stathisp at gmail.com
Tue Jul 21 11:22:12 UTC 2009
2009/7/21 Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com>:
> Next, IMO, there is no bright line between which medical procedures, treatments, drugs, etc. are necessary and which are not. The line is not only fuzzy -- and fuzziness doesn't mean we might not all agree that the guy with a deep gash in his treated should get treated ahead of the guy with a minor fungus infection in his toenails -- but people do disagree on where to draw the line. All a government system -- and this is what we have in all the countries we're talking about now (we just different variations on a theme of socialized healthcare) -- is going to do is have a central planner decide where to do draw the line.
> In all cases, I'd prefer the people decide -- not via some elective chicanery, but as individuals with each person freely choosing what to do with her or his resources, whether alone or in voluntary groups. That would, of course, be a radical change from the current systems in the US and other fascist nations (meaning all the rest). And I expect court intellectuals, government officials, those in the pay of medical and drug establishment to fight that kind of radical expulsion of the government from all health concerns.
Most medical treatment (public or private) is on a first, come, first
serve basis. But in the case of emergencies, there is a triage system
in place, where decisions are made by clinicians as to which is the
most urgent case. In the case of elective treatments, where an insurer
is involved, a bureaucrat might decide what treatment is covered and
what is not.
More information about the extropy-chat