[DrTodd13]

mike777, on Feb 13 2008, 04:16 PM, said:

"why it is ethical for the majority to be able to impose their will on the minority?"

Are you suggesting it is not ok for one gene to impose it's will on another gene?
Assuming it is ok then why not the majority on the minority, who else?
If it is not ok to impose one's will on another what is the punishment and who hands it out?

Why bother to have a central government if it cannot impose it's will on who it chooses to?

If you advocate no central government then how do we get a Nat Health care plan?

Gene's do not have will. They follow the rules of physics.

Is your argument that somebody has to oppress someone else so why not have it be the majority doing it? How about nobody forces their will on anyone else?

Yes, indeed, why have central governments? In my philosophical view, they are inherently evil and should not exist. If someone has violated your rights then you have a right to get your own fair compensation or to contract with others to help you do so. Purely voluntary courts, legal system, and police are possible but if someone does not voluntarily place themselves under someone's jurisdiction then the only recourse is to take your recompense by force but that is not unethical because it is not the _initiation_ of force but instead justice. So, rather than having 200 some sovereign countries, we have 6 billion sovereign individuals. Countries manage to co-exist peacefully most of the time without a true higher authority and individuals would as well should countries not exist.

How do we get national health care? Why don't you start a charity to provide health care to everyone and if it is such a great idea then you won't lack for donations.

[DrTodd13]

hrothgar, on Feb 13 2008, 04:21 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Feb 14 2008, 12:16 AM, said:

Nobody has a right to the productive efforts of anyone else and the only way to guarantee the "right" to health care is the partial enslavement of others.

You choose to live in the United States...

By doing so, you are consenting to participating in the prevailing social contract and pay taxes.

I consent to something by my mere existence? To refuse to consent I have to kill myself? Where would you have me live where I'm not given this choice? Good logic there.

[mike777]

"Why don't you start a charity to provide health care to everyone and if it is such a great idea then you won't lack for donations."

I thought genes or at least groups have genes have will, but that is another discussion for another thread I guess.


I did not start one but I do donate money and time to one.

anyway back to my OP. I was hoping someone, anyone had some facts on the cost of health care plan that everyone seems to want or vote for. My OP is just a cobble of websites and guesses, not facts.

[hrothgar]

DrTodd13, on Feb 14 2008, 03:42 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Feb 13 2008, 04:21 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Feb 14 2008, 12:16 AM, said:

Nobody has a right to the productive efforts of anyone else and the only way to guarantee the "right" to health care is the partial enslavement of others.

You choose to live in the United States...

By doing so, you are consenting to participating in the prevailing social contract and pay taxes.

I consent to something by my mere existence? To refuse to consent I have to kill myself? Where would you have me live where I'm not given this choice? Good logic there.

I couldn't care less where you live...

Wander off into the woods of Pacific North West... Build yourself a compound and start shooting at the revenue man... Give Waziristan a try. (It seems to be working well for Osama bin Laden. I'm sure you can escape the evil collectivist central government)

Even though you were born here in the United States, there is no reason that you need to stay. You always have the option to leave.

You choose to stay. You recognize that the benefits of civilized society out weigh the joys of living in Pakistan's autonomous tribal region... And in doing so, you are accepting the social contract that governs life in these United States with all associated rights and responsibilities.

[finally17]

blackshoe, on Feb 13 2008, 07:12 PM, said:

finally17, on Feb 13 2008, 06:34 PM, said:

The words "First, do no harm" seem to imply an active requirement to prevent harm when possible

They do not.

The words say "do no harm". That doesn't mean "prevent any harm from occurring," it means "don't do any harm yourself".

I'm not at all sure that the Hippocratic Oath is still undertaken by doctors, to be honest. But let's assume it is. Does that impose on doctors a requirement to put a (potential) patient's welfare above their own? I don't think so. I do think most doctors would not consider payment or non-payment a primary issue. I know that my father (who was a cardiologist) didn't - he often got paid in kind rather than cash - and at values much less than his services would have rated. He often did not get paid at all - and didn't go around suing people for it. But he's old school, and practiced and believes in the Hippocratic Oath. Does that mean that hospitals should turn away people who can't pay? Well, I think emergency care is in a separate class - if there's an emergency, you deal with it, and worry about payment later, if at all. But people go to the emergency room for things that aren't emergencies, because they either haven't thought about it, or don't understand why they shouldn't. Or both. I don't think emergency facilities should be required to provide free care in those cases. Or be prohibited from turning away such cases.

As for whether the government should be in the health care business, I'd say "no". Consider two old sayings: "An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications" and "Would you want to fly in an airplane built by the lowest bidder?" So, no. And no again.

First off, I said "SEEM TO." That means "this is my interpretation, but I acknowledge that it is not clear and that others will have valid disagreement.

Secondly, let me explain why they SEEM TO: because of the word FIRST, which you completely ignored. To me, "first" here SEEMS TO mean "this is the primary consideration, when this and another consideration conflict, this one takes primacy. If the idea that harm is bad takes primacy, is most important, more significant than anything else, then INACTION when you can help is essentially harm, and is therefore as bad as active harm. But all that is just my interpretation.

And none of it is germane...I did in fact note that those words are not in "the oath," in quotes because it seems to vary from place to place these days.

However, consider the words I did find in a modern version: "I will treat without exception all who seek my ministrations, so long as the treatment of others is not compromised thereby." There is no wiggle room there. They do of course address the issue of danger to self caused by treatment of others.

As for non-emergency situations, I agree completely; I repeatedly indicated that I was talking about emergency situations. And so does the government. It is my understanding that "free" care is not required for non-life-threatening situations. And that is as it should be under the current system I suppose. The sticky problem with this situation is that, without proper medical care, including especially prescription drugs that one can't acquire without seeing a doctor, non-life-threatening situations very often quickly become life-threatening.

Consider for instance: I recently had an ingrown toenail. Seems like no big deal, right? Bit of pain, see if it grows out, get it cut out. But I am a diabetic with poor feeling and circulation in my feet. Ingrown nails very quickly become infected in these situations and can lead to toe, foot, leg amputation, death. It might sound extreme, it happens more often than it should. A single visit to a podiatrist and a course of anti-biotics can prevent all this. What is basically routine to treat is potentially life-threatening to many.

I don't come by my views due to my situation. My toe is fine now, I was treated. I honestly don't know how things should be in this situation.

I don't know what exactly you mean by "government in the health care business" so I won't comment on that.

[finally17]

DrTodd13, on Feb 13 2008, 07:39 PM, said:

Yes, indeed, why have central governments?  In my philosophical view, they are inherently evil and should not exist.  If someone has violated your rights then you have a right to get your own fair compensation or to contract with others to help you do so.  Purely voluntary courts, legal system, and police are possible but if someone does not voluntarily place themselves under someone's jurisdiction then the only recourse is to take your recompense by force but that is not unethical because it is not the _initiation_ of force but instead justice.  So, rather than having 200 some sovereign countries, we have 6 billion sovereign individuals.  Countries manage to co-exist peacefully most of the time without a true higher authority and individuals would as well should countries not exist.

This "philosophical view" of yours is one of the most small-minded and ignorant (willfully or not I don't know) of history things I have ever read. I won't waste my time responding to the drivel that hails from these ideas anymore.

[finally17]

mike777, on Feb 13 2008, 07:44 PM, said:

anyway back to my OP. I was hoping someone, anyone had some facts on the cost of health care plan that everyone seems to want or vote for. My OP is just a cobble of websites and guesses, not facts.

I think the problem is that no one has a really good idea. Have you watched the democratic debates? Clinton, Obama, et al aren't the experts themselves, but they're basing their numbers on the research and opinions of experts (I hope and assume) and they don't agree on anything, including costs per person, source of funds, extent of coverage, etc.

Accurate data just doesn't exist.

[mike777]

finally17, on Feb 13 2008, 08:01 PM, said:

mike777, on Feb 13 2008, 07:44 PM, said:

anyway back to my OP. I was hoping someone, anyone had some facts on the cost of health care plan that everyone seems to want or vote for. My OP is just a cobble of websites and guesses, not facts.

I think the problem is that no one has a really good idea. Have you watched the democratic debates? Clinton, Obama, et al aren't the experts themselves, but they're basing their numbers on the research and opinions of experts (I hope and assume) and they don't agree on anything, including costs per person, source of funds, extent of coverage, etc.

Accurate data just doesn't exist.

Do you think we will get a Nat health care plan without accurate numbers? Do you think Congress will care at all that there are no accurate numbers?

As I said in my OP my guess is the votes are there and like the votes on Iraq we have little or conflicting facts.

This is starting to feel like the vote on Iraq. Do not confuse with me facts..I vote yes.

[finally17]

mike777, on Feb 13 2008, 08:04 PM, said:

Do you think we will get a Nat health care plan without accurate numbers? Do you think Congress will care at all that there are no accurate numbers?

As I said in my OP my guess is the votes are there and like the votes on Iraq we have little or conflicting facts.

This is starting to feel like the vote on Iraq. Do not confuse with me facts..I vote yes.

It's a complicated process. You have to start by determining to what extent the government will guarantee coverage. After that, the rest should reasonably well fall into place.

Whether it will happen or not, who knows. Whether it should happen or not, I also don't know...I lean towards no though.

[helene_t]

Mike, it will have to be a lot more concrete before congress can vote on it. Surely there will be some estimates of the costs by then. That is not to say that 100% reliable forecasts will be available, of course.

Btw, there is already something called Medicare and Medicaid, right? The costs related to those programs may give a hint of what it would cost to extrapolate it to the rest of the Americans. Or one can look at the costs in Canada or other countries.

The fact that nobody can provide concrete figures on BBF does not imply that such figures don't exist, let alone that they won't be made.

[DrTodd13]

finally17, on Feb 13 2008, 04:34 PM, said:

I didn't use the term "right to life." I said that life is sacrosanct. By that I meant that our systems should be designed to preserve it. It's not about making anyone slave to anyone else. It's not about anyone having power of anyone else. It's about one idea being more important than another - life is more important than your free time, or your profits, or whatever else might keep a doctor from treating someone. This doesn't make anyone a slave, it just means there is a TRUTH that is greater than the self. The system is maintained, civilization continues, you are here to disagree, because human life takes primacy over other considerations. That is the truth of which I speak.

I don't know what you mean with "the language and the intent of the statement is plain." What statement? You haven't made one. However, the intent of "I will treat without exception all who seek my ministrations, so long as the treatment of others is not compromised thereby," is very plain.

I never argued anything about happiness or wellness, or anyone's rights. "Rights" is not a word I used. The fact that you don't have a right to life (a point I won't dispute, despite the fact that the only evidence that exists one way or the other is that you're here, aren't you?) does not at all mean that we as a civilization, if we hope to continue, don't have an obligation to maintain your life. To believe otherwise is to open a door you don't want to open.

Blah blah blah....a bunch of modern liberal psycho-babble with no content. You have no reason why life should be sacrosanct. You are totally blinded by the fact that if this really is the most important thing and must be maintained at all costs then if it were necessary to enslave everyone on earth so as maintain life that that would be fine with you. You can claim but we wouldn't have to enslave everyone to maintain life and that is true but you'll never see how utterly broken your philosophy is until you explore the corner cases. You would have physical life but mental death and slavery...what good is that?

The typically summary of the Hippocratic oath that you hear is "first, do no harm." I said I didn't know what the rest of it was and what implications it has for treatment without fee. My understanding is that most doctors don't swear to this oath anymore anyway. If what you say is accurate then I would agree it argues for treating without fee...but it also argues that if people came to you in droves you'd have to treat them all even if you never got a moment of time to yourself. As such, it's a pretty stupid oath to take.

What does something existing have anything to do with it having a right to exist? Who says we should have a civilization or hope to continue it? I know the door is there and the problem is it is already open and civilization is crossing the threshold unawares to a land of cold scientific naturalistic reductionism where ultimately nothing has meaning. Temporarily we think certain things have meaning but we believe so without any reasons...like life...people will say it is meaningful but can't prove it. I would confront this philosophy head-on and tell people that if this continues that sooner or later we will realize that science and naturalism cannot give meaning to anything and that world will be a hedonistic hell with groups battling it out to maximize their own pleasure. The prospect of an existence without meaning I hope is enough to renew our search for the transcendent. For if there is no transcendent then sentience, consciousness, and pleasure are all illusory and we're really meaningless deterministic cogs in the universal machine.

[Winstonm]

Dr. Todd,

I believe part of your economic healthcare argument is valid while another part is not as secure.

Quote

The simple fact is that if you hide the cost of something and make it appear free then the inevitable result is increased demand, which will result in higher prices and/or rationing or long waits (if prices are not allowed to move).

This is dead on right. A concept of "free" healthcare would most certainly drive increased demand, as you say. It should not be conceptualized as "free", but must be understood to be paid by taxation if it is to be used correctly.

Quote

In the US or in a country with nationalized health care, there is very little downward pressure on prices because people don't shop around for the lowest prices since the costs are hidden.

However, on this point I think you are off, somewhat. Healthcare is not as subject to the same cost-saving shopping as would be an automobile or new plasma T.V.
If you have a serious illness, are you going to put out sealed bids and go with the lowest? Obviously, there are aspects of healthcare that respond to fundamental economic principles, but not all. The public will not shop to find a bad, cheap doctor.

Quote

The fundamental presumption of health care as a right is totally ridiculous.

I'm not sure there cannot be an extension from the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to cover threats of death from illness, deprivation of liberty caused by health, and the pursuit of happiness interrupted by grave, but curable illnesses.

But really none of this is as important as the simple question of why we as Americans put more monetary emphasis on building a missile shield defense system in Europe and on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan than we do on helping our citizens have healthier lives.

Do these actions put downward pressure on armament prices?

[finally17]

helene_t, on Feb 13 2008, 08:14 PM, said:

Btw, there is already something called Medicare and Medicaid, right? The costs related to those programs may give a hint of what it would cost to extrapolate it to the rest of the Americans. Or one can look at the costs in Canada or other countries.

The fact that nobody can provide concrete figures on BBF does not imply that such figures don't exist, let alone that they won't be made.

Medicare is an extremely complicated process and it's pricing doesn't necessarily reflect the costs of a universal health care plan.

For one, most people with medicare are the elderly. Their health care needs tend to be on the extreme end.

For another, medicare does not pay billed costs, nor do they negotiate. They tell the health care provider what they will pay for a given procedure, item, etc, and this tends to be (usually significantly) less than the billed cost. I guess, although I do not know for sure, that the difference is made up for by increased charges to those who are paying full value.

But I agree...once certain determinations are made, someone will be able to give an accurate picture of costs.

[Winstonm]

Mike,

It's a lot like how the Iraq war would virtually pay for itself by oil - remember that one from Rumsfield?

National Health Care will pay for itself once we get the Soylent Green factories up and running and feeding the world.

[Al_U_Card]

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of fat...at least.

If you are given healthy choices and proper education.....look at that show "Biggest Loser". A bunch of fatties given a modicum of instruction and time and motivation and bingo....instant health.

Now, provide healthcare that factors in YOUR contribution to your own state of health and the proper incentives can make it SELF-financing.

[finally17]

DrTodd13, on Feb 13 2008, 08:15 PM, said:

Blah blah blah....a bunch of modern liberal psycho-babble with no content. You have no reason why life should be sacrosanct. You are totally blinded by the fact that if this really is the most important thing and must be maintained at all costs then if it were necessary to enslave everyone on earth so as maintain life that that would be fine with you. You can claim but we wouldn't have to enslave everyone to maintain life and that is true but you'll never see how utterly broken your philosophy is until you explore the corner cases. You would have physical life but mental death and slavery...what good is that?

Ok, I kind of lied, I will respond once more. But this isn't really a response to your drivel, it's more a further statement of my own views.

To not state a reason life is sacrosanct and to not have one are two totally different things. I did not state one because my reason tends not to be the generally accepted one. But the conclusion is the same.

I have however made it clear that I believe there are ideas which are greater than the individual. One of those is that service to my fellow is paramount. If you would see and accept that, this service the medical professionals perform would not be slavery but freedom.

It is not my life that is sacrosanct, but your life and human life in general. Who knows, we all tend towards selfishness, but I would like to believe that should the moment come, I would give mine up for yours.

These are high-minded thoughts, ones I fail to live up to. They are a truth greater than I am, I acknowledge that.

[mike777]

"It's a complicated process. You have to start by determining to what extent the government will guarantee coverage. After that, the rest should reasonably well fall into place."


You may be 100% correct but this really sounds 100% what I heard before the Iraq/Vietnam vote. Word for word.

[mike777]

"Mike, it will have to be a lot more concrete before congress can vote on it"

You may be 100% correct.

Again this sounds almost word for word what I heard before the Iraq/Vietnam vote...

Again the costs of the plan or the quality of the plan may really not matter, just vote yes or you do not care/have no heart/ about the uninisured who are sick or dying.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Feb 13 2008, 08:25 PM, said:

National Health Care will pay for itself once we get the Soylent Green factories up and running and feeding the world.

Finally someone makes a "Modest Proposal" ty WinstonM.

I am shocked someone from Europe/Swift did not propose this before you.

[blackshoe]

[quote name='finally17' date='Feb 13 2008, 07:52 PM'] First off, I said "SEEM TO." That means "this is my interpretation, but I acknowledge that it is not clear and that others will have valid disagreement. [/quote]
Yes, and I've disagreed. So?

[quote]Secondly, let me explain why they SEEM TO: because of the word FIRST, which you completely ignored.[QUOTE]

Making unfounded assumptions will not lead you to the right conclusion, grasshopper. The fact I didn't mention it doesn't mean I ignored it.

[quote]If the idea that harm is bad takes primacy, is most important, more significant than anything else, then INACTION when you can help is essentially harm, and is therefore as bad as active harm. But all that is just my interpretation.[/QUOTE]

Yes. Again we disagree. That's life.