Mental retardation and extreme physical handicaps come to mind.

I think that at that point, those people have to be paid for whether it takes from someone else or not. The preferred option of course would be that people would donate money voluntarily to help those people for simply moral reasons. And yes, in the current system they are provided for, but by the same horribly inefficient programs that other people use that are starting to collapse.

__________________
.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

--Murray Rothbard

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinny. A liberal is just a libertarian who hasn't studied economics.

I've seen a lot of retards working 9-5 jobs, and I just had a blind Spanish teacher. Hell, if the person didn't have arms or legs they could still be a telephone operator. Even people with cancer work while getting treatment. Just because you have a disability doesn't mean you're confined to a bed your whole life.

For the most part, these people are taken care of by their family, and I have no problem pinning the costs on them because they're the ones with the problem. I feel even worse about them though, because they never had the chance to make a lot of money. If a person who got cancer was a former ceo, I doubt he would get money form the government, but if that person was a bag boy his whole life, his personal responsibility should have been the same as the ceo, except he gets money - simply because they value him as a second class citizen. However, if we're dealing with extremely disabled from birth, those people really didn't get the chance to do anything, but again, if it was the son of a ceo, no help needed. If it was the son of a bag boy, while the responsibility is the same, that person gets government help.

That's how things happen now. That's not what I'm proposing should happen.

Reading this topic makes me cringe. To think that there's literally millions in this country who can actually speak of people like they're cattle is appalling.

Quality healthcare for profit is unethical, PERIOD! Anyone who can't understand that is completely out of touch with charity.

Pay, or die. What's that say about the collective character of the aforementioned millions?


PROB

You know, insulting every doctor in the world isn't the best way to convince them that they should be paid less for their job.

That's odd. Should I list all the other world leading countries who's doctors don't share your opinion?

Now, if U want to talk about "INSULT", let's talk teachers and how we disrespect them on a daily basis.


PROB

That's all insurance is, even in it's current form. The only problem I see is that in both your system and the current system, only the profitable people are let in. Now as you said, you have different intentions than I so discussing this probably won't get anywhere. The way I see it, the government should set the par for the minimum insurance anyone should have - coverage from both emergency and unforeseen chronic conditions. Then I think that the private industries should raise the bar by covering all the BS little stuff like colds and any luxuries that may come with healthcare coverage. Luxuries like less waiting time, lower co-pays, no need to get a referral, whatever. I like the idea of setting the par, I just think it needs to be a different par.

__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.

On a side note, nobody necessaraly said paid less. Capitalism, in theory, pays "just right". But if you have a different goal over efficiency, then you have the option to pay "too much" to encourage more doctors to join increasing the supply and increasing the cost, or you have the option to pay too little, discouraging doctors to join lowering the supply and lowering the cost.

__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.

How do we do that, humm?

Wrong. Only healthy people are let in.
I doubt anyone would leave the government plan. Rich people still pinch pennies. Why pay more for something when you can get it cheaper? Trust me, rich people have that mentality more often than poor people.

which tend to be the profitable people, lol. I'd be happy to concede the point.
For the same reason people go on PPO and not HMO even though it's cheaper... for the luxury and speed of it. I'll go back to my australian example and tell you that many people, especially though their employer, get privately insured. Don't cover the common colds or little crap that one doesn't really need to go to the hospital for... if someone wants that, they get private. Offer lower co-pays on private. There are ways to make private attractive to those who can afford it while still establishing a bare minimum that anyone should have.

I guess what I don't understand is why you would use the government to set the par for a minimum standard when your minimum standards isn't even the minimum that anyone should have. I think you have the right tactic but the wrong par.

__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.