3 ms·

> Only if you assume the government is somehow magically immune. I didn't assume, but the fact is they are uniquely capable of solving this situation in optima

• pdonis 13y ago
  > I don't even want to consider what a bad government might do in this case So you just magically assume that there are no bad governments? That doesn't seem very reasonable to me. Nor does your claim that this is something governments are somehow magically good at. They're not. > for you your life is usually precious If that were actually true, people would behave very differently than they do. Any behavior that, on average, reduces your life expectancy, is irrational under your assumption. And since most behaviors do that, your assumption leads to the conclusion that people should not do most of the things they in fact do. > Basically it comes down to bargaining power. If governments actually did nothing more than bargain for the best rates for any given treatment, on behalf of every citizen of the country, and then let each citizen choose (along with their doctor, of course) the best treatment they can afford, that would be fine. Even subsidizing some people to level the playing field for "what they can afford" to the extent possible would be fine. But no government limits itself to just doing that. Governments always end up rationing actual treatments. And they do it badly.
  • Ygg2 13y ago
    > So you just magically assume that there are no bad governments? That doesn't seem very reasonable to me. Nor does your claim that this is something governments are somehow magically good at. They're not. No. I didn't say that. There are bad people in the world. And I walk down street all the time, not taking into consideration that every person I met today might attempt to murder me horrifically if they intended it. Taking worse scenario in this case, isn't prudent. I'm talking how a government should behave and a lot of government, don't behave as you state. For example UK, Canadian and a lot of EU have socialized medicine and it works rather nice for them. True, some probably had a fair share of mismanagement and probably some abuse. That doesn't detract from my point that it's possible to have decent government. > If that were actually true, people would behave very differently than they do. Any behavior that, on average, reduces your life expectancy, is irrational under your assumption. And since most behaviors do that, your assumption leads to the conclusion that people should not do most of the things they in fact do. You are constructing a strawman there. It won't work. I'm talking about immediate life altering changes. Not some, you'll die if you smoked bacon. Or hot dogs. You need a heart in seven days or you are good as dead. You are given option: A) pay X+30 amount of dollars and survive B) go online, research the prices, try to find same procedure for amount X, then argue with current hospital to transfer to a new hospital, transport there taking large amount of risk and pay X dollars but a bigger chance that you'll die. Usually, you'll go for option X+30 since it's less risky and those 30 bucks well, you can't spend them if you are dead anyway, right? Next step X becomes X+30, repeat ad nauseam. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSjGouBmo0M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSjGouBmo0M
    • pdonis 13y ago
      > UK, Canadian and a lot of EU have socialized medicine and it works rather nice for them "Works rather nice" if you don't mind them rationing all forms of health care, which is precisely what I was referring to before: they don't just negotiate better rates for their citizens, they decide what health care those citizens are going to get. Which, as far as I can tell, results in longer wait times for various procedures and fewer people receiving them. > it's possible to have decent government. "Possible" is not the same as "likely enough to be worth betting on". > I'm talking about immediate life altering changes. And I'm pointing out that basing your reasoning solely on those emergency situations paints a false picture of how we actually value human life. Sure, if a person is in a life-threatening emergency, they are willing to trade almost anything to stay alive. But they weren't thinking in those terms when they ate the smoked bacon or the hot dogs that ultimately led to the heart disease that put them in the position of needing a heart within seven days or dying. Why not? Because there was nothing in the system forcing them to actually take into account what it would cost to get a heart in seven days if it came to that. Please note that I am not saying a "free market" in hearts, for example, would make the cost less than it is now. I am saying that nobody is forced to think of the cost at all until they are in the life-threatening situation. That's a bad system, and the government that allowed it to be put in place is bad government. Please note also that the cost is not just monetary cost. There are fewer hearts (and kidneys, and livers, and other organs) available than there are people who need them, so decisions are going to have to be made about who gets them first. Every person who gets a heart because they failed to foresee the consequences of their bad eating habits or other lifestyle choices is taking that heart away from someone else, who might need it because they were in an accident, or for some other reason that's no fault of their own. Once the situation gets to that point, there are no good options; so the best thing we can do, to whatever extent possible, is to prevent those situations from ever happening. And that means forcing people to consider the long-term costs of their behaviors up front, while there's still time to do something about them before it becomes an emergency.