Healthcare: Part 2

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Getting medical insurance from your boss is a bad idea
By John Stossel
Wednesday, October 25, 2006

According to the new "ABC News" poll on health care, Americans are eager to have the government force employers to provide heath insurance: "Nearly eight in 10 favor a federal requirement that all employers offer insurance to their full-time workers."

Why?! Do our employers pay for our food, clothing, or shelter? If they did, why would that be good? Having my health care tied to my boss invites him to snoop into my private health issues, and if I change jobs, I lose coverage.

Employer-paid health insurance isn't free. It just means we get insurance instead of higher salaries. I'd rather have the cash and buy my own insurance. Companies only provide it because of a World War II-era tax break that never went away.

But people think it's something for nothing. In Maryland, the legislature even tried to single out Wal-Mart for a special employee health-insurance mandate. Luckily, the courts struck down that law. It would have some cost workers their jobs, and all of them would have been paid less.

Anyway, insurance is a terrible way to pay for things. It's expensive and wasteful. Some years ago, an insurance CEO said that it costs $35-$50 to process a $25 claim.

Insurance burdens us with paperwork, invites cheating, and, worst of all, creates a moral hazard that distorts incentives. The first question people ask a doctor who recommends a test is not "Do I really need that?" but "Does my insurance cover it?" Insurance raises costs by insulating consumers from medicine's real prices.

Suppose you had grocery insurance. With your employer paying 80 percent of the bill, you would fill the cart with lobster and filet mignon. Everything would cost more because demand would rise and supermarkets would stop running sales. Why should they -- when their customers barely care about the price?

Suppose everyone had transportation insurance. The roads would be crowded with Mercedes. Why buy a Chevy if your employer pays?

We have gotten so used to having "other people" pay for most of our heath care that we routinely ask for insurance with low or no deductibles. This is another bad idea.

Suppose car insurance worked that way. Every time you got a little dent or the paint faded, or every time you bought gas or changed the oil, you'd fill out endless forms and wait for reimbursement from your insurance company. Gas and mechanic's prices would quickly rise because service stations would know that you no longer cared about the price. You'd become more wasteful: jackrabbit starts, speeding, wasted gas. Who cares? At most you're paying 20 percent of the bill.

Insurance invites waste. That's a reason health care costs so much, and is often so consumer-unfriendly. In the few areas where there are free markets in health care -- such as cosmetic medicine and LASIK eye surgery -- customer service is great, and prices continue to drop.

The ABC News poll suggests that people understand that. When asked about "consumer-directed plans," "nearly eight in 10 Americans think that allowing people to shop around for their own medical care would be an effective way to control costs." But many people still want a free lunch: "consumer-driven care looks less popular if it's accompanied by the risk of higher out-of-pocket expenses."

Somehow people seem to believe "insured" means free.

This is not to say that we don't need insurance. We need it to protect us against financial catastrophes that could result from a stroke or heart attack. That's why Health Savings Accounts, which cover smaller out-of-pocket health expenditures, are paired with high-deductible catastrophic insurance. That's a good thing.

But America's demand that insurance cover everything from pets to dental work puts us on slide toward bankruptcy.

[t_wolves_fan]

Pretty much, yep.

[Raj Radical]

I felt like I was reading that "Unions do not serve your interests" posters at my old workplace.

Seriously though, lets keep it in one thread and John Stossel is a royal douchebag.

[colonelguppy]

no he pretty much is right about the subject.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Seriously though, lets keep it in one thread and John Stossel is a royal douchebag.

Do you play for the team known as the "Question Dodgers" out of LA?

Maybe you're their head coach?

[apathy maybe]

You know, I think that all good anarchists/communists would be on your side about this. But I think for a different reason.

While you might not want health insurance, let alone insurance paid for by the employer, we don't want health insurance either. We also don't want employers.


You should not confuse revolutionaries who desire some form of class-less state-less society, with vague "moderate" capitalists. We want different things to them.


Fuck the bosses, fuck the pharmaceutical companies, fuck the state (though not perhaps relevant here).

[ichneumon]

indeed. insurance companies are purely parasitic. they produce nothing, while siphoning off money via gambling on suffering. disgusting. the system whereby employers pay for health insurance is wasteful and invites corruption.

the idea of providing universal health care by just paying insurance premiums is insane. a pointless waste of money. people want healthcare. one of the functions of a government is to coordinate group efforts. should we each buy our own missile-defense insurance plan? wtf?

humans take care of their old and sick. it is one of the most uniquely human of traits, shared by few other species. we share this burden, and, as a group, it profits us to do so. with fully socialized health care, the average individual lives longer, works more, is happier, etc.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 27, 2006 05:16 pm

Getting medical insurance from your boss is a bad idea
By John Stossel
Wednesday, October 25, 2006

According to the new "ABC News" poll on health care, Americans are eager to have the government force employers to provide heath insurance: "Nearly eight in 10 favor a federal requirement that all employers offer insurance to their full-time workers."

Why?! Do our employers pay for our food, clothing, or shelter? If they did, why would that be good? Having my health care tied to my boss invites him to snoop into my private health issues, and if I change jobs, I lose coverage.

Employer-paid health insurance isn't free. It just means we get insurance instead of higher salaries. I'd rather have the cash and buy my own insurance. Companies only provide it because of a World War II-era tax break that never went away.

But people think it's something for nothing. In Maryland, the legislature even tried to single out Wal-Mart for a special employee health-insurance mandate. Luckily, the courts struck down that law. It would have some cost workers their jobs, and all of them would have been paid less.

Anyway, insurance is a terrible way to pay for things. It's expensive and wasteful. Some years ago, an insurance CEO said that it costs $35-$50 to process a $25 claim.

Insurance burdens us with paperwork, invites cheating, and, worst of all, creates a moral hazard that distorts incentives. The first question people ask a doctor who recommends a test is not "Do I really need that?" but "Does my insurance cover it?" Insurance raises costs by insulating consumers from medicine's real prices.

Suppose you had grocery insurance. With your employer paying 80 percent of the bill, you would fill the cart with lobster and filet mignon. Everything would cost more because demand would rise and supermarkets would stop running sales. Why should they -- when their customers barely care about the price?

Suppose everyone had transportation insurance. The roads would be crowded with Mercedes. Why buy a Chevy if your employer pays?

We have gotten so used to having "other people" pay for most of our heath care that we routinely ask for insurance with low or no deductibles. This is another bad idea.

Suppose car insurance worked that way. Every time you got a little dent or the paint faded, or every time you bought gas or changed the oil, you'd fill out endless forms and wait for reimbursement from your insurance company. Gas and mechanic's prices would quickly rise because service stations would know that you no longer cared about the price. You'd become more wasteful: jackrabbit starts, speeding, wasted gas. Who cares? At most you're paying 20 percent of the bill.

Insurance invites waste. That's a reason health care costs so much, and is often so consumer-unfriendly. In the few areas where there are free markets in health care -- such as cosmetic medicine and LASIK eye surgery -- customer service is great, and prices continue to drop.

The ABC News poll suggests that people understand that. When asked about "consumer-directed plans," "nearly eight in 10 Americans think that allowing people to shop around for their own medical care would be an effective way to control costs." But many people still want a free lunch: "consumer-driven care looks less popular if it's accompanied by the risk of higher out-of-pocket expenses."

Somehow people seem to believe "insured" means free.

This is not to say that we don't need insurance. We need it to protect us against financial catastrophes that could result from a stroke or heart attack. That's why Health Savings Accounts, which cover smaller out-of-pocket health expenditures, are paired with high-deductible catastrophic insurance. That's a good thing.

But America's demand that insurance cover everything from pets to dental work puts us on slide toward bankruptcy.
The only good thing with insurances is that if you need expensive emergency care and don't afford that, they would cover that if they are delivered through a company. But theoretically, the company could go bankcrupt and as stated, you lose your insurance if you change job.

It is very funny that the public costs for administrating healthcare is lower in Sweden where we have a wholly socialised healthcare system than in the USA where the companies provides insurances and we have a lot of different systems.

I am always thinking into the situation about people who either A] requires expensive healthcare [leukemia, chromosome injuries, physical damage with years of recovery] or B] those who does'nt afford it, when it comes to if healthcare should be socialised or not.

I identify myself with those who are weak.

[Tungsten]

ichneumon

indeed. insurance companies are purely parasitic. they produce nothing, while siphoning off money via gambling on suffering. disgusting.
Doctors, aid workers and charities make a living based on other people's suffering and produce nothing and ergo, they're parasitic and disgusting too.

humans take care of their old and sick. it is one of the most uniquely human of traits, shared by few other species. we share this burden,
Why should we share this burden?

and, as a group, it profits us to do so.
It does? How? Explain to me how paying out money to fund some anonymous stranger's heathcare is going to prove profitable to me. Bearing in mind, I don't have any say in who gets it.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Raj [email protected] 27, 2006 03:37 pm
Seriously though, lets keep it in one thread and John Stossel is a royal douchebag.
i liked when he called the subsidy farmers welfare queens on his show, oh man that was gold.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+October 30, 2006 09:18 pm--> (colonelguppy @ October 30, 2006 09:18 pm)
Raj [email protected] 27, 2006 03:37 pm
Seriously though, lets keep it in one thread and John Stossel is a royal douchebag.
i liked when he called the subsidy farmers welfare queens on his show, oh man that was gold. [/b]
They kind of are, actually.

[RebelDog]

Doctors, aid workers and charities make a living based on other people's suffering and produce nothing and ergo, they're parasitic and disgusting too.

You have went and got doctors and nurses mixed up with CEO's or city bankers. Doctors and nurses relieve suffering, ease stress and produce healthy people.


Why should we share this burden?

Have you gone through life isolated from the help and aid of others? Nothing you have or benefit from is from co-operative effort and the toil of others?


It does? How? Explain to me how paying out money to fund some anonymous stranger's heathcare is going to prove profitable to me. Bearing in mind, I don't have any say in who gets it.

Like the NHS here in the UK it benefits all. The fireman that comes to put the fire out at your house might not be here if he didn't get medical treatment he might not otherwise afford. It is barbaric that humans go without medical care because they cannot pay. Its all the more sickening in the richest country in the world.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+October 30, 2006 04:58 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ October 30, 2006 04:58 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 09:18 pm

Raj [email protected] 27, 2006 03:37 pm
Seriously though, lets keep it in one thread and John Stossel is a royal douchebag.
i liked when he called the subsidy farmers welfare queens on his show, oh man that was gold.
They kind of are, actually. [/b]
i know thats why it was gold.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 08:49 pm
It does? How? Explain to me how paying out money to fund some anonymous stranger's heathcare is going to prove profitable to me. Bearing in mind, I don't have any say in who gets it.
Herein lies the problem: insurance removes the moral hazzard that would otherwise limit people from consuming health services they do not need.

On the other hand, you benefit from having healthy people around you. A sick worker isn't a good worker, and a sick consumer isn't a great consumer. Not to mention you're less likely to get sick yourself.

:blink:

[Tungsten]

The Dissenter

You have went and got doctors and nurses mixed up with CEO's or city bankers. Doctors and nurses relieve suffering, ease stress and produce healthy people.
Therefore, they make money out of sick people.

Have you gone through life isolated from the help and aid of others? Nothing you have or benefit from is from co-operative effort and the toil of others?
Not really. I don't like living off others. If I have, it's only been by their permisson.

Like the NHS here in the UK it benefits all.
The NHS can possibly be reformed and shrunk to a more efficient level to help those who can't afford to go private. Anyone on more that £20k a year should not be allowed to use it.

The fireman that comes to put the fire out at your house might not be here if he didn't get medical treatment he might not otherwise afford.
Firemen?! The ones on salaries most of us can only dream of? You've picked the worst possible example.

It is barbaric that humans go without medical care because they cannot pay.
It's barbaric that some people are be forced to subsidise another's healthcare. If fact, it's barbaric that some people are be forced to subsidise anything, but that approach isn't always practical. Statism should, however, be minimised as much as possible.

Would you like me to force you to start paying off my mortgage?

Its all the more sickening in the richest country in the world.
We all have a collective bank account, do we? They've kept that quiet.

[RebelDog]

Therefore, they make money out of sick people.

Private healthcare does, yes. Do you think believe there is nothing that cannot and should not be privatised? Do you agree with people making money from sick people?


Not really. I don't like living off others. If I have, it's only been by their permisson.

Society is a collective effort. We all rely on each other.


The NHS can possibly be reformed and shrunk to a more efficient level to help those who can't afford to go private. Anyone on more that £20k a year should not be allowed to use it.

You dislike the NHS because it offers care without strings, a highly civilised undertaking in my opinion. Any move toward more privatisation of the NHS is being and will be resisted in the future. You think anyone earning above £20,000 should not have access to the NHS but you do not care how much company directors make from private healthcare?


Firemen?! The ones on salaries most of us can only dream of? You've picked the worst possible example.

Its upside down that London money speculators make millions whilst nurses and firemen get payed so little in comparison for crucial jobs. Money speculators, city bankers do nothing for society, they are parasites.


It's barbaric that some people are be forced to subsidise another's healthcare. If fact, it's barbaric that some people are be forced to subsidise anything, but that approach isn't always practical. Statism should, however, be minimised as much as possible.

You will see barbarism alright if the laisser-faire capitalism you so dearly crave ever comes about.


Would you like me to force you to start paying off my mortgage?

No but I pay other peoples mortgages all the time. What do local enterprise companies do if they don't subsidise the rich with from our tax.


We all have a collective bank account, do we? They've kept that quiet.

I don't know what country you actually live in. Tax. Tax could pay for an american NHS easily. Stop giving tax breaks to all the big companies and start spending money on US citizens.

[Tungsten]

The Dissenter

Private healthcare does, yes.
As do NHS workers. Unless they're working for nothing.

Do you agree with people making money from sick people?
The government are doing a good job of it.

You dislike the NHS because it offers care without strings, a highly civilised undertaking in my opinion.
No, I dislike the NHS because I'm a really mean and nasty person who wants to see the poor suffer and die. :rolleyes:

Can I have access to your bank account without strings? I'll pop back later for your details.

Any move toward more privatisation of the NHS is being and will be resisted in the future.
It's not good enough to say something will be resisted. The reasons for resistance must be legitimate.

You think anyone earning above £20,000 should not have access to the NHS but you do not care how much company directors make from private healthcare?
No.

You will see barbarism alright if the laisser-faire capitalism you so dearly crave ever comes about.
If your definition of barbarism includes having to live and behave like an adult, then yes it will.

No but I pay other peoples mortgages all the time.
Not out of choice, either, I should imagine.

What do local enterprise companies do if they don't subsidise the rich with from our tax.
I don't support corporate welfare or subsidies.

[ichneumon]

Herein lies the problem: insurance removes the moral hazzard that would otherwise limit people from consuming health services they do not need.

*what* are you talking about? sugery addictions? is going to the doctor FUN for you? it's the prostate check, isn't it???? :P wtf?

doctors produce health. insurance companies produce nothing. doctors are not parasites, unless, of course, they are selling unneeded health care to make money.

reciprocal altruism is a standard part of evolutionary biology, and one that features heavily into human culture (yes, cultures evolve). you give to people because one day you yourself will need. it works - in fact, it works MUCH better than competition, which is energetically inefficient.

[Guerrilla22]

But people think it's something for nothing. In Maryland, the legislature even tried to single out Wal-Mart for a special employee health-insurance mandate. Luckily, the courts struck down that law. It would have some cost workers their jobs, and all of them would have been paid less.

So instead the state tax payers end up picking up the tab for the healthcare cost of Wal-Mart's employees because they all end up going on the state healthcare plans for low income families, great logic.

[t_wolves_fan]

*what* are you talking about? sugery addictions? is going to the doctor FUN for you? it's the prostate check, isn't it???? :P wtf?

Ah, no. I'm talking about choosing less expensive options when they'd be effective or not running unnecessary tests.


doctors produce health. insurance companies produce nothing. doctors are not parasites, unless, of course, they are selling unneeded health care to make money.

That is precisely the incentive that health insurance provides; if you can prescribe it, the patient doesn't care because his copay is $25 and his premium isn't going to change, why not throw in the extras and make a profit?

This'd be why I'd like to see a system a lot like car insurance, which covers only major problems and not routine maintenance.


reciprocal altruism is a standard part of evolutionary biology,

On what planet? Evolutionary biology means survival of the fittest. You going to try to convince me that animals work together on purpose? Because they'd have to if you're correct.


and one that features heavily into human culture (yes, cultures evolve). you give to people because one day you yourself will need. it works - in fact, it works MUCH better than competition, which is energetically inefficient.

Because you say so.

Out of curiosity, has humanity improved, in aggregate, its station in life more over any 150 year period than we have in the last 150 year period? Because it seems to me that progress was pretty slow up until then. Don't respond that the poor are downtrodden because the poor were just as downtrodden 150 years ago. I'm talking scientific advancement and overall wealth creation.

[ichneumon]

On what planet? Evolutionary biology means survival of the fittest. You going to try to convince me that animals work together on purpose? Because they'd have to if you're correct.

you have a kindergarten idea of evolutionary biology. evolutionary biology is about passing on your information by whatever means works. "i would not sacrifice myself to save one brother, but i would for two, or for eight cousins" -Haldane.

1)vampire bats (Desmonus rotundus) must have a blood meal every 60hrs or die. colonies of *unrelated* bats share meals with each other, because on average it is to their benefit to do so.

2)Unmated pied kingfishers (Ceryle rudis) help unrelated pairs rear their offspring, perhaps because they might replace the alpha partner if one dies.

lesson: altruism benefits the self in some way, but that way is often not obvious. such behaviour abounds in nature. Herds and flocks are examples. Social darwinism does NOT favor capitalism because competition is less efficient than cooperation.


Out of curiosity, has humanity improved, in aggregate, its station in life more over any 150 year period than we have in the last 150 year period? Because it seems to me that progress was pretty slow up until then. Don't respond that the poor are downtrodden because the poor were just as downtrodden 150 years ago. I'm talking scientific advancement and overall wealth creation.

The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race (http://anthropology.lbcc.edu/handoutsdocs/mistake.pdf)

[t_wolves_fan]

Bats & Kingfishers

lesson: altruism benefits the self in some way, but that way is often not obvious. such behaviour abounds in nature. Herds and flocks are examples. Social darwinism does NOT favor capitalism because competition is less efficient than cooperation.

The problem is in the human world altruism means doing something good simply because it's good; while in the animal world it's about survival. They're not the same thing because animals do it unconsciously. If you want to look at the world today and posit that we should just all start sharing right now, then go ahead.


The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race (http://anthropology.lbcc.edu/handoutsdocs/mistake.pdf)

I say we put it to a vote to see how many people want to live like primitive hunter gatherers. You know, test the "will of the people"?

I'm aware of the anthropological view and it's precisely the reason I'm opposed to the opinions of the "money cures all ills" type of uber-capitalists. But the whole message of that article is that because things got worse for hunter gatherers immediately after switching to agriculture, somehow that means it's still worse. Age expectancy went down from 26 to 19? They great! 26 is more than 19, so let's switch. Except wait a minute, 19 has risen to 76. Hmmmm....

[ichneumon]

the altruistic instinct exists in humans for the same reason. we help each other because we are the most social of mammals. the evolution of speech allowed humans to cooperate in ways far beyond other creatures. a lone human in a jungle is toast - a band of humans is top of the food web.

when humans do good deeds, we *feel* good inside - there is a programmed, neurochemical response. why does that exist? because it is to our advantage.

when we applied that instinct to baby animals of *other* species, we got dogs and cats. humans became part of a mutualistic family of organisms, a thing beyond old style humans. speech, the cooperation it engenders and our symbiotic plants and animals are human technology. next to that, a gun is just a stick.

the jared diamond article was just to put things in perspective. if you understand it, you know there is no going back. we'd have to kill 99.999% of the human race to do it. but our civilization, as it is, is like falling off a cliff - it's all good until you hit the ground.

we do not know how to live on this planet in a way that can be sustained. we don't have the technology.we probably already have too many people.

i have no objection WHATSOEVER to any economy or government that can meet this goal. but competition does waste resources. it spurs technological growth, but that technology is dedicated to consumption and destruction. we need a global government and full cooperation and commitment of every living human. nothing else will do.

my voice is a fart in a windstorm, and i know it. but i do what i can do.

[t_wolves_fan]

I don't doubt your good intentions nor your sincerity, but to imagine that we could become harmonious like the animals is a little far-fetched. While we have animalistic qualities, we're pretty different from animals.

[red team]

Not really. I don't like living off others. If I have, it's only been by their permisson.

Did you really get the "permission" of gravity to power an hydro-electric dam that provides electricity to your home. I suppose you've asked the water to "pretty please" fall off the cliff and into the turbine blades. :lol:

Wow, you're a really bright one, We haven't been "living off" others ever since energy consuming machines provided most of the "labour" to make our material wealth. That means real wealth as measured by how much labour (energy) went into making it. If it's true you've been "living off" other human beings then the energy scale of their labour must be go into the GigaWatts. :lol:

[Tungsten]

red team


Not really. I don't like living off others. If I have, it's only been by their permisson.

Did you really get the "permission" of gravity to power an hydro-electric dam that provides electricity to your home. I suppose you've asked the water to "pretty please" fall off the cliff and into the turbine blades. :lol:
Those are forces of nature. They don't have any rights and I don't need their permission. People aren't forces of nature, and do.

Wow, you're a really bright one,
I know I am. Shame you're not.

We haven't been "living off" others ever since energy consuming machines provided most of the "labour" to make our material wealth. That means real wealth as measured by how much labour (energy) went into making it.
That doesn't follow. And your theory of wealth is still a glorified version of the LTV.

If it's true you've been "living off" other human beings then the energy scale of their labour must be go into the GigaWatts.
Which they've been paid for. i.e. I have their permission.

[ichneumon]

I don't doubt your good intentions nor your sincerity, but to imagine that we could become harmonious like the animals is a little far-fetched. While we have animalistic qualities, we're pretty different from animals.

can you imagine a sustainable society on earth? i don't especially care about people being nice to each other. if it helps, good. do you believe that humans are like a disease that kills its host, then itself dies because it has no where to go? we are symbiots with the earth - it's our home. we can be parasites or mutualists. it's okay for a parasite to destroy its host if it has another to go to. we don't. we become mutualists or die. cooperating amongst ourselves is the best first step to cooperating with the planet.

probably the worst thing about capitalism is how it teaches people to think. me first. win or die trying. the one who dies with the most toys wins. i will give you that it results in certain kinds of technological innovation, but it doesn't work in the long run. it's an expansionist system, and there is nowhere left to expand. so we eat ourselves.

socialism begins with children. teaching them to share and work together. to succeed together. united we stand, etc. socialism is about society - if you have the correct society, it will invent a workable form of government.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 06:46 pm

I don't doubt your good intentions nor your sincerity, but to imagine that we could become harmonious like the animals is a little far-fetched. While we have animalistic qualities, we're pretty different from animals.

can you imagine a sustainable society on earth? i don't especially care about people being nice to each other. if it helps, good. do you believe that humans are like a disease that kills its host, then itself dies because it has no where to go? we are symbiots with the earth - it's our home. we can be parasites or mutualists. it's okay for a parasite to destroy its host if it has another to go to. we don't. we become mutualists or die. cooperating amongst ourselves is the best first step to cooperating with the planet.

probably the worst thing about capitalism is how it teaches people to think. me first. win or die trying. the one who dies with the most toys wins. i will give you that it results in certain kinds of technological innovation, but it doesn't work in the long run. it's an expansionist system, and there is nowhere left to expand. so we eat ourselves.

socialism begins with children. teaching them to share and work together. to succeed together. united we stand, etc. socialism is about society - if you have the correct society, it will invent a workable form of government.
Your statements sound so nice in print but unfortunately they don't work in practice.

I'm sorry, but I'm not making this stuff up.

[ichneumon]

neither am i.

GROW UP OR DIE

it's that serious.

not making up what? never on earth has there been an attempt at a sustainable society. i'm not talking about communism here, it's completely different. communist governments were/are an even greater burden on the earth, though the PRC is showing some signs of long range planning these days, in terms of energy indepence.

are you saying that socialized healthcare doesn't work? or planned societies? the planned societies of the past had crap diddle to do with science - it was about utopian political ideals.

"how do we know that communism is not real science?"

"if it were, they would have tested it on dogs first"

brutal, but true.

[t_wolves_fan]

neither am i.

I didn't say you are.


GROW UP OR DIE

it's that serious.

It may be, it may not be. Scientists have been shown to be fallible in the past. Remeber just 20 years ago we were warned that the earth was entering the next ice age.

And no, I do not say that because I deny there is climate change and that we have an effect on it.


not making up what? never on earth has there been an attempt at a sustainable society. i'm not talking about communism here, it's completely different. communist governments were/are an even greater burden on the earth, though the PRC is showing some signs of long range planning these days, in terms of energy indepence.

Agreed on communism's effect on the earth; as to China, what does their version of energy independence mean? Simply that they are burning their own fossil fuels instead of someone else's?


are you saying that socialized healthcare doesn't work? or planned societies? the planned societies of the past had crap diddle to do with science - it was about utopian political ideals.

No, I'm not saying that socialized healthcare "doesn't work". I'm saying it's up to individuals to decide if it works or not. If I go from being able to schedule an appointment with a specialist using the latest high-tech service tomorrow to a situation where I have to wait 6 weeks because the government is rationing resources, does the system "work" from my perspective? No, it doesn't.

Your problem is that you take a scientific view of public policy that relies way, way, way, way, way, way (I think you get the point) too much on rationality as you define it. To you, it's irrational for anyone to be against a system where aggregate health care statistics improve. It's irrational for anyone to be against devoting whatever resources are required to ensure prevention of an outbreak of a disease regardless of the probability that it will happen. Your opinion on those matters is not "wrong" but your belief that aggregate scientific data should be the sole factor in people's decision-making is wrong because it's neither true nor can it be true. Your demand that we devote all necessary resources to preventing an outbreak of every possible disease butts up against my demand that you not tax me at 127% of my income to pay for shots for people in other parts of the world. Say the probability of an outbreak of some exotic disease in my community is .000052%, is it irrational for me to decide to take my chances and not spend an additional $1,000 in tax dollars that I can use instead for groceries, gasoline, my mortgage or toys for my kids? To you it is, to me it isn't.

You ignore values in your analysis of public policy, and you ignore the fact that what's rational to you is completely irrational to me or someone else who has different problems and different priorities. I'm not saying you're a bad person, I'm saying you don't get how policy is made.