< 1 2 3
 
   
 

The Ted Interview

 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3494
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
03 November 2018 09:47
 
GAD - 03 November 2018 09:07 AM

In the US people consume 3000+ calories a day of french fries, caramel macchiatos etc while sitting on their IPhones 12+ hours a day keeping up with the Kardashians. Yet with our lifestyle we are only slightly behind other counties in life span, that is a testament to just how great our healthcare is! Yes, it costs a lot, but it is an industry here. That people think you we can double the amount of people getting care while cutting the costs in half without changing the way we live just shows the sheer stupidity of those people.

Well, north of your border are also people who eat their fair share of french fries and sit on their behinds. 

What you seem to be dismissing is the billions of dollars that are paid to the ‘middle-man’, the insurance companies, which is not spent on providing actual health care.

There really is much the U.S. could learn from other countries if some of its citizens would get over their misconception that they are the greatest in everything.  If you were to ask a Canadian, Swede or French person if they’d prefer an American system of health care, one can fairly safely predict the answer would be that they are basically satisfied with their own systems; I don’t think that could be said for the majority of Americans.

Hey, I just want my American neighbours to enjoy and benefit from a more affordable and accessible health care system.

[ Edited: 03 November 2018 10:31 by Jan_CAN]
 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17990
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
03 November 2018 10:33
 
Jan_CAN - 03 November 2018 09:47 AM
GAD - 03 November 2018 09:07 AM

In the US people consume 3000+ calories a day of french fries, caramel macchiatos etc while sitting on their IPhones 12+ hours a day keeping up with the Kardashians. Yet with our lifestyle we are only slightly behind other counties in life span, that is a testament to just how great our healthcare is! Yes, it costs a lot, but it is an industry here. That people think you we can double the amount of people getting care while cutting the costs in half without changing the way we live just shows the sheer stupidity of those people.

Well, north of your border are also people who eat their fair share of french fries and sit on their behinds. 

What you seem to be dismissing is the billions of dollars that are paid to the ‘middle-man’, the insurance companies, which is not spent on providing actual health care.

There really is much the U.S. could learn from other countries if some of its citizens would get over their misconception that they are the greatest about everything.  If you were to ask a Canadian, Swede or French person if they’d prefer an American system of health care, one can fairly safely predict the answer would be that they are basically satisfied with their systems; I don’t think that could be said for many Americans.

Hey, I just want my American neighbours to enjoy and benefit from an affordable and accessible health care system.

Why do you care so much about saving the poor and stupid? Why don’t you care about the ‘middle-man’? They are less poor and stupid and actually have jobs, families etc. too. The reason is that you are looking for someone to save and need a victim and a villain. The poor and stupid can’t be poor and stupid because they are poor and stupid, no, they must be the victims of some evil that must be defeated. So you make the less poor and stupid and the rich and smart into villains that the poor and stupid need to be saved from. Do you care that destroying the less poor and stupid and rich and smart who drive the world forward simply makes more poor and stupid people, no. No, you don’t care because deep inside your monsters from the id torment you and need to find someone to save so you can feel better about yourself. So really you are just a selfish person who only cares about them self. 

 

 

 

 
 
Russco79
 
Avatar
 
 
Russco79
Total Posts:  34
Joined  02-09-2018
 
 
 
03 November 2018 19:35
 

Ok, here’s a thought experiment to hammer home the point.  Imagine if food, by historical accident, was suddenly instituted as a ‘right’, or socialised.  Imagine we had ‘universal foodcare’.  What the hell would that look like?  The questions is so absurd because socialising anything is so absurd.  Would it mean everyone gets rationed the bare necessities? Would it be measured in calories or nutrition? Would there be restaurants?  Takeaway?  Different cuisines?  It’s nonsensical to contemplate. Yet healthcare is actually WAY more complex than just stuffing one’s face. Just imagine what it could look like if we allowed human ingenuity to flourish by deregulation.

One of the most rewarding professions is being a doctor.  One of the most valuable services is healthcare.  Yet if you’re smart you work in banking or tech.  Why?  Because of socialised healthcare.  Why the hell are Goldman Sachs and Google so big when no one cares more about their money and internet than their health?  Our current anti-biotics may be worthless one day but are brightest brains are trading stocks and creating computer games.  The whole thing is a tragedy for humankind, all because of ignorance of how markets always bring the best results.

 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3494
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
03 November 2018 21:27
 
Russco79 - 03 November 2018 07:35 PM

Ok, here’s a thought experiment to hammer home the point.  Imagine if food, by historical accident, was suddenly instituted as a ‘right’, or socialised.  Imagine we had ‘universal foodcare’.  What the hell would that look like?  The questions is so absurd because socialising anything is so absurd.  Would it mean everyone gets rationed the bare necessities? Would it be measured in calories or nutrition? Would there be restaurants?  Takeaway?  Different cuisines?  It’s nonsensical to contemplate. Yet healthcare is actually WAY more complex than just stuffing one’s face. Just imagine what it could look like if we allowed human ingenuity to flourish by deregulation.

One of the most rewarding professions is being a doctor.  One of the most valuable services is healthcare.  Yet if you’re smart you work in banking or tech.  Why?  Because of socialised healthcare.  Why the hell are Goldman Sachs and Google so big when no one cares more about their money and internet than their health?  Our current anti-biotics may be worthless one day but are brightest brains are trading stocks and creating computer games.  The whole thing is a tragedy for humankind, all because of ignorance of how markets always bring the best results.

Yes, medicine is a rewarding profession and health care a valuable service.  And this is just as true in countries with socialized health care systems where doctors are well compensated for their services.  In Canada, applications from the “brightest brains”, the best-of-the-best students, for medical school far exceed the numbers admitted.  And the requirements for admission far exceed those for entry into business or computing, for example.

Do you really think that all of human ingenuity is based on the almighty dollar alone?  And do you think that the best physicians would be those whose main goal is money?

[ Edited: 03 November 2018 22:27 by Jan_CAN]
 
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  767
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
04 November 2018 04:57
 

Wahhhh…, Making public policy is hard; let’s go shopping.

Here’s a thought experiment, let’s say we wanted to have collective military defense.  What the hell would that look like? How big of an army?  What kind of equipment?  One service or multiple branches? Where will we house them? ... it’s nonsensical to contemplate.

[ Edited: 04 November 2018 07:22 by mapadofu]
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1900
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
04 November 2018 05:01
 
Russco79 - 03 November 2018 07:35 PM

. . .

One of the most rewarding professions is being a doctor.  One of the most valuable services is healthcare.  Yet if you’re smart you work in banking or tech.  Why?  Because of socialised healthcare.  Why the hell are Goldman Sachs and Google so big when no one cares more about their money and internet than their health?  Our current anti-biotics may be worthless one day but are brightest brains are trading stocks and creating computer games.  The whole thing is a tragedy for humankind, all because of ignorance of how markets always bring the best results.

If not for socialized medicine, we’d no doubt have researchers bright enough to come up with high-tech treatments that are actually affordable . . . right.

 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  1027
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
04 November 2018 06:42
 

Russco79 - 03 November 2018 05:24 AM

Ultimately positive rights are meaningless since you immediately run into arbitrary definitions of things like ‘healthcare’.

This is like saying “ultimately negative rights are meaningless because you immediately run into arbitrary definitions of things like ‘speech’ and ‘religion’.”

 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3494
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
04 November 2018 07:02
 
nonverbal - 04 November 2018 05:01 AM
Russco79 - 03 November 2018 07:35 PM

. . .

One of the most rewarding professions is being a doctor.  One of the most valuable services is healthcare.  Yet if you’re smart you work in banking or tech.  Why?  Because of socialised healthcare.  Why the hell are Goldman Sachs and Google so big when no one cares more about their money and internet than their health?  Our current anti-biotics may be worthless one day but are brightest brains are trading stocks and creating computer games.  The whole thing is a tragedy for humankind, all because of ignorance of how markets always bring the best results.

If not for socialized medicine, we’d no doubt have researchers bright enough to come up with high-tech treatments that are actually affordable . . . right.

Yup ... with the goal of saving lives, innovation can lead to treatments that are less invasive, safer, and more effective – with the ‘side effect’ that they are also cheaper.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/no-more-bomb-in-his-chest-man-thankful-for-new-aortic-aneurysm-surgery-1.4162317

 

 
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1900
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
04 November 2018 07:11
 
Jan_CAN - 04 November 2018 07:02 AM
nonverbal - 04 November 2018 05:01 AM
Russco79 - 03 November 2018 07:35 PM

. . .

One of the most rewarding professions is being a doctor.  One of the most valuable services is healthcare.  Yet if you’re smart you work in banking or tech.  Why?  Because of socialised healthcare.  Why the hell are Goldman Sachs and Google so big when no one cares more about their money and internet than their health?  Our current anti-biotics may be worthless one day but are brightest brains are trading stocks and creating computer games.  The whole thing is a tragedy for humankind, all because of ignorance of how markets always bring the best results.

If not for socialized medicine, we’d no doubt have researchers bright enough to come up with high-tech treatments that are actually affordable . . . right.

Yup ... with the goal of saving lives, innovation can lead to treatments that are less invasive, safer, and more effective – with the ‘side effect’ that they are also cheaper.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/no-more-bomb-in-his-chest-man-thankful-for-new-aortic-aneurysm-surgery-1.4162317

Of course, if that’s the goal.

 
 
Russco79
 
Avatar
 
 
Russco79
Total Posts:  34
Joined  02-09-2018
 
 
 
04 November 2018 10:28
 

This is like saying “ultimately negative rights are meaningless because you immediately run into arbitrary definitions of things like ‘speech’ and ‘religion’.”

No because of the negative valence we can say (ALL X - some exceptions).  You can’t do the same with healthcare because providing something positive has no natural bounds.

Regarding the question of healthcare why is it all the large pharmaceutical companies all have the worst reputations?  Just by chance they happen to attract a strange breed of evil people?  Surely the reverse should be true, I’m sure they’re made up of a lot of healthcare professionals, ex-doctors and surgeons.  The reason is they’re drowning under ludicrous regulations and are therefore constantly slimed by careerist politicians and journalists when they step a foot wrong.  Again, if you’re a smart kid with huge potential are you gonna tell everyone you plan on working for big pharma?  Healthcare could be exciting, innovative, dynamic, think of all the possibilities for the integration with technology.  Yet instead we have bloated prehistoric creaking health systems where everyone who works there is stressed and depressed working in bland mundane environments where everything seems 20 years old.  It’s quite strange people think this is the best solution.

 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  767
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
04 November 2018 11:09
 

Rusco — you’ve hid a lot, really the whole game, in your parenthetical “some exceptions”.  I’m to believe that there are “natural bounds” on these exceptions?

[ Edited: 05 November 2018 04:44 by mapadofu]
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  1027
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
04 November 2018 11:30
 

Russco79 - 04 November 2018 10:28 AM:

No because of the negative valence we can say (ALL X - some exceptions).  You can’t do the same with healthcare because providing something positive has no natural bounds.

This doesn’t even make sense.  Practically speaking the problem of specifying a negative right is identical to the problem of specifying a positive right, for to insure protection from infringement the right must be just as specified as it would have to be were it something the state is obligated to provide. Determining pragmatically, for instance, just what speech is protected and what speech is not is no different in principle from determining what kind of health care services one would be guaranteed, and what ones not, if healthcare were a positive right.  In both cases the bounds are set by legislation and court precedence.  There is nothing natural about either.


[ Edited: 04 November 2018 11:48 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3494
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
04 November 2018 11:32
 
Russco79 - 04 November 2018 10:28 AM

...
Regarding the question of healthcare why is it all the large pharmaceutical companies all have the worst reputations?  Just by chance they happen to attract a strange breed of evil people?  Surely the reverse should be true, I’m sure they’re made up of a lot of healthcare professionals, ex-doctors and surgeons.  The reason is they’re drowning under ludicrous regulations and are therefore constantly slimed by careerist politicians and journalists when they step a foot wrong.  Again, if you’re a smart kid with huge potential are you gonna tell everyone you plan on working for big pharma?  Healthcare could be exciting, innovative, dynamic, think of all the possibilities for the integration with technology.  Yet instead we have bloated prehistoric creaking health systems where everyone who works there is stressed and depressed working in bland mundane environments where everything seems 20 years old.  It’s quite strange people think this is the best solution.

Perhaps a little more information and facts rather than conjecture would help.

—Pharmaceutical companies are an aspect of health care of course, but should not be confused with the medical insurance companies.
—Pharmaceutical companies are not tax-funded so therefore are profit-based.  It’s not an issue of being ‘evil’, but without regulations to control for ethical research, safety, drug efficacy, etc., there is always a potential for greed to affect practises and decision-making.  (Remember ‘thalidomide babies’?)
—I doubt that many of their researchers are discouraged ex-surgeons/doctors.  In Canada (and it appears that this is also the case in the U.S.), many of the people who work for pharmaceutical companies are specifically-trained pharmacologists, biochemists, oncologists.

You seem to be directly relating any deficiencies in your health care system to the medicare that does exist.  It could just as easily be argued that this is due to insufficient allocation of funds that could be improved upon with an adequately tax-funded health care system.

[ Edited: 04 November 2018 11:41 by Jan_CAN]
 
 
 < 1 2 3