Inequality

[mike777]

health care is important but I would put the right to access clean drinking water as a higher priority if we are going to create rights.

 

Druin Burch argues Via negativa such as getting rid of smoking provides more benefits than being able to cure cancer. Nimium boni est, cui nihil est mali (Ennius)

[awm]

There are some sticky points about healthcare as a right though:

 

1. What is "basic healthcare"? Does it include abortion? contraceptives? gender reassignment surgery? gay-to-straight conversion? psychologist visits? faith healers? chiropracters?

 

2. What about people who want/need some service that is not covered?

 

3. Some people make life choices that lead them to require much more expensive medical interventions (i.e. smoking, eating unhealthy food, extreme sports). If we provide medical care as a right, aren't we effectively subsidizing these choices?

 

4. There will inevitably be some rationing; now this is based mostly on ability to pay. How will a single-payer plan make these calls, and is it better?

 

5. What will be the effect on doctors? We cannot really trim payments to providers without getting med school debt under control, else no one will want to be a doctor...

 

Anyway I agree that we should have some form of single payer but there are a lot of non-trivial issues.

[Winstonm]

There are some sticky points about healthcare as a right though:

 

1. What is "basic healthcare"? Does it include abortion? contraceptives? gender reassignment surgery? gay-to-straight conversion? psychologist visits? faith healers? chiropracters?

 

2. What about people who want/need some service that is not covered?

 

3. Some people make life choices that lead them to require much more expensive medical interventions (i.e. smoking, eating unhealthy food, extreme sports). If we provide medical care as a right, aren't we effectively subsidizing these choices?

 

4. There will inevitably be some rationing; now this is based mostly on ability to pay. How will a single-payer plan make these calls, and is it better?

 

5. What will be the effect on doctors? We cannot really trim payments to providers without getting med school debt under control, else no one will want to be a doctor...

 

Anyway I agree that we should have some form of single payer but there are a lot of non-trivial issues.

 

These are all certainly valid concerns but I don't see them as that big of impediment to rational discourse. Even with a single payer system there could still be an area for expanded coverage insurance for those unsatisfied with the basic coverage.

 

Personally, I think a dividing line about what is covered should be based on the ability to objectively verify the nedical treatment's success whereas mental health would have to have a different standard of care. Non-standard care (naturopathy, accupuncture, etc.) would have to be outside the scope of basic care.

 

And, yes, rationing care would occur and that is the point of a triage system.

[mike777]

With single payer, the unanswered question remains will that negatively effect innovation and entrepreneurs and as a result impede medical care. There is much more to a healthy life and the health care industry than just access to a doctor and hospital.

 

For example would a rational trial and error approach rather than a one size fits all, single payer, approach be more open to innovation? Of course such an approach would also mean accepting failure as an option. I don't know, just asking.

[awm]

In fact the loss of employer-provided health insurance is a big deterrant to potential entrepreneurs! A single payer system would sever the link between employment and health coverage and be a big help to small startups.

[mike777]

In fact the loss of employer-provided health insurance is a big deterrant to potential entrepreneurs! A single payer system would sever the link between employment and health coverage and be a big help to small startups.

 

 

If single payer govt plan increases options rather than being an impediment that is a very good thing. If it will allow for more trial and error in health care and thus failures that is a good thing.

 

However when I read about the recent 200 million for a new program that goes to just one company, rather than spread out among many, my first thought is crony capitalism.

 

U.S. Gives Glaxo Up To $200 Million for Antibiotic Research

 

Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/us-gives-glaxo-up-to-200-million-for-antibiotic-research-20130522-00728#ixzz2VO3YdSvQ

[hrothgar]

However when I read about the recent 200 million for a new program that goes to just one company, rather than spread out among many, my first thought is crony capitalism.

 

Mine is rampant consolidation in big pharma...

[mike777]

Given this 200M of our tax money is going to be spent one way or another I much prefer many tiny grants than one huge one. More of a trials and errors method. Option two would be a blend of tiny grants and money to a govt run and owned program with total compensation limited to a low level of pay compared to the private sector, say 400K.

 

Big pharma or in this case a pharma of the very few is just as prone to hidden errors, as is big government if not more. If big pharma wants to get 200M from the private sector...great and best wishes.

[hrothgar]

Given this 200M of our tax money is going to be spent one way or another I much prefer many tiny grants than one huge one. More of a trials and errors method. Option two would be a blend of tiny grants and money to a govt run and owned program with total compensation limited to a low level of pay compared to the private sector, say 400K.

 

Big pharma or in this case a pharma of the very few is just as prone to hidden errors, as is big government if not more. If big pharma wants to get 200M from the private sector...great and best wishes.

 

The number of companies capable of doing large clinical trials is extremely small.

[mike777]

Granted that means glaxo gets only 2M rather than 200M given the few companies in big Pharma.

 

Yes that means many will get money who cannot afford a large clinical trial with their grant money.

 

It also means we do not put all our eggs in one Glaxo basket.

 

Large clinical trials is another issue and thread.

[blackshoe]

Just my opinion FWIW: Wrongs (like killing, theft and so on) came first. Individuals, instinctively and selfishly jealous of their own life, freedom, family, and property formed societies that protected these as rights, on a tit-for-tat basis, by outlawing corresponding wrongs. Initially, rights were deemed to be God-given. Minority rights came later, when individuals realised that each of us belongs to some minorities. In any case, rights are unprovable hypotheses, like the existence of flying spaghetti monsters. although, arguably, with a more direct effect on us. Nevertheless, we can choose to believe in rights and can use them to guide behaviour.

Rights From Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origin of Rights, by Alan Dershowitz, published in 2004.

[mike777]

rights are unprove

I don't believe in rights

 

 

if so then next

 

in Chicago..you kill one of mine I kill ten of yours...next

[Winstonm]

And the hits just keep on coming: More bad news

U.S. employers squeezed their employees even harder than usual in the first quarter, leading to the biggest drop in hourly pay on record.

 

However, a few are making out like bandits.

 

Hourly pay has grown by just 2 percent per year, on average, for the past four years, the weakest four-year stretch on record. At the same time, corporate profits are at record highs, and until a recent swoon, the stock market was setting records, too. Workers haven't been reaping the rewards, but their employers have been.

[hrothgar]

I don't believe in rights

 

if so then next

 

in Chicago..you kill one of mine I kill ten of yours...next

 

Luckily, we still have a system of Laws...

[jjbrr]

grunch:

 

[Winstonm]

grunch:

 

 

The monkeys had the researchers well-trained.

[kenberg]

grunch:

 

 

This is great! Thanks

[mike777]

grunch:

 

 

 

watching this made me think of this parable:

http://www.raptureforums.com/BibleStudy/workers.cfm

 

The Parable of the Workers in the Field

 

"What's That All About?

I've been a management consultant most of my life and before I became a believer I thought the Lord had violated all kinds of motivational principles, not to mention the theory of fair compensation, with this story. Seemed to me like the landowner in the parable was training his workers to show up late. They'd still get paid for the full day"

[Winstonm]

This is disturbing.

 

80 Percent Of U.S. Adults Face Near-Poverty, Unemployment: Survey

 

WASHINGTON — Four out of 5 U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near-poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives, a sign of deteriorating economic security and an elusive American dream.

 

Survey data exclusive to The Associated Press points to an increasingly globalized U.S. economy, the widening gap between rich and poor, and the loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs as reasons for the trend.

 

It's hard to put any "skin" in the game when the masters' whips are peeling all the skin from your back.

[mike777]

This is disturbing.

 

 

 

It's hard to put any "skin" in the game when the masters' whips are peeling all the skin from your back.

 

 

Winston you have skin in the game per your example. :)

 

 

I just don't want the rich/poor to set forth any theories without skin in the game. The risk of deep downside to those that have a theory.

 

----------------

 

 

anyway the real issue is not that 80% of us at some time got govt help. I lived on student loans...alone at 16

The issue is how do you set public policy to to get off govt help.

 

Posters don't seem to present about that.

 

I just suggest that we seek ways to profit/advance from randomness. I use the artist as one example.

 

again I agree with Winston we need a safety net the small minority of less.

 

------------------------

 

 

have skin in the game...downside risk to you for your public policy.

accept failure is an option.

accept that constantly seeking stability/robustness will lead to hidden fragility.

[Winstonm]

Mike,

 

Rich and poor alike automatically have skin in the game by virtue of live birth - and everyone is equally free to theorize.

[kenberg]

On Winston's behalf I am delighted to hear that he has skin in the game and is therefore allowed to express an opinion.

 

I will now go out and see if I can find some skin to put into the game. Is it necessary for it to be my own skin?

 

As Jeff Dahmer said when they came to get him, "Ah, Sheriff, have a heart".

[mycroft]

Being able to rent/buy someone else's skin to put in the game has long been historical truth (frequently literally). If you have enough money or power, your contracts make you effectively immune to the game (witness the obvious example. Yes, he left almost $100m when he left. But the additional utility of those millions, over the $65m he still got from the game, is minimal compared to if I lost even 40% of my income, or someone working civil service lost 20% of their income (now where did I get that number from?))

[mike777]

Being able to rent/buy someone else's skin to put in the game has long been historical truth (frequently literally). If you have enough money or power, your contracts make you effectively immune to the game (witness the obvious example. Yes, he left almost $100m when he left. But the additional utility of those millions, over the $65m he still got from the game, is minimal compared to if I lost even 40% of my income, or someone working civil service lost 20% of their income (now where did I get that number from?))

 

 

good point, speaking of inequality..

 

 

At no point in history have so many non-risk takers, that those with no personal exposure, exerted so much control at the expense of the fragility of others. They game the system while citizens pay the price.

 

I include bureaucrats, bankers and academics with too much power and no real downside and/or accountability.

[dwar0123]

good point, speaking of inequality..

 

 

At no point in history have so many non-risk takers, that those with no personal exposure, exerted so much control at the expense of the fragility of others. They game the system while citizens pay the price.

 

I include bureaucrats, bankers and academics with too much power and no real downside and/or accountability.

I am sure Weiner wishes he had no personal exposure.

 

But seriously, including academics? Never would have considered academia a field rife with people making a quick buck at the expense of others.

 

Every field has its leaches and bad apples but when I think of a field that such people flock to, academics not so much.

 

I get that you have a thing against educated people.

 

I even get why.