[ExI] Charity

[Dan]

On Tuesday, July 21, 2009 6:22:12 AM Stathis Papaioannou stathisp at gmail.com wrote:
>> 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.

It seems that this is the case now.

> 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.

This also seems to be the case.

> In the case of elective treatments, where an insurer is involved,
> a bureaucrat might decide what treatment is covered and what
> is not.

And my point was that there's no clear line between elective and non-elective. It's arbitrary -- even if clinicians, bureaucrats, insurers, patients, you, me, and the Great Spaghetti Monster might agree that someone bleeding with a deep gash in his neck is clearly on the non-elective side of the line. Under a true voluntary system here -- i.e., one where there's no coercive interference -- the decisions would made, IMO, in the best fashion because there'd no third party coercively entering the relationship to impose its view of what should be done.

Regards,

Dan