3 ms·

Guess we found something we agree on :D I totally agree with healthcare being over-regulated to death. Its ridiculous we have a constant (and ever-growing) shor

Guess we found something we agree on :D I totally agree with healthcare being over-regulated to death. Its ridiculous we have a constant (and ever-growing) shortage of doctors, but you still can't pick up basic medicines without a prescription, order your own tests etc. Its incredibly frustrating because you can't take control of your own destiny even if you want to because of all these stupid paternal laws. "There's no budget option" about sums it up. I do see some signs of it changing with wearables, continuous glucose monitors, DNA testing kits etc. people are taking control of their own health. But the medical institution will take a long, long time to kill.

thegrimmest 6y ago
Indeed =) Then you should also agree with me that adding more regulation to the system is counterproductive. We should be looking to deregulate as much as possible, allowing people to take control of their own destiny, as you aptly put it. This is exactly what a consent-focused interaction model looks like: enforce nonviolent interaction and contract law, but otherwise just leave people alone as much as possible. Healthcare for humans is just another service, it doesn't need to be a special category. There doesn't need to be an association whose membership is granted a monopoly on this service. In absence of regulation, private industry would self-organize into tiers based on demand. From the very lowest tier of service, to the highest. This what we see in countries without so much regulatory burden, and more market freedom, such as India or China. More fundementally, there is no moral justification for any of it. Just because one person or group of people belive in empathy, or a particular modal of social order, doesn't give them the right to impose that on others who disagree.
- zaptheimpaler 6y ago
  Yes, I'm in favor of doing away with a lot of the existing regulation and privatized health insurance altogether. But that's not the question we started with. To get back to the original question - I still believe using better modeling to make health insurance or loans available only to those who barely need it is highly unethical. If we are staying stuck in the current model of insanely high sticker prices that are only affordable with insurance then i don't believe it's ethical to deprive people who need insurance - because in this current model, there is no easy free market alternative, only illness and death.
  - thegrimmest 6y ago
    The langugae you use suggests you beleive that people are entitled to health care as a service. Where do you derive this entitlement from? Honestly, what's wrong with illness and death? It's not something any of us can avoid indefinetly.
    - zaptheimpaler 6y ago
      In general, the defining goal of modern capitalism is to create surpluses and progress along various axes such that we can afford to be "entitled" to more. I (and most other people) believe people should be "entitled" to not be slaves to tyrants, to freedom of speech, to food/warmth/shelter, to basic utilities like running water and electricity. If we have a surplus of resources such that we COULD either give everyone healthcare or give a few people more money, why should society as a whole pick the latter? Except I don't call that entitlement, its called progress. By your logic, we should not take for granted anything that wasn't' present at the birth of civilization such as not being mauled by a bear or freezing to death. Why should our standard for humanity as a whole be stagnation instead of progress? Does that benefit anyone? If your country was taken over by a dictator and you were forced at gunpoint to become a slave, would you prefer other countries to try to restore democracy, or would you prefer that they say "why should you be entitled to freedom?" and do nothing? I think you are basically taking libertarianism and "not reaching into the pocket of strangers" to a crazy extreme. Yes, it is a virtue to be self sufficient. Charity and empathy are also virtues.
      - thegrimmest 6y ago
        > By your logic, we should not take for granted anything that wasn't' present at the birth of civilization such as not being mauled by a bear or freezing to death. Yes I agree wholeheartedly. We should not take anything for granted, and perceive any improvements to our quality of life as things to be grateful for, not entitled to. We are all born naked and hungry. Everything we receive afterwards we get from other people, people who are not obligated to give us anything. All of your examples of being forced into chains at gunpoint oppose the fundamental principle I'm advocating for: consent. Just because someone has something (say indoor heating), it doesn't entitle you to have the same thing. Just because others live comfortably, it doesn't mean you should as well. Just because you define "progress" a certain way, it doesn't give you the right to impose that definition on me, does it? > Yes, it is a virtue to be self sufficient. Charity and empathy are also virtues. Yes! Where we disagree is whether these virtues should be voluntary or compulsive. For all of history until recently, they were voluntary. We have NGOs and other organizations which operate on this model of voluntary charity. This is the only model that's ethical. What gives you the right to impose your virtues on others?

thegrimmest 6y ago

Indeed =) Then you should also agree with me that adding more regulation to the system is counterproductive. We should be looking to deregulate as much as possible, allowing people to take control of their own destiny, as you aptly put it. This is exactly what a consent-focused interaction model looks like: enforce nonviolent interaction and contract law, but otherwise just leave people alone as much as possible. Healthcare for humans is just another service, it doesn't need to be a special category. There doesn't need to be an association whose membership is granted a monopoly on this service. In absence of regulation, private industry would self-organize into tiers based on demand. From the very lowest tier of service, to the highest. This what we see in countries without so much regulatory burden, and more market freedom, such as India or China. More fundementally, there is no moral justification for any of it. Just because one person or group of people belive in empathy, or a particular modal of social order, doesn't give them the right to impose that on others who disagree.

zaptheimpaler 6y ago
Yes, I'm in favor of doing away with a lot of the existing regulation and privatized health insurance altogether. But that's not the question we started with. To get back to the original question - I still believe using better modeling to make health insurance or loans available only to those who barely need it is highly unethical. If we are staying stuck in the current model of insanely high sticker prices that are only affordable with insurance then i don't believe it's ethical to deprive people who need insurance - because in this current model, there is no easy free market alternative, only illness and death.
- thegrimmest 6y ago
  The langugae you use suggests you beleive that people are entitled to health care as a service. Where do you derive this entitlement from? Honestly, what's wrong with illness and death? It's not something any of us can avoid indefinetly.
  - zaptheimpaler 6y ago
    In general, the defining goal of modern capitalism is to create surpluses and progress along various axes such that we can afford to be "entitled" to more. I (and most other people) believe people should be "entitled" to not be slaves to tyrants, to freedom of speech, to food/warmth/shelter, to basic utilities like running water and electricity. If we have a surplus of resources such that we COULD either give everyone healthcare or give a few people more money, why should society as a whole pick the latter? Except I don't call that entitlement, its called progress. By your logic, we should not take for granted anything that wasn't' present at the birth of civilization such as not being mauled by a bear or freezing to death. Why should our standard for humanity as a whole be stagnation instead of progress? Does that benefit anyone? If your country was taken over by a dictator and you were forced at gunpoint to become a slave, would you prefer other countries to try to restore democracy, or would you prefer that they say "why should you be entitled to freedom?" and do nothing? I think you are basically taking libertarianism and "not reaching into the pocket of strangers" to a crazy extreme. Yes, it is a virtue to be self sufficient. Charity and empathy are also virtues.
    - thegrimmest 6y ago
      > By your logic, we should not take for granted anything that wasn't' present at the birth of civilization such as not being mauled by a bear or freezing to death. Yes I agree wholeheartedly. We should not take anything for granted, and perceive any improvements to our quality of life as things to be grateful for, not entitled to. We are all born naked and hungry. Everything we receive afterwards we get from other people, people who are not obligated to give us anything. All of your examples of being forced into chains at gunpoint oppose the fundamental principle I'm advocating for: consent. Just because someone has something (say indoor heating), it doesn't entitle you to have the same thing. Just because others live comfortably, it doesn't mean you should as well. Just because you define "progress" a certain way, it doesn't give you the right to impose that definition on me, does it? > Yes, it is a virtue to be self sufficient. Charity and empathy are also virtues. Yes! Where we disagree is whether these virtues should be voluntary or compulsive. For all of history until recently, they were voluntary. We have NGOs and other organizations which operate on this model of voluntary charity. This is the only model that's ethical. What gives you the right to impose your virtues on others?