Tubetec said:, but I don't attribute this to genetics or some kind of chemical imbalance ,which is often what the medical people trot out.
Tubetec said:"Had it been up to the psych witchdoctors they'd have kept me that way ,numbed and dummed "
Tubetec said:Humans and indeed the entire animal kingdom has a tendency to prey on the weak and vulnerable ,what we term mental illness is a manifestation of this ugly trait, a way to marginalize and undermine the credibility of those who refuse to play along with this charade we call civilised society .
I have been writing exactly this for years, but it seems worth repeating... There will never be enough money for everybody to get every possible treatment they want. So rationing will always occur.Gold said:End of life care is hugely expensive. Some would argue wasteful. That eats up a lot of the available pie.
JohnRoberts said:I have been writing exactly this for years, but it seems worth repeating... There will never be enough money for everybody to get every possible treatment they want. So rationing will always occur.
I am repeating myself (again). Before my brother died of cancer he shared with me, that he would have never spent the roughly $500k on chemo and cancer treatments that postponed his death 5 years. If it was his money he would have put a new roof on his house and saved the rest of the money for his family's future security. Actually 5 years is pretty good for a gut cancer cancer diagnosis. I had a cousin with gut cancer who died in 6 months, but that was years ago, and without the half million in chemo and medical treatments.Gold said:That's my point. Resources are always finite. Not only healthcare. It's how the society divides it up that matters. I personally think spending huge piles of cash to prolong a life for a few weeks is wasteful. You may disagree.
I would like to see a universal socialized bare bones health coverage for the neediest among us (not unlike some other cash starved socialized systems), but with a competitive environment for private industry healthcare in parallel so innovation and advances can still be driven by market forces. Do not ruin what we have to take care of a relatively small fraction of us who need assistance.I think everyone should have healthcare. Like John said if we are going to cover everyone then some things will have to not be covered.
The classic issue I see is spending OPM (other people's money). People never apply the same spending discipline as when spending their own money. While letting government run the whole thing sounds good on paper, government has a long track record of being wasteful, sloppy, and not very prudent with spending OPM.Wherever there are large piles of cash and vulnerable people there will be corruption. That's why buying healthcare is not like buying shoes.
Ayn Rand was not only a schlock novelist, she was also the progenitor of a sweeping “moral philosophy” that justifies the privilege of the wealthy and demonizes not only the slothful, undeserving poor but the lackluster middle-classes as well.
Her books provided wide-ranging parables of “parasites,” “looters” and “moochers” using the levers of government to steal the fruits of her heroes’ labor. In the real world, however, Rand herself received Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O’Connor (her husband was Frank O’Connor).
Center for the Study of the American Dream Founding Director Michael Ford wrote:
As Pryor said, “Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out” without the aid of these two government programs. Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn “despised government interference and felt that people should and could live independently… She didn’t feel that an individual should take help.”
But alas she did and said it was wrong for everyone else to do so. Apart from the strong implication that those who take the help are morally weak, it is also a philosophic point that such help dulls the will to work, to save and government assistance is said to dull the entrepreneurial spirit.
In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest.
Indeed. He certainly has surrounded himself "with the best people"!Tubetec said:Who's next? Chairman of the joint chiefs of staff ,
This is starting to look like a chess game where the King Donald takes out his entire back line without the enemy even having to make a move
tands said:We really aren't interconnected enough to be responsible for the acts of others, bluebird.
Flowers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdl6c_JFDxc
Enter your email address to join: