Comments on: Health care systems good at different things http://www.john-wright.net/2009/12/16/health-care-systems-good-at-different-things/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=health-care-systems-good-at-different-things Not Facebook Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:58:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Robb http://www.john-wright.net/2009/12/16/health-care-systems-good-at-different-things/comment-page-1/#comment-17962 Robb Tue, 05 Jan 2010 22:21:11 +0000 http://www.john-wright.net/?p=2091#comment-17962 "Rigidly Ideological" is I believe, what is needed here. I too am libertarian John and Jim. That in itself is ideological, but isn't everything? To say that a system is "free at the point of use" is just plain untrue. That makes me rigid? Okay... Over the past 5 years, I have spent approximately $200 for medical services. Why? Because I don't get sick. I eat right, get enough sleep; although at times it feels like I don't, exercise etc. Now for it to be "free at the point of use" I now have to contribute; probably a lot more than $200 every 5 years! I have to pay for health care services that I don't need because someone else chooses to buy a jet-ski or a motorcycle or take a vacation instead of purchasing their own insurance. Why don't they have to worry about getting sick? Why would anyone worry because "Big Brother" is going to take care of us! Horse hockey! While I understand "maturing realism" it's just not realistic. To say that we all have to pitch in to help take care of each other while altruistic in nature is contradictory to natural law. Nowhere else on the planet do other creatures cede part of their life so that others in their group can survive. Watch Animal Planet and the Discovery Channel if you doubt that. http://www.isil.org/resources/philosophy-of-liberty-english.swf John, being libertarian, it's hard for me to imagine that you would suggest that there should be any discussion whatsoever of a system that in fact, steals the production of one person or group of people to give it to another. While that may sound rigidly ideological to you, it's the basis of freedom; that for which libertarians stand. While I sympathize with those less fortunate, it is the natural law of survival of the fittest and natural selection which has been touted on your site that is in play here. The bottom line is that the life of another is not for us to take and redistribute to another. No matter the benefit. It is taking the intellectual property of someone, the life of someone (the minutes, hours, days, weeks, years someone invests in their life is theirs always unless we agree to steal it collectively) and give it to someone else. If I rob you at gunpoint and then hand the money to a homeless family, am I any less a thief? On a moral basis, I oppose the health care proposed by the government. It won't be free. It won't be better. It will only go to enslave those in society that are forced to, at the barrel of a gun, provide services at the behest of government. When health care is rationed; as it will not survive adding reportedly 15 MILLION new users and less money, then what? You can't unring a bell. And John, if you are willing to deviate from a strict adherence to your principles, then how do you consider yourself libertarian? I understand you want to contribute to the world of ideas, but isn't it imperative that we stand by our principles when discussing these ideas? It's compromise that gets us in trouble. Our founding fathers can be cited chapter and verse and demonstrate that it is a moral imperative that our freedom be preserved. We will no longer be as free as we are (I believe we are all slaves, but that's for another day) when this debacle begins. It's that unwillingness to adhere to one's principles that will be our downfall. “Rigidly Ideological” is I believe, what is needed here.

I too am libertarian John and Jim. That in itself is ideological, but isn’t everything? To say that a system is “free at the point of use” is just plain untrue. That makes me rigid? Okay…

Over the past 5 years, I have spent approximately $200 for medical services. Why? Because I don’t get sick. I eat right, get enough sleep; although at times it feels like I don’t, exercise etc. Now for it to be “free at the point of use” I now have to contribute; probably a lot more than $200 every 5 years! I have to pay for health care services that I don’t need because someone else chooses to buy a jet-ski or a motorcycle or take a vacation instead of purchasing their own insurance. Why don’t they have to worry about getting sick? Why would anyone worry because “Big Brother” is going to take care of us! Horse hockey!

While I understand “maturing realism” it’s just not realistic. To say that we all have to pitch in to help take care of each other while altruistic in nature is contradictory to natural law. Nowhere else on the planet do other creatures cede part of their life so that others in their group can survive. Watch Animal Planet and the Discovery Channel if you doubt that.

http://www.isil.org/resources/philosophy-of-liberty-english.swf

John, being libertarian, it’s hard for me to imagine that you would suggest that there should be any discussion whatsoever of a system that in fact, steals the production of one person or group of people to give it to another. While that may sound rigidly ideological to you, it’s the basis of freedom; that for which libertarians stand. While I sympathize with those less fortunate, it is the natural law of survival of the fittest and natural selection which has been touted on your site that is in play here.

The bottom line is that the life of another is not for us to take and redistribute to another. No matter the benefit. It is taking the intellectual property of someone, the life of someone (the minutes, hours, days, weeks, years someone invests in their life is theirs always unless we agree to steal it collectively) and give it to someone else. If I rob you at gunpoint and then hand the money to a homeless family, am I any less a thief?

On a moral basis, I oppose the health care proposed by the government. It won’t be free. It won’t be better. It will only go to enslave those in society that are forced to, at the barrel of a gun, provide services at the behest of government. When health care is rationed; as it will not survive adding reportedly 15 MILLION new users and less money, then what?

You can’t unring a bell.

And John, if you are willing to deviate from a strict adherence to your principles, then how do you consider yourself libertarian? I understand you want to contribute to the world of ideas, but isn’t it imperative that we stand by our principles when discussing these ideas? It’s compromise that gets us in trouble. Our founding fathers can be cited chapter and verse and demonstrate that it is a moral imperative that our freedom be preserved. We will no longer be as free as we are (I believe we are all slaves, but that’s for another day) when this debacle begins. It’s that unwillingness to adhere to one’s principles that will be our downfall.

]]> By: John http://www.john-wright.net/2009/12/16/health-care-systems-good-at-different-things/comment-page-1/#comment-17875 John Sat, 02 Jan 2010 22:44:25 +0000 http://www.john-wright.net/?p=2091#comment-17875 "Rigidly ideological" is a good term. I used to be a little more rigid in my upholding of my own ideology. The reason that's changed a little is largely because of a maturing of my 'realism', I think. These days, I think of my libertarian ideology as the corner from which I emerge to bring my contribution to the world of ideas, rather than as a standard from which I won't deviate. “Rigidly ideological” is a good term. I used to be a little more rigid in my upholding of my own ideology. The reason that’s changed a little is largely because of a maturing of my ‘realism’, I think.

These days, I think of my libertarian ideology as the corner from which I emerge to bring my contribution to the world of ideas, rather than as a standard from which I won’t deviate.

]]> By: Jim http://www.john-wright.net/2009/12/16/health-care-systems-good-at-different-things/comment-page-1/#comment-17853 Jim Sat, 02 Jan 2010 03:00:24 +0000 http://www.john-wright.net/?p=2091#comment-17853 Agree with you John, you are spot on. While I get what you are saying Rob your post strikes me as rigidly ideological and I do find that a touch dangerous! Agree with you John, you are spot on. While I get what you are saying Rob your post strikes me as rigidly ideological and I do find that a touch dangerous!

]]> By: Robb http://www.john-wright.net/2009/12/16/health-care-systems-good-at-different-things/comment-page-1/#comment-17360 Robb Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:31:06 +0000 http://www.john-wright.net/?p=2091#comment-17360 John you make some good observations. Having never lived outside the US, I don't know about other systems. I have heard from many of our snowbirds from the great white north, that Canada's system is one in which there are a great many flaws; much like those in the UK and from what I saw in the few minutes of Michael Moore's movie, most places that have good to great access. The problem that I have with any government involvement in health care is one in which I would believe that you share as well. That being, the principle of freedom. That is not free. If/when government gets involved, it then makes everyone "pitch in" to a big pot to provide for everyone. To me, that makes those who contribute in large amounts, slaves to those who do not. Bottom line is that my life is not your fault. You have no obligation to me whatsoever. In essence, the government does by force, oblige you or the "rich" to my overall health in a public option situation. It will then force doctors who have gone to medical school at their own expense, treat patients for less than in a free market. No one has a right to something someone else produces, period. On top of which, if anyone really looks at anything the government does, it inevitably fails or at least falls way short in overall production. Look at the systems with good to great access because of government involvement and maybe you'll see what I mean. The health care bill being debated now, is just plain bad. Whether the "death panels" are real or imagined, there are those in this administration who have said that (of course not using these exact words but they meant the same) the health care administrator will have a say in whether someone is treated. President Obama said in a townhall meeting that I am sure you've heard, that someone would take a pill rather than get surgery. I don't want someone making that decision for me and that is what we will get with this plan. I agree that the current system is not perfect, but allowing people who are clearly not fixated on making it better, just more accessible to all, is just plain stupid. Hugs and Kisses :-) John you make some good observations. Having never lived outside the US, I don’t know about other systems. I have heard from many of our snowbirds from the great white north, that Canada’s system is one in which there are a great many flaws; much like those in the UK and from what I saw in the few minutes of Michael Moore’s movie, most places that have good to great access.

The problem that I have with any government involvement in health care is one in which I would believe that you share as well. That being, the principle of freedom. That is not free. If/when government gets involved, it then makes everyone “pitch in” to a big pot to provide for everyone. To me, that makes those who contribute in large amounts, slaves to those who do not.

Bottom line is that my life is not your fault. You have no obligation to me whatsoever. In essence, the government does by force, oblige you or the “rich” to my overall health in a public option situation. It will then force doctors who have gone to medical school at their own expense, treat patients for less than in a free market.

No one has a right to something someone else produces, period.

On top of which, if anyone really looks at anything the government does, it inevitably fails or at least falls way short in overall production. Look at the systems with good to great access because of government involvement and maybe you’ll see what I mean.

The health care bill being debated now, is just plain bad. Whether the “death panels” are real or imagined, there are those in this administration who have said that (of course not using these exact words but they meant the same) the health care administrator will have a say in whether someone is treated. President Obama said in a townhall meeting that I am sure you’ve heard, that someone would take a pill rather than get surgery. I don’t want someone making that decision for me and that is what we will get with this plan.

I agree that the current system is not perfect, but allowing people who are clearly not fixated on making it better, just more accessible to all, is just plain stupid.

Hugs and Kisses :-)

]]>