On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 9:48 PM, Warren Ockrassa<[email protected]> wrote: > On Jul 17, 2009, at 9:15 PM, John Williams wrote:
> I guess you've never visited an "herbal" healer then, or someone who used > "reiki" or "healing touch". You're not prevented from doing so. The free > market lets you. Heh, being restricted from some things but not others is hardly free. > Again, we had the "free market" model. Again, it *did not work*. Again, I'd like to hear about this wondrous free market in health care that we had. I'm certainly not aware of it. > Really? There are health plans that include maintenance options? I'd like to > know what they are. Most of them. I think we are disagreeing over my terminology. Replace "maintenance" with "predictable" or "mostly expected" if you wish. Most cover routine check-ups, screenings, treatment and drugs for minor ailments -- things that most people could budget for on a yearly basis. > It would have cost that, under the "free market" model, yes. Was it worth > it? To my nose, sure. After all it was the "free market" that set the cost. No, it was not. The myriad government restrictions have a significant effect on costs. > And to be certain, knowing what was making my eyes itch was worth a few > bucks to me. It was worth $250 to you. But you did not actually pay the $250. Someone(s) else did. It may have not been worth $250 to them. > But you're missing the point, which is that I didn't have to pay to find out > what was costing me in terms of happiness, comfort -- and *productivity*. By > feeling more comfortable after the scratch test, I was a much more useful > citizen in the economic pool and that dividend has paid off rather well > since then. In your opinion. But you obtained that benefit partially with someone else's money. It may not be worth it for them. > Now, suppose I was an indigent? Would I be worthy of the same level of care, > or not? Worthy of care? I would not presume to determine who is worthy of care. But certainly if you think someone who is not getting care should be getting it, you could help them to obtain it by donating your own time or money. > Oh horseapples. If I feel bad I can go to a doctor, herbalist, homeopathic > chirurgeon, or a Tai Chi master. Only one will provide me with the fact- and > evidence-based treatments I need. But the market is, undeniably, a "free" > one. You seem to have a more restrictive definition of freedom than I do. My definition of freedom of choice is to be able to choose as I like as long as I am not directly taking away someone else's freedom. If my health care choices are restricted by, for example, the government requiring providers to include certain things in their insurance plans that I don't want, then that is not freedom of choice. If the government takes money from me and uses it to pay for keeping an 87-year old alive and in pain for an additional month, when I would have spent the money to help starving or sick children in third world countries, that is definitely not freedom of choice. > Government, by insisting on evidence-based standards before approving > treatments, is no more "interfering" than it is when it says you have to > build highways out of tarmacadam as opposed to construction paper. Both are interfering. The same goals could be accomplished non-coercively. _______________________________________________ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
