I don’t want to pay for an NSA scientist.
The firefighting one is interesting. There are many rural places in America where a homeowner has no hope of a fire station coming to their rescue. There are other places where there are volunteer fire stations. Still others, primarily in urban areas, where they are and they are funded by local taxes.
Why? Because you say so?
What other leverage do I have? I’m willing to listen to other ideas. I just can’t think of any at the moment besides price.
If there is Doctor A in town, who I think is great, and Doctor B in town, who I don’t really like, what other means do I have at my disposal to express my preference for being treated by Doctor A?
If Doctor A in town doesn’t want to treat drunk, obnoxious blowhards, and wishes to make more money treating ‘easy’ cases like hangnails and headaches, why shouldn’t he be allowed to do so?
You can’t be serious. You’ve never heard of triage?
No, it’s NOT because “I say so.” It’s because it’s standard practice in practically every nation I can think of. It may even be law-I don’t know. (Perhaps someone who works in the healthcare field can help me out there)
But I believe IF a hospital treated a non-emergent patient over a critical one, they’d have a major malpractice lawsuit on their hands.
You do pay for it. Is it the end of freedom?
So, some are paid for by taxes. So are police. Is it the end of freedom?
Paying for doctors with tax money is the end of freedom. Paying other people with tax money isn’t the end of freedom. Why is that?
I don’t like paying for it. Should I willingly sign up for the government to take over 14% more of the economy, and mismanage it as badly as it does everything else, because my ‘freedom quotient’ still isn’t too bad? That it isn’t quite pushing the needle over into the red zone, quite yet, on the ‘freedom meter’? That’s what I am interpreting from your post. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Why do I, as a citizen, have to play defense here? Why do I need to bear the burden of justifying why the government shouldn’t take more of my money, and exercise more control over my life? I thought it was always the other way around. I thought the burden needed to be borne by the government to take more of my money and impose control on my life. And to arbitrarily grab a sixth of the nation’s economy.
I see people go bonkers on this Board when they perceive a threat that the government might tell a pregnant woman what to do with her body, or wiretap their phones, or push a certain religious angle to education or public life. And rightfully so.
But when it comes to taking more money and exercising more control over the economy (of which healthcare is about 1/6th), a quick wave of the hand and a patronizing snort towards the pathetic losers who look to the ‘free market’ is all it takes to dismiss the argument as a non-starter. Why is that? You would never let someone else make decisions for you w.r.t. those other subjects. You would protect those rights for yourself.
Why are you so willing to toss the keys for these important decisions to the same people you would never let get near those other topics? Why will they make such wonderful decisions in this arena, when you have already decided they can’t possibly be trusted in the other arenas? That was the essence of Sam Stone’s comments a ways back, and is the underpinning of my earlier comments in this thread.
I just wrote a long reply to the triage post above, but it somehow got lost.
Of course I have heard of triage. In fact, the EMTALA act of 1986 essentially does make it law. And yes, because of that, hospitals can be sued if they act otherwise. That is exactly my point. You made it for me.
Please tell me you’re not saying what I think you’re saying.
It’s to insure that people are not left to die of fatal injuries while doctors are bribed away to treat things like, well, hangnails. You seem to be implying that it should be those with money who get treated first.
That might not be a bad idea; meanwhile, I’m not opposed to letting the SSA budget lend money to other parts of government as long as they pay it back, with interest. I’m tired of seeing Social Security painted as this bloated program that’s cost-inefficient and is gonna die soon for lack of any possible way of funding it, and meanwhile it’s so thoroughly in the black that all the other government initiatives climb onto its back and let SS contributions enable them instead of taxes. Gimme a break!
Social responsibility is a meaningless term to you isn’t it?
I don’t want to put words in his mouth but I think he is saying exactly what you think he is. I’d be interested to see him comment clearly and succinctly on it though.
I think we’ve reached a fundamental point of disagreement here. To IdahoMauleMan freedom seems to be about money. A sort of “Fuck you Jack, I got mine” mentality that frankly I find reprehensible. I’m coming from a completely different viewpoint. That one cannot be free unless social outcomes are equalised (I’m speaking here about access to healthcare, education and justice). It probably means that neither of us are very happy with the currrent setup, but that our approaches to fixing it have no middle ground whatsoever.
Which basically would result in anarchy.
There is no stopping a doctor from simply being one who only treats certain types of illnesses-that’s what specialties are for! But certain jobs have certain types of responsibilities, and if you don’t like it, hey-there’s the door, pal.
In other words-there’s no such thing as rights without responsibilities. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
Yes, your choice has been taken from you. So? Say I don’t want to wait in traffic, and could easily cut around the cars ahead of me, and go around a short cut-I could do so easily without hitting anyone-and hey-I know the police officer, and I could give him a twenty and get ahead. But dammit, the law took that choice away from me!
Sorry, dude, MY right to have my life-threatening injuries treated trumps your right to have to have a minor inconvenience dealt with immediately. I’m sure if it were the other way around, you’d appreciate it.
You’ll be relieved to know that this is exactly what has been happening with Social Security surpluses since the beginning of the program. The extra money buys non-negotiable treasury bonds which earn interest. The “profits” to the government of the sale of those bonds is then rolled over to the General Fund, and used for $900 hammers. When the surpluses end, the government is going to have to cough up money from the General Fund to pay off those bonds, with interest, so the money can be sent to grandma and grandpa.
You don’t like something so it’s the end of freedom. The very existence of dentists means we’re all subjugated!
But seriously, you complain about how much it would cost, but the facts are pretty simple: We already spend more than other countries and we get less in return.
You do not, and will not, have the option of not spending anything. You are already paying for it and you will continue to pay for it unless you leave the country. That ship has already sailed. What’s left is figuring out what’s the biggest return for the smallest investment.
The notion that the US is uniquely incompetent is garbage. The notion that the US government and people are so stupid that we cannot learn lessons from other first world countries is insulting. And the concept that the last refuge of American exceptionalism is that we’re exceptionally dim shouldn’t be giving anyone warm fuzzies.