From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Tue Dec 24 2002 - 02:33:56 MST
On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 Dehede011@aol.com wrote:
> To the extent you have offered us a model for health care I seem to
> sense an underlying assumption that society is going to pay for each
> individuals health care.
Ron -- at least in Europe I think that is the "reality" (Europeans
may feel free to correct me if that is not accurate). In the U.S.
I consider it to be a somewhat accurate assumption -- i.e. society
pays for Medicare but does not currently pay for drugs.
> I believe that to be a faulty assumption to base a national health
> policy upon.
You will not get an argument from me on this, but I can see reasons
that one might debate it.
> If you look back to 1993 or there abouts when Hillary was
> pushing her health care plan ABC introduced her plan with a program either
> put on by Nightline or that preempted Nightline. It ran for about 90 minutes
> and included one person that spoke against her plan -- a scared student from
> the University of Chicago with libertarian leanings. <G> -- otherwise every
> speaker I can remember was heavily behind her plan.
Not surprising -- everyone wants a "free lunch".
> One of the speakers or commentators was ABC's medical correspondent
> (is Dr. Johnson the proper name, they still use the same guy ASAIK) He made
> a revealing comment. He said that there were five components to our health
> care system -- the patients, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, insurance
> companies and I believe the attorneys. He said that Hillary's system was
> designed to provide the funding for all five components.
Providing funding to the attorneys seems counterproductive.
> I think if you reworked your assumptions with two changes you might
> not come to the same conclusions. I suggest two different assumptions.
Ok, good, I'm open to changing my mind.
> First that we will not pay for any health care as a nation, state or
> municipality except where there is an existing contractural obligation to do
> so. Second that we rewrite our tax code to allow everyone to deduct all of
> their health insurance and health expenses just a when companies provide
> insurance to us.
Ok, I'm open to that -- but it seems to only reduce private health care
costs by something like 20-40%.
> Please note that my assumptions both gives and takes away. The
> government loses an expense but it also it loses a source of income.
Agreed.
> As I am 68 Y.O. let me also remind you of one unpleasant but
> unavoidable fact. Eventually all of us come to the point that no amount of
> medical care will save our lives whether we be everyman, wealthy businessman,
> President, King or Pope -- get used to it. Most of the elderly have done so
> long since.
Ron, your note is revealing. And so if one values the net worth of every
person, it seems like cryonics is the only reasonable long term survival
option (based on, for example, Ralph Merkle's Pascal's wager type arguments)
should not a government (in conjunction with an individual) have the option
of "suspending" that life. I.e. the government has the freedom of suspending
the expense (esp. medical) of "maintaining" the individual and the individual
has the freedom to "suspend" themselves until better technologies become
available to recover themselves (given the open question of whether when
one is "too far gone" (one of my grandmothers probably met this "criteria")
one can never be recovered [excepting the simulation possibilities I have
recently discussed].)
These types of questions, it would seem, raise some very thorny issues
in all "1st world" societies.
It would seem that the interesting question is "Do we not each have
a fundamental right to 'self-preservation'?". It would be interesting
to go through the U.N. declaration of fundamental human rights and see
whether or not it supports this question. If so then it would be grounds
for revoking many anti-suicide laws (provided the suicide was conducted
so as to preserve oneself). Furthermore, it is a very different situation
if a government "puts an individual down" with preservation in mind or
elimination in mind (this is a legal nightmare I am sure).
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:52 MST