Health Care as a Right - Split from LifeStar Thread

That's a very good point. We are in for a weird future. The thing that still concerns me is that the R&D that will lead to an economy of abundance is already well underway. The R&D needed to cure aging is in its infancy. We need to convince people to spend that money now, well before the economy of abundance materializes. In order to convince them to spend the money, I think we need to be able to address their concerns.

Quite agreed.

But one of the biggest obstacles you are going to face isn't going to be convincing people they should be rejuvenated, it's going to be convincing people that caring for health is a RIGHT not a LUXURY.

So long as healthcare is seen by a large segment of the populace as a luxury that should be paid for by the individual out of pocket and that if they can't afford it oh well, you will find funding for such things as rejuvenation lacking. What's the rush really? It's just another luxury only the rich would be able to afford.

But if people realize health care is a RIGHT, not a luxury, than the emphasis will be on finding cures as quickly as possible, because you have a RIGHT to be cured.

This reply is for Mind too, because I know we stand on opposite sides of the issues like public option and other issues. But it is critical to understand this point. Luxuries are all well and good, but the average person is going to care far more about whether they can afford that new margarita maker than they will about something that is thought of as another luxury for the wealthy. You are going to have to fight that perception every step of the way for so long as this is the prevailing view. As such rejuvenation research is likely to find more funding in other countries than it will here in the US.

And you are right Mind. People are suffering right now. They are suffering because people think healthcare is just a luxury, and so people who can't afford it don't deserve it. That's the mindset that allows people to dismiss suffering and to justify it. "those" people don't deserve help, "those" people are just too lazy to prevent their own suffering, "those" people are just trying to get a free ride, "those" people don't deserve to have their cancer cured because they aren't rich enough to pay for treatments. "those" people don't deserve to live because they are old. "those" people don't deserve to be rejuvenated because they aren't of the right social class.

and on and on and on and on. Endless justifications to allow suffering to continue.

Edited by valkyrie_ice, 16 September 2009 - 11:08 PM.

That's a very good point. We are in for a weird future. The thing that still concerns me is that the R&D that will lead to an economy of abundance is already well underway. The R&D needed to cure aging is in its infancy. We need to convince people to spend that money now, well before the economy of abundance materializes. In order to convince them to spend the money, I think we need to be able to address their concerns.

Quite agreed.

But one of the biggest obstacles you are going to face isn't going to be convincing people they should be rejuvenated, it's going to be convincing people that caring for health is a RIGHT not a LUXURY.

So long as healthcare is seen by a large segment of the populace as a luxury that should be paid for by the individual out of pocket and that if they can't afford it oh well, you will find funding for such things as rejuvenation lacking. What's the rush really? It's just another luxury only the rich would be able to afford.

But if people realize health care is a RIGHT, not a luxury, than the emphasis will be on finding cures as quickly as possible, because you have a RIGHT to be cured.

This reply is for Mind too, because I know we stand on opposite sides of the issues like public option and other issues. But it is critical to understand this point. Luxuries are all well and good, but the average person is going to care far more about whether they can afford that new margarita maker than they will about something that is thought of as another luxury for the wealthy. You are going to have to fight that perception every step of the way for so long as this is the prevailing view. As such rejuvenation research is likely to find more funding in other countries than it will here in the US.

I can see that basic health care should be a right. I don't see how we can define unaffordable care as a right. I think calling it a right might need to wait until it's affordable. I also wouldn't want to define as a right a procedure that was not only unaffordable but pointless, like an organ transplant for someone who was going to die of some other incurable problem within a few weeks. Trying to persuade people that rejuvenation is a right will only serve to drive a wedge between people without advancing the cause of rejuvenation. In other words, I think there are a lot of people who could be convinced to support rejuvenation research, but not if it was presented as something that would immediately become a right. Rejuvenation research might very well find more funding in countries other than the US, with its various religious and economic fundamentalisms. I've long envisioned a future when the few of us who could afford it would be buying rejuvenation treatments from advanced Asian nations. I hope it doesn't work out that way.

I've long envisioned a future when the few of us who could afford it would be buying rejuvenation treatments from advanced Asian nations. I hope it doesn't work out that way.

Oh it's a strong possibility, at least within the first five to six years, but once all the rich people have rejuvenated, who are the companies going to sell too? sooner or later it will have to be offered to more and more and the price will drop. Of course once we have nanotech the process will accelerate into lightspeed, so at worst, from introduction of working rejuve to affordable rejuve will be a matter of years not decades.

And to be quite honest, I see nanotech being fully realized prior to biological rejuvenation. effective rejuvenation will require precise genetric re-engineering that will require at least first generation nanomachines

Edited by valkyrie_ice, 17 September 2009 - 12:06 AM.

I've long envisioned a future when the few of us who could afford it would be buying rejuvenation treatments from advanced Asian nations. I hope it doesn't work out that way.

Oh it's a strong possibility, at least within the first five to six years, but once all the rich people have rejuvenated, who are the companies going to sell too? sooner or later it will have to be offered to more and more and the price will drop. Of course once we have nanotech the process will accelerate into lightspeed, so at worst, from introduction of working rejuve to affordable rejuve will be a matter of years not decades.

And to be quite honest, I see nanotech being fully realized prior to biological rejuvenation. effective rejuvenation will require precise genetric re-engineering that will require at least first generation nanomachines

I think it will take a lot longer than five or six years to rejuvenate all the rich people to the point that the market begins to sag. I also see tissue engineering and precise control of cellular programming in the near future. Nanomachines that work at the molecular level, on the other hand, are not even on the horizon.

I've long envisioned a future when the few of us who could afford it would be buying rejuvenation treatments from advanced Asian nations. I hope it doesn't work out that way.

Oh it's a strong possibility, at least within the first five to six years, but once all the rich people have rejuvenated, who are the companies going to sell too? sooner or later it will have to be offered to more and more and the price will drop. Of course once we have nanotech the process will accelerate into lightspeed, so at worst, from introduction of working rejuve to affordable rejuve will be a matter of years not decades.

And to be quite honest, I see nanotech being fully realized prior to biological rejuvenation. effective rejuvenation will require precise genetric re-engineering that will require at least first generation nanomachines

I think it will take a lot longer than five or six years to rejuvenate all the rich people to the point that the market begins to sag. I also see tissue engineering and precise control of cellular programming in the near future. Nanomachines that work at the molecular level, on the other hand, are not even on the horizon.

Even if aging were conquered, death by accident or misadventure would limit average life-span to under 10,000 years. Uploading one's memories and personality into a neural network running on a computer network is as likely, even more likely than physical immortality. If your pattern can be copied, it can be replicated and there will be 2, 4, eight of you loose int he network.... or would it be called the Matrix?

Edited by maxwatt, 17 September 2009 - 02:50 AM.

But one of the biggest obstacles you are going to face isn't going to be convincing people they should be rejuvenated, it's going to be convincing people that caring for health is a RIGHT not a LUXURY.

I have a hard time rationalizing Health Care services as a right. My main problem is that assigning the status of a right to a commodity is different than assigning the status of a right to a proclamation that limits the power of government &/or permits a particular action. Health Care is a service, it is the fruit of another person's labor. In effect you would have to take something away from another person in order to categorize Health Care as a right. Is eating a right? Does that mean that what the farmer reaps from his fields doesn't belong to him but to the state? Should the farmer be paid for his harvest, or because some people may not be able to afford his produce should he provide it gratis? Would this similarly mean that doctors & nurses should provide their services whether or not they can be compensated? If you elevate a commodity to the status of a right then depriving another of that commodity is a grave trespass upon their inalienable rights. Following this, those who produce the commodity have no choice but to become slaves to the state, they must give up the fruit of their labor - compensation or not - because it is a right.

Now, should health care services be a privilege of living in an industrialized nation? Probably. But not before eating is an universal privilege in an industrialized nation. Not before shelter is an universal privilege in an industrialized nation. We're jumping the gun a little, I think.

Edited by castrensis, 17 September 2009 - 05:52 AM.

But one of the biggest obstacles you are going to face isn't going to be convincing people they should be rejuvenated, it's going to be convincing people that caring for health is a RIGHT not a LUXURY.

I have a hard time rationalizing Health Care services as a right. My main problem is that assigning the status of a right to a commodity is different than assigning the status of a right to a proclamation that limits the power of government &/or permits a particular action. Health Care is a service, it is the fruit of another person's labor. In effect you would have to take something away from another person in order to categorize Health Care as a right. Is eating a right? Does that mean that what the farmer reaps from his fields doesn't belong to him but to the state? Should the farmer be paid for his harvest, or because some people may not be able to afford his produce should he provide it gratis? Would this similarly mean that doctors & nurses should provide their services whether or not they can be compensated? If you elevate a commodity to the status of a right then depriving another of that commodity is a grave trespass upon their inalienable rights. Following this, those who produce the commodity have no choice but to become slaves to the state, they must give up the fruit of their labor - compensation or not - because it is a right.

Now, should health care services be a privilege of living in an industrialized nation? Probably. But not before eating is an universal privilege in an industrialized nation. Not before shelter is an universal privilege in an industrialized nation. We're jumping the gun a little, I think.

I was going to say the same thing, but you already said it better.

My sentiments as well castrensis. Once you make a commodity (a material good) a right, then you are at the mercy of the people in power or those who pay for that particular basic human right. How can a right be something that requires someone else to pay for it? It doesn't make sense.

My sentiments as well castrensis. Once you make a commodity (a material good) a right, then you are at the mercy of the people in power or those who pay for that particular basic human right. How can a right be something that requires someone else to pay for it? It doesn't make sense.

Warning!! US Centric Post follows...I think we could frame this in terms of right of access to health insurance coverage. At one end of the spectrum we have Medicaid which provides free access to coverage to the indigent and the minor children of the indigent. We choose to fund this coverage because we are a wealthy society and to not do it would be morally reprehensible. Regarding the uninsured we have a large number who qualify for Medicaid or other programs but do not realize their eligibility but we have another large group who have been shut out of the insurance market because of pre-existing conditions, recission and/or unaffordiblity because the insurance industry was allowed to move away from community rating. The right to access to coverage is a real concern and should be addressed by reforming the insurance market by bringing back community rating. It might make health insurers less profitable but it would allow the most egregious practices to be banned without putting insurers out of business. Some people believe that differential pricing should be allowed based on health status. But it is very hard to separate the cause of health status, lifestyle, accident, early childhood nutrition, neonatal care, and/or genetics. This makes differential pricing problematic from a public policy standpoint. If we bring back community rating then some persons, the young, will pay more and some, the sick, will pay less. This is how health insurance used to be sold when it was first marketed in the 1920s and 1930s. The AMA opposed it then saying that insurers would dictate what care a patient received but that did not occur to the degree that some had feared. If it had then there would not have been a growing demand for health insurance. I would say that the right of access to health insurance will necessitate coercion, everyone must have coverage (like automobile liability coverage) and some increased burden on the young and healthy and some increase in taxation. But even if we considered universal healthcare a birthright of every American we would have to tax ourselves to provide it. It certainly would not be in the hands of our elected government solely. It would be structured as it is in Britain or Canada, a hybrid system of public and private resources. We would also pay for such a system with queuuing. But on whole would it be more expensive than it is today, no.

In the future, when new treatments for aging are available, do we want insurance companies to provide this coverage, yes. I think that right of access to insurance coverage is the equalizer that everyone is looking for that balances personal responsibility with equal opportunity for a long and healthy life.

First, from a philosophical standpoint I think castrensis is absolutely right - you cannot have a right that incurs an obligation from someone else.

From a practical point of view, I think especially if one's goal is life extension, rejuvenation, or any kind of cosmetic-ish treatment or enhancement, one should hope for as free a market as possible. A state-based system will have to prioritize what resources they have somehow - and anything regarded as luxuries will necessarily have to be kicked down the list. In other words, no one's going to want to spend state money on your succubus wings (or even grampa's Viagra) while there are still grammas with a busted hip. Sure if/when nanofactories make all sorts of goods unimaginably cheaply that might be ameliorated, but if history is any guide, the one thing we can count on growing faster than human abundance is human desire. We already live in a society that would be an Eden to most everyone in the history of our species - who do you know that's truly satisfied with it?




So personally, I want a lot of businesses trying to find a way to market all manner of health care goods, and I want it to be profitable as all heck to get them to do it. I grant it not the fairest system in the world, but it leaves in its wake an absolutely amazing detritus of patent-expired generic drugs and all manner of routine treatments pre-tested on lots of early adopter people. Better to have to go into hock to pay for something out of pocket than to not be able to get it at all because no one thought it worth their while to pursue.

First, from a philosophical standpoint I think castrensis is absolutely right - you cannot have a right that incurs an obligation from someone else.

From a practical point of view, I think especially if one's goal is life extension, rejuvenation, or any kind of cosmetic-ish treatment or enhancement, one should hope for as free a market as possible. A state-based system will have to prioritize what resources they have somehow - and anything regarded as luxuries will necessarily have to be kicked down the list. In other words, no one's going to want to spend state money on your succubus wings (or even grampa's Viagra) while there are still grammas with a busted hip. Sure if/when nanofactories make all sorts of goods unimaginably cheaply that might be ameliorated, but if history is any guide, the one thing we can count on growing faster than human abundance is human desire. We already live in a society that would be an Eden to most everyone in the history of our species - who do you know that's truly satisfied with it?




So personally, I want a lot of businesses trying to find a way to market all manner of health care goods, and I want it to be profitable as all heck to get them to do it. I grant it not the fairest system in the world, but it leaves in its wake an absolutely amazing detritus of patent-expired generic drugs and all manner of routine treatments pre-tested on lots of early adopter people. Better to have to go into hock to pay for something out of pocket than to not be able to get it at all because no one thought it worth their while to pursue.

In the rest of the industrialized world the latest treatments are available. Queuuing is a problem in some countries but the treatments are not denied. If they were being denied you wouldn't be seeing healthcare costs rising across the industrialized world. Democracies are very sensitive to voter sentiment. Christenssen in his book about innovations in healthcare distinguishes between precision medicine as opposed to the current practice of intuitive medicine. Precision medicine encompasses best practices and a team approach to treatment not the intuition of a single practioner. Perhaps in other countries the practice of precision medicine is being confused with denial of care. I don't think that government guarantees of coverage has stifled healthcare technology in this country. Currently we have about 50/50 public/private system, Canada has a 70/30 and Britain has about an 80/20 system. If these countries are any example then the US will not be totally private or public in the funding of healthcare.

Basic health care is a right in the same sense that police protection is a right, fire protection is a right and military protection is a right. These are things that we as a society require to provide us with the opportunity to have our Primary Rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Basic coverage of healthcare is a service that is necessary for the continuation of humane society.

Does this mean that every person should get whatever medical “coverage” they want? No. My wings are up to me to acquire, thats my right in my pursuit of happiness, but my life is not in the same category is it? It's a right all it's own. Should I die because I can’t afford the cost of cancer treatments or a new heart? Should my accidental injury at work cost me my job, my house, my lifestyle and that of my spouse and children’s as well?

Arguing that all medical procedures should be covered is absurd, voluntary medical costs should be born by those who have volunteered for them. Cosmetic surgery for me to look like a succubus is something I should pay for, but cosmetic surgery for someone whose face got ripped off in a car crash shouldn’t be their burden to pay.

Rejuvenation, AT FIRST, will be a voluntary procedure. But as time passes it will become a medical routine. Preventative medicine to insure that all the various and sundry illnesses associated with old age are eliminated. Many people will refuse at first, but as time passes more and more will chose rejuve over death.

But today, most people can’t even truly afford even basic care. Like fire protection or protection from violent criminals, healthcare must be seen as a necessary part of day to day life, and provided just as free of charge as the fire department putting out your house fire is, or the police arresting that burgular who broke into your home. We made a choice to remove these vital necessities out of the market, removing us from the chaos of competing fire departments who would burn down other departments houses to try and get more customers, and prevent policemen from failing to protect a citizen because he hadn’t bought protection from the department the officer worked for.

In the same way, basic medicine should not be a for profit enterprise. Call that what you will, but so long as medical care is seen as a luxury solely for those who can afford it, people will continue to suffer and die who did not need to. Care, not cost must be the driving goal of the medical industry. Curing, not symptom suppression must be the first goal of pharmaceutical companies. Alleviating suffering, not padding the stockholders pocketbooks must be the ONLY consideration.

If this cuts into stockholders being able to buy that solid gold toilet they wanted, or keeps some doctors from buying a new beemer this year, oh well. The public good matters far more than their greed.

It’s time we stopped thinking doctors somehow deserve to be millionaires. They are no different than any other public worker. They are part of the same system of public workers keeps our roads safe to drive on, our houses safe from fire, and our streets safe to live on. Students looking to learn about medicine should be going to school because they want to be a DOCTOR, not because it’s a good way to get rich.

But because we currently view our health care as a LUXURY, we not only justify suffering, we fail to understand that it is a absolute necessary part of our public services system, and as such should be available to all as is police and fire departments, and it’s cost spread out to all in the same way theirs is.

Good health is the core of the immortality meme. Good health is the single most essential necessity for immortality. Good health is the one concept that alone makes immortality a dream and not a nightmare.

Good health requires good health care. And once you have the idea of Good Health seen as an indisputable right of everyone everywhere, then the Immortality meme will be there as well.

Edited by valkyrie_ice, 18 September 2009 - 03:13 AM.

That's a very good point. We are in for a weird future. The thing that still concerns me is that the R&D that will lead to an economy of abundance is already well underway. The R&D needed to cure aging is in its infancy. We need to convince people to spend that money now, well before the economy of abundance materializes. In order to convince them to spend the money, I think we need to be able to address their concerns.

Quite agreed.

But one of the biggest obstacles you are going to face isn't going to be convincing people they should be rejuvenated, it's going to be convincing people that caring for health is a RIGHT not a LUXURY.

So long as healthcare is seen by a large segment of the populace as a luxury that should be paid for by the individual out of pocket and that if they can't afford it oh well, you will find funding for such things as rejuvenation lacking. What's the rush really? It's just another luxury only the rich would be able to afford.

But if people realize health care is a RIGHT, not a luxury, than the emphasis will be on finding cures as quickly as possible, because you have a RIGHT to be cured.

This reply is for Mind too, because I know we stand on opposite sides of the issues like public option and other issues. But it is critical to understand this point. Luxuries are all well and good, but the average person is going to care far more about whether they can afford that new margarita maker than they will about something that is thought of as another luxury for the wealthy. You are going to have to fight that perception every step of the way for so long as this is the prevailing view. As such rejuvenation research is likely to find more funding in other countries than it will here in the US.

And you are right Mind. People are suffering right now. They are suffering because people think healthcare is just a luxury, and so people who can't afford it don't deserve it. That's the mindset that allows people to dismiss suffering and to justify it. "those" people don't deserve help, "those" people are just too lazy to prevent their own suffering, "those" people are just trying to get a free ride, "those" people don't deserve to have their cancer cured because they aren't rich enough to pay for treatments. "those" people don't deserve to live because they are old. "those" people don't deserve to be rejuvenated because they aren't of the right social class.

and on and on and on and on. Endless justifications to allow suffering to continue.

Wow, I have been thinking about this recently too, and it really pisses me off that people spend so much money on frivolous crap! Health care is a right for everyone as I think we all have equal worth. I find inspiration from people like Bill Gates who'se charity has donated over 29 billion to some of the poorest countries, especially in Africa. And Gates said himself he'll donate the vast majority of his wealth to third world causes. This of course is essential, but we need people to wake up to life extension R & D too, and obviously this will happen in first world countries; probably western ones.

But the sooner people start caring about extreme longevity causes the sooner, we'll make it a realtiy, and hopefully this will trickle down to the poorer countries. Oy, the world is such a f ing mess.

I also totally agree that health care should be a basic right just like protection from criminals and fires are a basic right for everyone. The cosmetic thing is so true too. Someone who'se face was torn up from an accident shouldn't have to pay at all and be covered by public health insurance.

Health insurance should be the same for everyone, free across the board. And I don't think the poor deserve any less quality treatment than the ultra rich. Of course quality of doctors and hospitals and facilities will be worse in poorer nations, and poorer parts of America even. This is why doctors should go to school for being a public servant not for the money.

Maybe it's a flaw in having a capitalist country. Some would argue that the making more money drives up competition to be the best in your field, but I'm not so sure anymore...

Edited by dfowler, 18 September 2009 - 03:32 AM.

Health insurance should be the same for everyone, free across the board. And I don't think the poor deserve any less quality treatment than the ultra rich. Of course quality of doctors and hospitals and facilities will be worse in poorer nations, and poorer parts of America even. This is why doctors should go to school for being a public servant not for the money.

Someone has to pay for this free healthcare. If the poor deserve the same healthcare as the ultra rich, then we should be providing them high quality food, safe neighborhoods, quality housing with air conditioning and hepa filtration, a great gym and a personal trainer or therapist. That would be required to provide even close to the same level of health as the ultra rich. I contend that as we currently deliver health care, we can't even afford to give Cadillac health care to everyone, much less the other aspects of life I've mentioned here. The only way we can come remotely close to providing health care to everyone is to drive down the cost of healthcare, and that means that a lot of people will not get what they want. Insurance companies would not get the profits they want, and some people wouldn't get the care they want. Someone might have to pay higher taxes. So far, a significant portion of our country seems to want unlimited health care services, but doesn't want to have to pay for them.

Health insurance should be the same for everyone, free across the board. And I don't think the poor deserve any less quality treatment than the ultra rich. Of course quality of doctors and hospitals and facilities will be worse in poorer nations, and poorer parts of America even. This is why doctors should go to school for being a public servant not for the money.

Since we're talking about the ultra-rich, everyone should have access to a private jet. Just for the faster transplants, you understand.

Did Steve Jobs' money buy him a faster liver transplant?

Edited by rwac, 18 September 2009 - 05:37 AM.

But one of the biggest obstacles you are going to face isn't going to be convincing people they should be rejuvenated, it's going to be convincing people that caring for health is a RIGHT not a LUXURY.

I have a hard time rationalizing Health Care services as a right. My main problem is that assigning the status of a right to a commodity is different than assigning the status of a right to a proclamation that limits the power of government &/or permits a particular action. Health Care is a service, it is the fruit of another person's labor. In effect you would have to take something away from another person in order to categorize Health Care as a right. Is eating a right? Does that mean that what the farmer reaps from his fields doesn't belong to him but to the state? Should the farmer be paid for his harvest, or because some people may not be able to afford his produce should he provide it gratis? Would this similarly mean that doctors & nurses should provide their services whether or not they can be compensated? If you elevate a commodity to the status of a right then depriving another of that commodity is a grave trespass upon their inalienable rights. Following this, those who produce the commodity have no choice but to become slaves to the state, they must give up the fruit of their labor - compensation or not - because it is a right.

Now, should health care services be a privilege of living in an industrialized nation? Probably. But not before eating is an universal privilege in an industrialized nation. Not before shelter is an universal privilege in an industrialized nation. We're jumping the gun a little, I think.

Of course it's a right. It says so in the Declaration of Independence. We have a right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Healthcare saves one from death, i.e. exercises our right to life. It's just that Healthcare's tools aren't as great as we'd like them and everything's expensive or barbaric. Oh and our med schools are slow to add seats cause they want to retain an aura of exclusiveness as if they were a Nike brand, and because of this they have to ship in nurses from the tropics to do the jobs that their doctors once did in the 60's.

Ask yourself this if a deadly virus affected the nation, wouldn't the whole nation be mobilized a protection from it? You betcha. Then what's the difference between a fast acting virus that leads to a painful death, or a slow reacting condition like cancer that does the same thing? Other than the window of time to develop new technologies, of course.

Additionally all Americans have access to national defense, which is a service that encompasses a plethora of commodities. Whether or not it is a privilege or a right you got me. But we all pay for it to save the citizens en mass. Most people attribute the existence of a military as enforcing our right to liberty.

I think questions about who should pay for the public option would be answered if people had the ability to opt out of contributing to the gov's insurance plan. Kind of like opting out of national defense by living in a foreign country. So if you don't want to be part of the pool of taxpayer healthcare you just get your state congressman to write your state or county out of the tax obligation. Since people who are the most afraid of losing their insurance are the same people afraid of losing their jobs, the contributors would mostly be counties with high concentrations of blue collar workers, and minorities too, since many red states will opt out due to principle alone. (Then of course when you do get sick you high tail it over to those suckers in New York who unionize everything!) The problem with this scheme is that, obviously, rich neighborhoods would opt out, yet send their sick relatives to live in poor communities and leave it up to the working class to pay for everything. The government will also underestimate the costs to the point that the only people who would brave the paper hills forming around their insurance offices would be mountain climbers and thrill seekers.

Nowadays healthcare is a multi-headed hydra of concerns, the biggest being cost. The true dilemma of healthcare is the fact that you have to win an employment lottery in order to get some amount of coverage. Healthcare could and should be as available as car insurance where you are able to go shopping for your particular tastes. Maybe then individual employees could use their spare money to pay for their feeble grandparent's healthcare. This would only happen by shattering the bureaucratic monopolies some insurance companies have state-to-state. Then perhaps employees could use their spare change to buy coverage if they feel they need it.

http://www.gnhealth....rearticles1.php

http://www.gnhealth....thcarebill.html

All of you please read these articles linked above..........

Health insurance should be the same for everyone, free across the board. And I don't think the poor deserve any less quality treatment than the ultra rich. Of course quality of doctors and hospitals and facilities will be worse in poorer nations, and poorer parts of America even. This is why doctors should go to school for being a public servant not for the money.

Since we're talking about the ultra-rich, everyone should have access to a private jet. Just for the faster transplants, you understand.

Did Steve Jobs' money buy him a faster liver transplant?

will read that article on Jobs, but yes I've thought about that of course. Obviously things will never be completely or even close to really equal, and emergency organ transplants will continue to be a life and death situation until we incorporate organ cloning into the equation. But I'll leave you with just a simple idea; that if something could change the selfishness, selfish gene, whatev, in people, then life would be so much better, but I also know that the vast majority of Americans work diligently and are good at what they do, because the U.S. is a service geared country, and well, customers expect the very best. So my selfish point is really more geared towards the medical and big pharma industry. If big pharma didn't care so much about getting rich, and took a sympathy course in understanding what patients often go through, then they would take more risky ventures into funding research into potentially much better drugs for cancer, just as an example, where if it worked we could add years, even decades onto people's lives, and if it fell flat on its face big pharma would lose millions. As it stands pharmaceutical companies would rather spend much much smaller amounts of money on merely tweaking therapies that are already being used in cancer treatments, to use the same example. This would add maybe a few days to 2 weeks onto peoples lives, (as I've read in some articles talking about cancer research recently, not making this stuff up off the top of my head.) So these companies write something like "significant improvement in such and such a drug," when it's really nothing much at all. As long as there is any improvement in delaying death or even bettering symptoms like pain, in certain instances, everyone gets excited and writes overly optimistic sounding articles that get patients, and their families, excited at any last chance of delaying death.

Of course these monopolies get more rich and patient x lives a week longer than expected. So the unfortunate thing about Capitalism, and what's always been unfortunate about this system, is money rules everything; in this country especially. In this case neither the poor, nor the rich, stand much to gain if this industry doesn't start thinking about the sufferers of these diseases more. Instead, millions die each year from diseases that we could be making significantly more progress on, if researchers in pharmaceutical companies could have a little more sympathy and weren't so friggin short sighted in their approach to research. I guess humans are just genetically predisposed to be inherently selfish, and our culture seems to breed a certain mentality that money is tantamount over health and length of life. Makes me sick.

Edited by dfowler, 18 September 2009 - 07:13 AM.

Basic health care is a right in the same sense that police protection is a right, fire protection is a right and military protection is a right. These are things that we as a society require to provide us with the opportunity to have our Primary Rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Basic coverage of healthcare is a service that is necessary for the continuation of humane society.

Police have no duty to protect individual citizens & citizens do not have a constitutional right to be protected, as has been ruled multiple times over the years. Viz. Castle Rock vs. Gonzales & DeShaney vs. Winnebago County. Self defense via the second amendment is your best bet.

Fire protection is not a right. If I call the fire department to put out a fire I get a bill in the mail.

Emergency Medical Services & emergency transport to a medical facility isn't a right. If I call an ambulance I get a bill in the mail.

Military protection is provided for by the constitution by empowering government to "Provide for the common defense." However, soldiers are, in essence, slaves to the government. Soldiers go where they're told, shoot who they're told, do push-ups when they're told - there's a notable distinction between service wo/men & civilians for a reason.

Still not convinced that health care can be considered a right. It's a definitional problem, I think, & a lack of familiarity with the difference between a constitutionally protected right & a privilege provided by a wealthy society.

Edited by castrensis, 18 September 2009 - 01:05 PM.

Of course it's a right. It says so in the Declaration of Independence. We have a right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Healthcare saves one from death, i.e. exercises our right to life.

Seems to me that you have misinterpreted the declaration of independence.

The idea of the founding fathers was that everyone has the right to pursue happiness, not that everyone who happens to be born must be given happiness by forcing other people to serve their needs. These are two completely different things.

The declaration grants only negative rights - rights that are not obligations to other people.

Thus, the right to life means that other people shouldn't kill you, not that other people should devote their lives to give you the kind of life you want. That would be a contradiction in itself, because how would these people enjoy their own lives when they have to spend all their time making sure you are happy?

Health care exercises coercion and violence over group X to provide for group Y. Thus, group X is deprived of their right to liberty (and possibly the pursuit of happiness).

There's just no way around this, no matter which angle you try to look at it from. Your positive rights are always someone else's obligations.

Of course it's a right. It says so in the Declaration of Independence. We have a right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Healthcare saves one from death, i.e. exercises our right to life.

Seems to me that you have misinterpreted the declaration of independence.

The idea of the founding fathers was that everyone has the right to pursue happiness, not that everyone who happens to be born must be given happiness by forcing other people to serve their needs. These are two completely different things.

The declaration grants only negative rights - rights that are not obligations to other people.

Thus, the right to life means that other people shouldn't kill you, not that other people should devote their lives to give you the kind of life you want. That would be a contradiction in itself, because how would these people enjoy their own lives when they have to spend all their time making sure you are happy?

Health care exercises coercion and violence over group X to provide for group Y. Thus, group X is deprived of their right to liberty (and possibly the pursuit of happiness).

There's just no way around this, no matter which angle you try to look at it from. Your positive rights are always someone else's obligations.

I hope that was a tongue in cheek reply because the declaration is not a legal document only an historical one. The pursuit of happiness has more to do with the right to privacy i.e., the right to pursue one's own satisfaction if it does not harm others. It is a morally neutral right granted under the fourteenth ammendment. One could argue that the tenth ammendment was sufficient but it was the actions of individual states that sought to limit a direct right to privacy and by definition violated a principle of the founding fathers the pursuit of happiness. Also, the commerce clause is the foundation of various agencies of the federal government among them Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. It is not a stretch that the commerce clause can justify federal regulation of the health insurance market to make it uniform. On the other hand the tenth ammendment was specifically added to limit federal power so it can be argued that the current interpretation of the commerce clause is flawed.

From a practical point of view, I think especially if one's goal is life extension, rejuvenation, or any kind of cosmetic-ish treatment or enhancement, one should hope for as free a market as possible. A state-based system will have to prioritize what resources they have somehow - and anything regarded as luxuries will necessarily have to be kicked down the list.

I think this is a myth about socialism that needs to be nipped in the bud. If you have a truly democratic socialist regime you will have what the people want, not what the politicians do. This would include the broad diversity of what different sub-groups think is right. But you have to do it the right way. Comparing a prospective democratic socialism with communism is not the way.

In fact I think capitalism slows down progress (think space program) because of all the deliberating and NIMBYism that is so common of overblown democratic values which, in the end, do not belong to 'the people' but to those sitting on chairs in commissions and CEOs of mega-corporations. There is no people power in america at all, people are full of shit when stating otherwise.

If it was a myth, you'd be right.

But so long as human desire and needs outstrip human resources, someone is going to deciding who gets their medical care subsidized*.

That someone is going to be an insurance company employee, a co-op director, a government functionary - who knows, but it's going to be someone. Same thing for the so-called "death panels" - someone is going to be the one to say "we can't afford to pay for treatment X for person Y".. we're not going to be taking headcount votes on every single procedure, and there simply are not enough resources to give every single citizen (to say nothing of everyone who can get here) the very best of everything.

When you can build autonomous bioMEMS that put everyone back together transparently, efficiently, and for negligible cost great - I want to see that day to. Heck, I'm putting my own money and time towards it.

But until it comes, we still have to deal with "medicines cost A to create, doctors need B years to get competent and need to constantly stay up to date while seeing patients, hospital space costs C, liability insurance costs D ... and meanwhile we have X people who want Y services but only Z many dollars."

Someone isn't going to get what they want.. and yes, in the worst cases they may suffer and possibly even die sooner because of that. And someone is going to decide who that person is, and why.

That someone else is going to be an insurance company employee saying "this is not a covered procedure," a government employee saying "you've lived a long life, this budget is better spent on this other person," the patient themselves saying "I don't have the cash for this/it's not worth it" .... but it's going to be someone and all the "people power" in the world won't change that. Especially when more people want X covered than Y.... and you happen to have Y.


-KB


* Which is not the same thing as "who gets health care" - a point often dropped in these debates.

From a practical point of view, I think especially if one's goal is life extension, rejuvenation, or any kind of cosmetic-ish treatment or enhancement, one should hope for as free a market as possible. A state-based system will have to prioritize what resources they have somehow - and anything regarded as luxuries will necessarily have to be kicked down the list.

I think this is a myth about socialism that needs to be nipped in the bud. If you have a truly democratic socialist regime you will have what the people want, not what the politicians do. This would include the broad diversity of what different sub-groups think is right. But you have to do it the right way. Comparing a prospective democratic socialism with communism is not the way.

In fact I think capitalism slows down progress (think space program) because of all the deliberating and NIMBYism that is so common of overblown democratic values which, in the end, do not belong to 'the people' but to those sitting on chairs in commissions and CEOs of mega-corporations. There is no people power in america at all, people are full of shit when stating otherwise.

If it was a myth, you'd be right.

But so long as human desire and needs outstrip human resources, someone is going to deciding who gets their medical care subsidized*.

That someone is going to be an insurance company employee, a co-op director, a government functionary - who knows, but it's going to be someone. Same thing for the so-called "death panels" - someone is going to be the one to say "we can't afford to pay for treatment X for person Y".. we're not going to be taking headcount votes on every single procedure, and there simply are not enough resources to give every single citizen (to say nothing of everyone who can get here) the very best of everything.

When you can build autonomous bioMEMS that put everyone back together transparently, efficiently, and for negligible cost great - I want to see that day to. Heck, I'm putting my own money and time towards it.

But until it comes, we still have to deal with "medicines cost A to create, doctors need B years to get competent and need to constantly stay up to date while seeing patients, hospital space costs C, liability insurance costs D ... and meanwhile we have X people who want Y services but only Z many dollars."

Someone isn't going to get what they want.. and yes, in the worst cases they may suffer and possibly even die sooner because of that. And someone is going to decide who that person is, and why.

That someone else is going to be an insurance company employee saying "this is not a covered procedure," a government employee saying "you've lived a long life, this budget is better spent on this other person," the patient themselves saying "I don't have the cash for this/it's not worth it" .... but it's going to be someone and all the "people power" in the world won't change that. Especially when more people want X covered than Y.... and you happen to have Y.


-KB


* Which is not the same thing as "who gets health care" - a point often dropped in these debates.

From a practical point of view, I think especially if one's goal is life extension, rejuvenation, or any kind of cosmetic-ish treatment or enhancement, one should hope for as free a market as possible. A state-based system will have to prioritize what resources they have somehow - and anything regarded as luxuries will necessarily have to be kicked down the list.

I think this is a myth about socialism that needs to be nipped in the bud. If you have a truly democratic socialist regime you will have what the people want, not what the politicians do. This would include the broad diversity of what different sub-groups think is right. But you have to do it the right way. Comparing a prospective democratic socialism with communism is not the way.

In fact I think capitalism slows down progress (think space program) because of all the deliberating and NIMBYism that is so common of overblown democratic values which, in the end, do not belong to 'the people' but to those sitting on chairs in commissions and CEOs of mega-corporations. There is no people power in america at all, people are full of shit when stating otherwise.

You're just regurgitating a bunch of cynical misconceptions about what a socialist system should be, so that I can't even respond to it. It would be like talking to a brick wall that has the slogan 'freedom has a price' spray painted on it.

I say no, freedom need not have a price. I say freedom is whatever I make it right now, whatever I contribute to this so called reality we share. Not what a bunch of dumb economists or politicians tell me that is.

Fact is full fledged socialism has never been attempted, therefor all your regurgitated notions are speculation based on failed communist systems that were called socialist. But if the french are any indication, socialism is cool!

Edited by TheFountain, 18 September 2009 - 07:50 PM.

You're just regurgitating a bunch of cynical misconceptions about what a socialist system should be, so that I can't even respond to it. It would be like talking to a brick wall that has the slogan 'freedom has a price' spray painted on it.

Could you explain just one of Kalabeth's so-called cynical misconceptions? I'm having a hard time seeing how finite resources can cover near-infinite wants without resorting to Unicorns or Wishing Really Really Hard...

You're just regurgitating a bunch of cynical misconceptions about what a socialist system should be, so that I can't even respond to it. It would be like talking to a brick wall that has the slogan 'freedom has a price' spray painted on it.

Could you explain just one of Kalabeth's so-called cynical misconceptions? I'm having a hard time seeing how finite resources can cover near-infinite wants without resorting to Unicorns or Wishing Really Really Hard...

Ah thus emerges once again the 'finite resources' argument. I think it is a matter of certain resources being succeeded by other's. Take for example the stupid ongoing debacle over oil. If funding were made available 10 years ago to adequate alternative energy research we would have automobiles running on any number of other substances now.

As it stands we have very few and electric automobile technology has been at an almost stand-still since the late 90s. Partly becaise of lack of funding and partly because of lobbyists from EXXON mobile and GE fighting against it. I dare say if these two elements were not so damaging to progress we would have electric cars with a range of 1000 miles by now.

Of course this is just one aspect of the puzzle. Ultimately we need to direct resources into succeeding and replacing one another to support a socialist network. But I see no reason why a population of even 10 billion couldn't survive on what we have now. It is simply a matter of being less wasteful. People would naturally learn not to be as life moved on.

A good example of a fictional socialism that works would be the type of society you see in star trek. Where replicators produce limited quantities of limitless items and no one is left impoverished thus competing as a result. For now we could apply the succeed/replace strategy, and of course once we colonize space we have other resources available.

Edited by TheFountain, 25 September 2009 - 05:08 PM.

You're just regurgitating a bunch of cynical misconceptions about what a socialist system should be, so that I can't even respond to it. It would be like talking to a brick wall that has the slogan 'freedom has a price' spray painted on it.

Could you explain just one of Kalabeth's so-called cynical misconceptions? I'm having a hard time seeing how finite resources can cover near-infinite wants without resorting to Unicorns or Wishing Really Really Hard...

So apparently his answer is to wish really hard...

There is no shortage of resources. All we need are star trek replicators. Ha!

You're just regurgitating a bunch of cynical misconceptions about what a socialist system should be, so that I can't even respond to it. It would be like talking to a brick wall that has the slogan 'freedom has a price' spray painted on it.

Could you explain just one of Kalabeth's so-called cynical misconceptions? I'm having a hard time seeing how finite resources can cover near-infinite wants without resorting to Unicorns or Wishing Really Really Hard...

So apparently his answer is to wish really hard...

There is no shortage of resources. All we need are star trek replicators. Ha!

You obviously weren't paying attention to my post. Alternative energy will open up a lot of opportunity to change as a species.

Ah thus emerges once again the 'finite resources' argument. I think it is a matter of certain resources being succeeded by other's. Take for example the stupid ongoing debacle over oil. If funding were made available 10 years ago to adequate alternative energy research we would have automobiles running on any number of other substances now.

As it stands we have very few and electric automobile technology has been at an almost stand-still since the late 90s. Partly becaise of lack of funding and partly because of lobbyists from EXXON mobile and GE fighting against it. I dare say if these two elements were not so damaging to progress we would have electric cars with a range of 1000 miles by now.

If you are going to talk about energy, you might want to peruse sites like http://www.greencarcongress.com/ or http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/ ; It would help to know something about it.

When I talk about "resources" in this context, you could substitute "money". You do agree, I hope, that we are not awash in money at this moment, such that we can afford infinite healthcare for everyone, particularly ten billion of us? Or is this a case of... "Nice Unicorn ya got there"?

Ah thus emerges once again the 'finite resources' argument. I think it is a matter of certain resources being succeeded by other's. Take for example the stupid ongoing debacle over oil. If funding were made available 10 years ago to adequate alternative energy research we would have automobiles running on any number of other substances now.

As it stands we have very few and electric automobile technology has been at an almost stand-still since the late 90s. Partly becaise of lack of funding and partly because of lobbyists from EXXON mobile and GE fighting against it. I dare say if these two elements were not so damaging to progress we would have electric cars with a range of 1000 miles by now.

If you are going to talk about energy, you might want to peruse sites like http://www.greencarcongress.com/ or http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/ ; It would help to know something about it.

When I talk about "resources" in this context, you could substitute "money". You do agree, I hope, that we are not awash in money at this moment, such that we can afford infinite healthcare for everyone, particularly ten billion of us? Or is this a case of... "Nice Unicorn ya got there"?

Universal Healthcare would free up billions of dollars currently going nowhere but to line insurance company pockets, would reduce hospital costs by removing the massive insurance overheads that they have to have for uninsured care and remove the massive malpractice premiums every doctor has to carry.

In the Canadian system everyone has government insurance for basic care. Elective care is covered by private insurance companies for those who chose greater than basic coverage. Every Canadian citizen I know loves their system.

Whether you consider Healthcare a right or not, you cannot argue that insurance companies have a right to gouge the public for all it's worth. The vast majority of healthcare expense is insurance fees. Remove the insurance companies you reduce costs.