not some obscure holiday that they get off.
vs
Private System: Fedex, UPS and DHL not only get the same mail delivered 700% faster (next day, not next week) but can do so with tracking information, guarantee of delivery by specific times and minimal cost.
Outside of the military, I honestly do not think any system that is based on a monopoly can function as well or as efficiently as a system based on competition for goods and services. It just seems no matter what you look at throughout history, capitalism seems to do it better than central planning/monopolies do, regardless of who is in control of the monopoly or central planning system.
(Of course, I also grew up under the reign of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, so I’ve seen just how tyrannical central authorities can be once the people are enslaved to their will.)
-
@Cmdr:
Universal Health Care for Disabled American Soldiers - Care? Abysmal. Worse than abysmal. It’s a crime really.
That’s because its funding had been cut, and more soldiers were needing the assistance due to two engagements. I can tell you who to blame, but you can figure it out.
Publicly Traded Health Care - Short waiting lists for services needed, easy access to drugs (needed or not!), good samaritan laws requiring physicians to perform life saving, limb saving or sight saving services on patients regardless of ability to pay for services rendered or reimburse for supplies used or not. (Life, Limb or Eye Sight is guaranteed no matter what, if a physician or hospital refuses those services, they can be sued and shut down.)
Assuming you have insurance, and assuming you are covered by said insurance. It’s not always the case.
Government program: Postal employees might get your mail delivered within a week, as long as it is within the contiguous 48 states and there is not some obscure holiday that they get off.
Postal service works fine for me. It probably works better with competition, but I think it’s a necessary service for a country.
Private System: Fedex, UPS and DHL not only get the same mail delivered 700% faster (next day, not next week) but can do so with tracking information, guarantee of delivery by specific times and minimal cost.
Not exactly correct. You pay extra for next day shipping, which the USPS also offers. You can also track shipment with the USPS.
Outside of the military, I honestly do not think any system that is based on a monopoly can function as well or as efficiently as a system based on competition for goods and services. It just seems no matter what you look at throughout history, capitalism seems to do it better than central planning/monopolies do, regardless of who is in control of the monopoly or central planning system.
The military is historically highly reactive…I wouldn’t necessarily call them efficient. There may be a variety of reasons for this, but as an institution they must adapt like all others.
Capitalism has its own pitfalls. I’m a firm believer that an amalgamation of all theories is probably the best.
-
I agree, capitalism is not perfect. It’s a far cry better than monarchy, dictatorship, communism and socialism, but probably not as good as small tribal leaders like the North American Forest Indians had for governments.
As for the USPS, yes, you may purchase the same services from them as you can get from the other private companies, but it seems to be more expensive. Maybe my area just have really good sales right now in the private sector, but the costs at the USPS seem unusually high for a government agency.
I could see ways to reduce that cost, however. If we ended USPS to the door delivery without charging an additional cost, we could cut the labor expenses of the USPS greatly and reduce postage rates to a point where it would be more efficient to use the USPS than another carrier. But right now, things like tracking and over night delivery at places like FedEx are cheaper than delivery in a week without tracking at the USPS. (Right now it costs me 37 cents to have FedEx over night a letter within the same geographical area and I don’t need an envelope since I can use one of their recyclable envelopes (the ones where you pull out the address slip and put a new one in and reuse the same envelope.)) Until May, the USPS is charging me an Envelope + 42 Cents for delivery in the next 10 business days within the same geographical area, in May that price increases again (unless you stock piled forever stamps and can use those for a while!)
As for assuming people have insurance, basically, if you are breathing in this country, you can get health insurance. People without are either too cheap to get it or too uninformed to find it. Neither of which is the problem of the average citizen. However, even those without insurance are guaranteed medical services which they don’t even really need to pay for if they can prove they cannot afford it.
BTW, when it comes to the military, don’t we want it to be reactive, not proactive? I’d hate to turn on the news and hear a report that General Smith decided to take the 3rd Infantry division and invade Mexico preemptively and without congressional authority. Much better for congress to give them the go ahead to react to a situation, IMHO.
And finally, in regards to slashing VA benefits, I don’t think any president has done so in living memory. They might not have increased it, but they didn’t slash it. I do think we need to quintuple the funding to VA programs and increase VA disability compensation 5 fold as well. But that’s not really an unbiased opinion on my part.
PS: If you wanted a real stimulus package, why not hire escort services to teach “sex ed” to all married couples in the United States? At least it would be stimulating!
-
@Cmdr:
As for the USPS, yes, you may purchase the same services from them as you can get from the other private companies, but it seems to be more expensive. Maybe my area just have really good sales right now in the private sector, but the costs at the USPS seem unusually high for a government agency.
Here is a Consumer Reports overnight shipping review that found the USPS beat FedEx & UPS in nearly every category, or was about the same: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/money/shopping/shopping-tips/fedex-vs-ups-vs-the-postal-service/overview/package-delivery-services-ov.htm
As for assuming people have insurance, basically, if you are breathing in this country, you can get health insurance. People without are either too cheap to get it or too uninformed to find it. Neither of which is the problem of the average citizen. However, even those without insurance are guaranteed medical services which they don’t even really need to pay for if they can prove they cannot afford it.
Health care costs money. Quite a few people can’t afford the health insurance or the (larger) health care costs. It is a problem. You simply can’t dismiss it because you don’t think it’s a problem. And no one is guaranteed medical services necessarily. But in that case, someone is paying for it whether it’s the person receiving care or not.
BTW, when it comes to the military, don’t we want it to be reactive, not proactive? I’d hate to turn on the news and hear a report that General Smith decided to take the 3rd Infantry division and invade Mexico preemptively and without congressional authority. Much better for congress to give them the go ahead to react to a situation, IMHO.
Definitely needs to be adaptation. But I’m not speaking of a rogue General freaking out about the fluoride in the water. I’m not even talking about how the body is employed. I’m talking about how the American military has traditionally found failure before it has found success.
And finally, in regards to slashing VA benefits, I don’t think any president has done so in living memory. They might not have increased it, but they didn’t slash it. I do think we need to quintuple the funding to VA programs and increase VA disability compensation 5 fold as well. But that’s not really an unbiased opinion on my part.
I think it’s inadequate. But I wasn’t referring to any one person as it takes a group of people to set the budget. It’s just funny that you find in some years past the same “support our troops” group voting on a measure of just that also votes to cut the budget in the same day. And at least in that case it wasn’t necessarily in the frame of fiscal responsibility because not everything took a cut…that I could at least understand.
-
Well, I have never been one of those “I support the troops but not the war” types, you know that. You either support both, or neither in my book.
Anyway, anyone who WANTS insurance can get insurance. I never said it was free, but they have the ability to get it. There are, of course, different levels of insurance. Catastrophe insurance is free, doctors are required, by law, to do everything in their power to save life, limb or eyesight with or without insurance. It matters not if you can pay for services rendered either. They have to perform basic emergency services to save life, limb and eyesight. So in that regards, everyone has insurance already.
If you want more than that, then the level of insurance you get is in direct proportion to the premium you pay a month. In my case, I pay $52.50/wk to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois ($2,730 per year) for nearly full coverage of everything imaginable for a family of four. That covers $15 copay on doctor visits, 2 free check ups per year per adult, 1 free per year per child; two free dental cleanings per year; $15 copay on generic medication / $25 copay on name brand medication; emergency room care, two free ambulance rides per year, etc. It’s really darn good coverage.
Now, I’d say it’s pretty easy to say just about any employed family in the nation could afford that insurance if they wanted it. I realize there are states that don’t allow insurance companies to offer those policies, so I’d be amiable to legislation that would allow citizens to purchase their insurance from any company in the nation that they wanted too, which would allow capitalism to drive down the rates.
I am not amiable to the idea of scrapping the system and putting all the power in the hands of one agency, however. That never works outside military campaigns and religions.
As for the military seeing failure before success, uh, who continues to wage a war you have won? Of course you fail before you succeed! It’s like saying you found it in the “last place you looked.” Who keeps looking after you found it!?!
-
@Cmdr:
Anyway, you asked for my definition of “better.”
Better: To be a better health care system it must have superior technology, superior medical knowledge, superior medicine, superior infant and elderly survival rates and/or superior disease and injury survival rates.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html
So I take it that Slovenia (#204 out of 222), which is exactly 2 less infant deaths/1000 births than us(#181), has superior technology, medical knowledge and medicine?
Or how about The Isle of Man, Jersey(not the state), Guernsey(cattle too?), Andorra, Anguilla, and Macau? Are they, like Slovenia, somehow superior to us?
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html
Does it suprise you that many of the same countries that have lower infant mortality rates also have higher life expectancies than we do?
Does it likewise surprise you that despite your claim that our health care system is the best, we are only ranked 42nd best in infant mortality and 46th best in life expectancy?
Oh, look! Canada, who’s health care system has been your whipping boy of late, is ranked 33rd and 8th respectively. I believe that you mentioned the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Germany, as well. Not surprisingly, they too outrank us in both categories.
If you want more than that, then the level of insurance you get is in direct proportion to the premium you pay a month. In my case, I pay $52.50/wk to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois ($2,730 per year) for nearly full coverage of everything imaginable for a family of four. That covers $15 copay on doctor visits, 2 free check ups per year per adult, 1 free per year per child; two free dental cleanings per year; $15 copay on generic medication / $25 copay on name brand medication; emergency room care, two free ambulance rides per year, etc. It’s really darn good coverage.
Is this a company sponsored health plan or you dealing directly with an insurance company?
Anyway, anyone who WANTS insurance can get insurance. I never said it was free, but they have the ability to get it. There are, of course, different levels of insurance. Catastrophe insurance is free, doctors are required, by law, to do everything in their power to save life, limb or eyesight with or without insurance. It matters not if you can pay for services rendered either. They have to perform basic emergency services to save life, limb and eyesight. So in that regards, everyone has insurance already.
Yes, but quite often those emergency services are too little too late when early preventative care would have been much more helpful but unavailable because of a person’s uninsured status. An uninsured person with a growing brain tumor can go to a free clinic to get some painkiller for the headache that won’t go away but good luck getting anything more until after they end up collapsing because the tumor has grown so big that it is now inoperable.
-
It is direct, out of pocket. This is not a company plan. The “company plan” was $90/wk which is ridiculous. Dunno what was covered, I presume for $90/wk I get to send my husband off for a “massage therapy” with a “happy ending” because that was ridiculous.
As for your ridiculous example in an effort to make me look stupid (which makes you look kinda stupid and I know you’re better than that, U-505) you know perfectly well that taking one little aspect does not make up for major aspects.
So your Slovenia with 2 less infant deaths out of 1000 does not make up for superior medicine, superior medical knowledge, superior elderly survival rates, superior technology and superior disease and injury survival rates.
There is a reason I listed a whole bunch of things, it was primarily so wise guys didn’t try and pick a nation who happened to excel in one minor aspect and try to use it to debunk the entire, valid, theory.
It still stands, our system is currently the best available system on the planet. Not saying there is not a better system that can be devised, but currently, this is the best we’ve been able to figure out and implement.
(PS: If we allowed computers to dictate who got what resources based on need and value of the individual, that would technically be a superior system, but it is also a very inhuman system. I don’t think anyone wants to let their husband/wife’s treatment be determined based on what a computer thinks her value is to society and other cold, hard statistics. But it would be a superior system to the one we currently have since we’d have superiority in all fields as well as superiority in using our resources to the maximum efficiency.)
-
@Cmdr:
It is direct, out of pocket. This is not a company plan. The “company plan” was $90/wk which is ridiculous. Dunno what was covered, I presume for $90/wk I get to send my husband off for a “massage therapy” with a “happy ending” because that was ridiculous.
That’s why I was asking because when I worked at Northop Grumman there were guys paying almost $200 for family coverage. Exactly what insurance company are you using, if I may ask?
As for your ridiculous example in an effort to make me look stupid (which makes you look kinda stupid and I know you’re better than that, U-505) you know perfectly well that taking one little aspect does not make up for major aspects.
So your Slovenia with 2 less infant deaths out of 1000 does not make up for superior medicine, superior medical knowledge, superior elderly survival rates, superior technology and superior disease and injury survival rates.
There is a reason I listed a whole bunch of things, it was primarily so wise guys didn’t try and pick a nation who happened to excel in one minor aspect and try to use it to debunk the entire, valid, theory.
I’m not going to go into who looks stupid and who doesn’t, but I will tell you that infant mortality and life expectancy rates are the primary indicators of health care competancy. So when you declare them minor indicators, I challenge you to find me better ones.
Furthermore, “life expectancy” encompasses disease survival and injury survival rates.
It still stands, our system is currently the best available system on the planet. Not saying there is not a better system that can be devised, but currently, this is the best we’ve been able to figure out and implement.
Based on the infant mortality and life expectancy rates there are roughly 40 nations that can challenge your assuption.
And you can shout to the heavens about how superior our drugs, knowledge, and technology are, but if more of their babies are surviving birth and their people are living longer than ours, then obviously our so called superior system is failing somewhere.
(PS: If we allowed computers to dictate who got what resources based on need and value of the individual, that would technically be a superior system, but it is also a very inhuman system. I don’t think anyone wants to let their husband/wife’s treatment be determined based on what a computer thinks her value is to society and other cold, hard statistics. But it would be a superior system to the one we currently have since we’d have superiority in all fields as well as superiority in using our resources to the maximum efficiency.)
That would be illegal as it is discriminatory. And it would also be impossible to devise an unbiased value system.
-
U-505:
First Question’s Answer: Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois. I listed it before, but maybe you scanned over it when you read my post. /shrug. Anyway, BCBS isn’t exactly the best insurance company, IMHO, UHC (United Health Care) did not apply co-pays to line items like BCBS does.
Second Question: That’s why I listed infant mortality as an indicator. PS: If your nation murders unborn children who are “high risk” your infant mortality numbers will end up skewed. This is what Cuba does/did. If the mother was high risk, or the infant was high risk for any reason, the pregnancy was aborted and that gave good press to the Cuban health care system primarily because infant mortality rates were low (artificially low. Abortions don’t count as dead babies. They should, IMHO.)
Third: Our medical knowledge, medicines and technologies trump the minor difference between the US and some other nations in infant mortality rates. Remember, not all nations include abortions as infant deaths, so those numbers are highly skewed and a very poor indicator whereas a century ago they were a great indicator.
Last:
No, if computers were allowed to make the decision, then their decision could not be illegal. It might be immoral and unethical, but if we legally give the machine the right to determine who deserves the resources based on supply and demand and who has the best chances of living and who is the most productive members of society, then machines would be the best possible way of improving our current system.
Think of it, no more human emotion in the decision making process. Homeless people who contribute nothing to society and have low life expectancies would get the left overs while people like Ted Kennedy and Warren Buffet (both of whom attempt to contribute to society instead of homeless and handicapped people who live off society) would get the best medicines and treatments with the shortest waiting times.
Now, don’t say that I am actually advocating that machines run our health care. But if we were to impliment a central controlling authority over health care, then it should be run by machines who won’t care what your political, religous, racial, sexual orientation or lineage aspects are. Machines would only care about your education level, the amount of product you produce for the nation (ie if you are a rocket scientist at NASA you’d be worth more to society than a garbage collector for Groot Waste and Recycling), your medical history (if you have a history of cancer in your family, then you’d be worth less than someone who’s parents were olympic all stars who lived into their late 90s since the later would be expected to live longer) and your age (since curing cancer in a 20 year old expected to live to 96 years old is better than curing the same cancer in a 92 year old who is expected to live to 96 years old.)
If you put humans in control of the central authority, you’ll end up with problems. People with the right political connections or status will trump those with a higher value to society in getting life saving treatment.
Sorry, but I don’t think Vin Deisal is more important to society than the scientist curing cancer or Teddy Kennedy being more important than Larry Harris, for instance. I’d feel much better if an impartial machine was making that decision, or, better yet, we allow supply and demand make the decision as it is currently. (with the exception of saving life, limb or eyesight.)
Suggested Topics
