[ExI] Charity

Dan dan_ust at yahoo.com
Tue Jul 21 13:27:55 UTC 2009


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


      



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list