A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

According to Scott:
"The free market is always the most efficient way for such things to be
'regulated.' "

Assuming efficiency is your prime objective, then there might be a
modicum of truth therein. But suppose you had other objectives? Is the
free market necessarily the "best" (determined by whatever your
ojectives are) way to regulate?


Usually.

Almost always when it comes to government intervention in private commerce.

Universally when it comes to forcing people to pay for other people's bad
health.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Scott Weiser wrote:
Anyway, I thought I'd update the socialist dogma thread since there's some
important news just out: Vincent Carrol of the Rocky Mountain News reports
that Canada's Supreme Court has struck down Quebec's ban on private health
insurance. Carroll says, "The court grandly announced, for example, that the
prohibition on private health care has resulted in 'physical and
psychological suffering,' including occasional deaths (which is certainly
true), and concluded that this violates Quebec's charter of rights."

He goes on to say, "The Canadian medical system amounts to moronic policy
and has become a liability to health."

Right on Vincent! Yet more proof that socialized medicine is a very bad
thing.
--


It proves the American healthcare-pharmaceutical-insurance industrial
complex is not in crisis. Only patients are....

"donquijote1954" wrote in message
oups.com...


Scott Weiser wrote:
Anyway, I thought I'd update the socialist dogma thread since there's
some
important news just out: Vincent Carrol of the Rocky Mountain News
reports
that Canada's Supreme Court has struck down Quebec's ban on private
health
insurance. Carroll says, "The court grandly announced, for example, that
the
prohibition on private health care has resulted in 'physical and
psychological suffering,' including occasional deaths (which is certainly
true), and concluded that this violates Quebec's charter of rights."

He goes on to say, "The Canadian medical system amounts to moronic policy
and has become a liability to health."

Right on Vincent! Yet more proof that socialized medicine is a very bad
thing.
--


It proves the American healthcare-pharmaceutical-insurance industrial
complex is not in crisis. Only patients are....


Patients do NOT count in the American system. PROVIDERS are happy so the
rest of the world can just go to hell.

george conklin wrote:
It proves the American healthcare-pharmaceutical-insurance industrial
complex is not in crisis. Only patients are....


Patients do NOT count in the American system. PROVIDERS are happy so the
rest of the world can just go to hell.

They only count as customers, rather shortchanged though.

"donquijote1954" wrote in message
oups.com...


george conklin wrote:
It proves the American healthcare-pharmaceutical-insurance industrial
complex is not in crisis. Only patients are....


Patients do NOT count in the American system. PROVIDERS are happy so
the
rest of the world can just go to hell.

They only count as customers, rather shortchanged though.


Medicine is the only business where customers are kept waiting for hours
so the providers can run their offices any way they choose and you cannot
say anything about it or you are being 'rude.' You are supposed to sit
there for 1-2 hours and SMILE during your 3-minute quickie visit.

george conklin wrote:
"donquijote1954" wrote in message
oups.com...


george conklin wrote:
It proves the American healthcare-pharmaceutical-insurance industrial
complex is not in crisis. Only patients are....


Patients do NOT count in the American system. PROVIDERS are happy so
the
rest of the world can just go to hell.

They only count as customers, rather shortchanged though.


Medicine is the only business where customers are kept waiting for hours
so the providers can run their offices any way they choose and you cannot
say anything about it or you are being 'rude.' You are supposed to sit
there for 1-2 hours and SMILE during your 3-minute quickie visit.

On the bright side they provide you with fancy magazines. Nobody will
questions a thief with such great attention to detail.

A Usenet persona calling itself Franklin wrote:


Universally when it comes to forcing people to pay for other people's bad
health.


Your sense of humanity is touching. You'd probably stand there and watch a
guy drown on the river rather than trying to save him, too.



Whether I would try to save him depends on a number of factors, including
whether I'm capable of doing so without losing my own life. That's a
judgment I get to make, and not a decision that you can compel me to make.

Something you learn as an EMT is that you're not responsible for the trouble
other people get themselves into. You try to do the best you can to help
them, but sometimes people die. If you take on the guilt of other people's
bad judgment or ill luck, you won't last long in emergency services. And
there's little sense in two people dying because a rescuer tried to do the
impossible...or merely something he's not capable of doing. Demanding that a
non-swimmer to dive into a raging rapid to save a kayaker who is trapped
underwater is stupid. Besides the obvious futility involved, the kayaker
took on the risk with full knowledge of the potential for death, so it's
unreasonable for him to expect others to risk their lives to save him.

Now, if a person WANTS to try to save someone, that's completely different.

But, the whole point of my statement in re health care is that it's wron to
COMPEL someone to pay for another's bad habits, bad genetics or bad luck.

If you want to ASK them to help, that's perfectly fine, so long as you don't
gripe if they decline.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Query to Scott, who claims:
============
the whole point of my statement in re health care is that it's wron to
COMPEL someone to pay for another's bad habits, bad genetics or bad
luck.
===========

Scott, why is it NOT wrong to COMPEL someone to pay for another's bad
habits, bad genetics or bad luck in areas other than heathcare? If it
is not wrong to do so in areas other than healthcare, what might those
areas be? Further, how/why do you make the distinction?

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Query to Scott, who claims:
============
the whole point of my statement in re health care is that it's wron to
COMPEL someone to pay for another's bad habits, bad genetics or bad
luck.
===========

Scott, why is it NOT wrong to COMPEL someone to pay for another's bad
habits, bad genetics or bad luck in areas other than heathcare? If it
is not wrong to do so in areas other than healthcare, what might those
areas be? Further, how/why do you make the distinction?


Well, first, I said it IS wrong to compel someone to pay for another's bad
habits, bad genetics or bad luck in re health care. This does not imply that
it is otherwise acceptable to compel someone in other areas. This is the
logical fallacy of the extended analogy and is a red herring argument.

It may well be wrong to compel someone to pay for another's bad habits, bad
genetics or bad luck in other areas...or not. However, what we are
discussing at the moment is health care.

I note that you don't dispute my statement. Do I therefore take it that you
agree with me?

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Scott Weiser wrote:
: A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

: Query to Scott, who claims:
: ============
: the whole point of my statement in re health care is that it's wron to
: COMPEL someone to pay for another's bad habits, bad genetics or bad
: luck.
: ===========
:
: Scott, why is it NOT wrong to COMPEL someone to pay for another's bad
: habits, bad genetics or bad luck in areas other than heathcare? If it
: is not wrong to do so in areas other than healthcare, what might those
: areas be? Further, how/why do you make the distinction?
:

: Well, first, I said it IS wrong to compel someone to pay for another's bad
: habits, bad genetics or bad luck in re health care. This does not imply that
: it is otherwise acceptable to compel someone in other areas. This is the
: logical fallacy of the extended analogy and is a red herring argument.

Scotty;

First, I'm guessing "wron" is "wrong"... right?

The concept behind all insurance is some people are paying for someone
elses claim... otherwise, we'd all be paying cash every time we visit the
doc for anything... surgery too... same with car insurance, homeowners
insurance... life insurance...

You, your company (or your trust fund) pay $'s hoping that you will pay in
less than you use in services... We the taxpayers also help fund this because
Uncle Sam makes it a tax deduction for companies that are paying for all or
part of a employee's health insurance costs...

It's the same with taxes... when it comes to road taxes, smaller trucks
subsidize larger trucks, smaller cars subsidize larger cars like your hummer
(if you still have it) when it comes to paying for our nations roads.

It's the American way to expect someone else to foot at least part of your
bill...

: It may well be wrong to compel someone to pay for another's bad habits, bad
: genetics or bad luck in other areas...or not. However, what we are
: discussing at the moment is health care.

: I note that you don't dispute my statement. Do I therefore take it that you
: agree with me?

I would never agree with you... isn't there someplace else you'd rather be
than R.B.P.?

--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)