J Thomas on December 13, 2010, 06:33:04 am

You'd think that the people who dream up these Problems, with their ten-page dissertations, never heard of voluntary charities; never heard of hospitals being founded by religious orders and other voluntary societies; never, in fact, cracked a single historical novel to determine how things were done before the Omnipresent State.

This is true.

I don't know how it happened that the nonprofit charity-etc hospitals got replaced by for-profit corporations. I'm sure it had something to do with the government. Somehow we suddenly wound up with medical care that was far better than we could afford. Presumably somebody's making a profit from it.

GaTor on December 16, 2010, 01:13:24 am

I'll say it here and put it to you all, that this is where socialism and charity belongs.  With the individual joining together with other, like minded individuals to serve the needs and lack of THEIR communities.  To voluntarily give their surplus of time and money to the charities and those in need as they see fit and not as the government demands. 

Charity, yes, but I fail to see how this is "socialism". 

Well I thought my meaning was pretty much clear, but you are probably playing at semantics.  Strictly speaking, 'socialism' applies to governments.  However, man is a social animal and all social attributes at any level, from the individual to the collective government, are derived from the individual.  Like minded individuals can practice 'socialism' on a voluntary basis and achieve a great deal of good.
 Government enforcing socialistic behavior (socialism) on the individual in the attempt to assist other individuals has always failed in the long run and has wound up being detrimental to the individuals it was attempting to help. 
Go forth and do good.

quadibloc on December 16, 2010, 08:56:53 am
How much coverage?  Plenty of food -- albeit raw -- and shelter, plus freedom of movement, was once the height of luxury for H. sapiens, medical care beyond licking open wounds being unlikely; will that do?  Why not?
While I, as a naive optimist, think that government, working properly, can ensure that citizens of an industrialized country can receive medical care on the level of the Mayo Clinic when required - and can do so without any dangerous restrictions on liberty, I won't try to defend that view here.

Instead, I will just note that unless the lack of medical care beyond licking open wounds results in high infant mortality, even the former "height of luxury" is not something that can be guaranteed. If humans didn't have the tendency to have more children than they were absolutely certain they could support in comfort, the species would have gone extinct early in its development the first time the weather was bad for a year or so. The natural tendency is for populations to grow until this growth leads to some sort of discomfort that acts as a limiting factor.

Whether that discomfort is babies dying of starvation, or adult males failing to find a dependable enough career path that they're confident that if they had kids, they could put them through college - depends on how "civilized" (you may use terms like "decadent" or "effete" if you wish here) the humans in question are. But for my purposes, this doesn't matter. Whether a high standard or a low one is set as the goal, whatever the standard is that a society finds acceptable, when it is met, the population of that society grows until it stops being met.

So, while a situation can exist where population is stable in a population, but living standards are acceptable by a given standard, that standard would then be someone else's standard, and not the one of the society itself. Absent population control, starvation is not inevitable. Some form of discomfort or discontent becoming widespread, though, which had not been so back when population was lower, is inevitable.

jamesd on December 16, 2010, 08:28:42 pm
While I, as a naive optimist, think that government, working properly, can ensure that citizens of an industrialized country can receive medical care on the level of the Mayo Clinic when required - and can do so without any dangerous restrictions on liberty, I won't try to defend that view here.

Here is a link on British health care.

Anecdote is that British hospitals stink of rotting flesh, indicating that they are bit slow at getting the corpses into the trash.

Canadian government healthcare works because when things go badly wrong, they cross the border - competition, not government, ensures adequate health care.  Around the world, that low cost healthcare paid for by someone else somehow only works when around half of health care costs are paid out of individual pockets to private medical practitioners.  As the ratio gets larger than that, things fall apart, resulting in the kind of horror stories characteristic of Britain and the Netherlands.

Singaporean health care is a good example of a predominantly private system.  They have a fully socialist system, complete with death panels, and a fully capitalist private system.  Only bums go to the socialist system if there is something seriously wrong with them.

The Netherlands is a good example of making things work by death panels:  Their predominantly socialist system works by euthanasia - involuntary euthenasia, otherwise known as murder.

In the Netherlands about ten thousand people a year die "under deep sedation"

The welfare state, which proposes to treat people as children, necessarily winds up treating them as pets.

Involuntary euthanasia - murder - is done with barbiturates through an IV drip.

Voluntary euthanasia - suicide - is done with opiates through an IV drip controlled by a clicker in the patients hand.

If dead by medically prescribed self administered overdose, suicide.

If dead by medically prescribed and medically administered overdose, murder.

So if the patient dies "under deep sedation" (that is through barbiturate overdose) it is murder.

Opiates are administered to control the pain,  barbiturates to control the patient.  It maybe necessary to control the patient because you are doing a painful and undignified procedure on him - or it may be necessary to control the patient to stop him from making a fuss about lack of medical treatment, lack of food, and lack of water.


mellyrn on December 17, 2010, 08:41:50 am
Quote
The welfare state, which proposes to treat people as children, necessarily winds up treating them as pets.

Succinct.  I don't mind some people preferring to live as pets; it's their call.  I dislike it when they're willing to wage war (physical or political) to require my pethood.

terry_freeman on December 17, 2010, 10:05:00 am
If you steal the word "socialism" to apply to all voluntary social interaction, then every society is "socialist" - and the word means nothing at all. It also means exactly the same as AnCap - a society where all interactions are peaceful and honest.

It is a gross misrepresentation to think that AnCap is about hermits isolated in solitary caves.

dough560 on March 11, 2011, 01:59:06 am
Look around your neighborhood.  I'll bet you will find at least one person as you described.  Whether accident or failing health these persons are already with us.  My neighbor is a case in point.  A stroke victim.  Unable to speak, steadily receding  health, she lives on her retirement, assistance from private organizations and limited help of her family.  The closest of her family lives a couple of hours from here.  Our neighborhood takes care of her.  I've been taking care of her yard and exterior maintenance for the last eight years.  My wife and I are the emergency contacts for her monitoring agency.  To us it is something you do for your neighbor.  Not yourself. 

sam on March 11, 2011, 04:30:33 am
While I, as a naive optimist, think that government, working properly, can ensure that citizens of an industrialized country can receive medical care on the level of the Mayo Clinic when required

British hospitals have an alarming smell of death, decay, vomit, shit, and pus.  The odor suggests they generally fall seriously short of the level of Mayo clinic, not withstanding official statistics that everything is just fine.

In Denmark the hospitals do not stink, but an alarming number of people die "while under deep sedation" - in other words die of medically administered barbiturate overdose - involuntary euthanasia.

In Australia, the public hospitals do not stink - but you can wait an alarming time for treatment, with the result that most people pay for private treatment, and those who don't pay for treatment are apt to die on the waiting list - which strikes me as a lot better than the hospital taking them in, and then administering a large dose of barbiturates as in Denmark.  There is extensive government assistance to help very ill people stay at home and if you are on the waiting list, you are likely to need it.

Government cannot provide every one with all the health care that is reasonably likely to be beneficial, and when they try to do so, always wind up cutting corners.


quadibloc on March 11, 2011, 06:38:07 am
Government cannot provide every one with all the health care that is reasonably likely to be beneficial, and when they try to do so, always wind up cutting corners.
Before AIDS came along, knocking health care budgets for a loop, Canada, at least, came pretty close.

However, unforeseen events like AIDS, or even like expensive new advances in medical treatment, can certainly change that, so in principle it is true that more corners may sometimes end up being cut than simply expenditures that can clearly be dismissed as unreasonable.

And, of course, Canada was in a fortunate situation, essentially freeloading on the U.S. for the defense portion of its national budget.

terry_freeman on March 11, 2011, 09:11:43 am
"Freeloading on the defense budget" - seriously, how real is the risk of invasion by China or the former USSR ?

When are you going to admit, quadibloc, that the so-called "defense" budget is more about corporate welfare than about actual defense?

The USSA spends about six times as much as the next-nearest spender, which would be China. The USSA spends about as much as the rest of the world combined. This is not, by any reasonable definition, required for actual defense of the USSA. It is a transfer of wealth to huge military contracting firms.

sams on March 11, 2011, 09:15:01 am
If you steal the word "socialism" to apply to all voluntary social interaction, then every society is "socialist" - and the word means nothing at all. It also means exactly the same as AnCap - a society where all interactions are peaceful and honest.

It is a gross misrepresentation to think that AnCap is about hermits isolated in solitary caves.

Remind me of all the Jackasses who tell me that ''Jesus was a socialist ... as a christian you must be too'''

I can only respond STFU ! If words have no meaning to you then you a wast of time.

Health care is like any other product, there is nothing special about it. What we need is more people providing it in a free market
"Freeloading on the defense budget" - seriously, how real is the risk of invasion by China or the former USSR ?

When are you going to admit, quadibloc, that the so-called "defense" budget is more about corporate welfare than about actual defense?

The USSA spends about six times as much as the next-nearest spender, which would be China. The USSA spends about as much as the rest of the world combined. This is not, by any reasonable definition, required for actual defense of the USSA. It is a transfer of wealth to huge military contracting firms.



The Leprechaun will invade if you don't spend trillions

macsnafu on March 11, 2011, 09:28:05 am
[
"Freeloading on the defense budget" - seriously, how real is the risk of invasion by China or the former USSR ?

When are you going to admit, quadibloc, that the so-called "defense" budget is more about corporate welfare than about actual defense?

The USSA spends about six times as much as the next-nearest spender, which would be China. The USSA spends about as much as the rest of the world combined. This is not, by any reasonable definition, required for actual defense of the USSA. It is a transfer of wealth to huge military contracting firms.


The Leprechaun will invade if you don't spend trillions

Well, we have to keep U.S. military stationed in more than half the nations around the world...to, um, protect "American interests," you know.      ::)
I love mankind.  It's PEOPLE I can't stand!  - Linus Van Pelt.

J Thomas on March 11, 2011, 12:32:03 pm

And, of course, Canada was in a fortunate situation, essentially freeloading on the U.S. for the defense portion of its national budget.

Pretty much the entire world freeloads on the USA for their defense.

Sometimes we decide to defend them whether they want us to or not.
Sometimes we go to great lengths to protect them from themselves.

Bunch of freeloaders.

spudit on March 11, 2011, 03:09:32 pm
Like the Navy protects Kansas?
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

Plane on March 11, 2011, 03:44:31 pm
Like the Navy protects Kansas?

If it isn't direct it isn't real?

Last time the US had a relitively small military, we were convienient to ignore as Hitler and Stalin planned world conquest.

Someday we will no longer be the strongest , but some nation will be the strongest , lets hope a nation that performs a "world Policeman" role at least as well as the US.


 

anything