BF2S Forums Healthcare

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

oh

they don't, IMO

Any idiot can be a garbageman, and the job doesn't pay well, but I find a garbageman far more valuable than Paris Hilton. Hilton provides some cheap laughs for the semi-catatonic masses; the garbagemen keep our cities from being full of shit.

To quote Fight Club, "Look, the people you are after are the people you depend on. We cook your meals, we haul your trash, we connect your calls, we drive your ambulances. We guard you while you sleep. Do not... fuck with us."

Without these low-paid people, our society would either crumble or at the very least become unstable.

Not really, because they're all jobs that people can do themselves but choose not to. I can cook my own meals, drive my own trash to the dump, switchboards are automated and I can drive myself to the hospital. Paris Hilton has no intrinsic value, she doesn't add anything tangible to society but she does entertain people and apparently people are willing to spend plenty of money on entertainment or we wouldn't have a movie or tv or book industry.

You can, but people choose not to. And I guarantee you that if tomorrow all these "worthless" people disappeared, there would be major chaos.

It'd be interesting to compare pre-Katrina NOLA to post-Katrina. See if there are less 'worthless' people there. See if there's any correlation between that and the quality of life.

edit: Back to healthcare yes. Get rid of this pre-existing condition bullshit that makes it nearly impossible to get insurance, and open up insurance companies across state lines. If I have a great plan and then move to another state, I should be able to keep that plan.

I never said they were worthless by any means. There are just a lot of people that can fill their jobs which keeps their wages down. Individually, the garbageman is not as important to society as the CEO of a fortune 500 company that employs 20,000+ employees. Lots of people can do the job of garbageman, very few can be a successful CEO.

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Fair point. I guess another question is... how can we put a price on a person's life? Let me present a scenario:

Your most loved person in the world is dying of cancer. So is the CEO of Ford.

Who do you save? Based on your idea of who's more important.

Why would you possibly have to choose? To me, my loved one is more important. I don't work for Ford

Value to society and value to the individual are two entirely separate things. More people would obviously benefit if I chose the Ford CEO but them suffering under a different CEO would never be real or have a meaningful impact on my own life. Losing my loved one would. Easy choice

Going to bed! G'nite!

We also know that volunteer fire fighters, charity workers, coaches to kids sporting teams, canteen parents, volunteers at sporting events etc, are all totally worthless to society.

Last edited by DrunkFace (2010-01-12 22:49:58)

DrunkFace wrote:

We also know that volunteer fire fighters, charity workers, coaches to kids sporting teams, canteen parents, volunteers at sporting events etc, are all totally worthless to society.

So were your ancestors. Hence the deportation

DrunkFace wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

We also know that volunteer fire fighters, charity workers, coaches to kids sporting teams, canteen parents, volunteers at sporting events etc, are all totally worthless to society.

So were your ancestors. Hence the deportation

And from the most useless people came the greatest thing on Earth...

overpriced video games?

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

A human life isn't intrinsically worth anything.

Every member of society, working through their animalistic survival instinct, gives value to every other life in order to have others give value to their life. It's why we have laws against violence. It's why each one of us is expected to do something if we see someone in immediate medical danger. It's why we vote for various types of welfare. Because when we pay that respect to other people, we expect the same for ourselves.

It's wrong. It's imagining value where there is none. It's a collective ego-stroke that will justify anything, no matter how morally wrong or fundamentally unsound.

Uh....  You're probably the only person I've seen argue that compassion is immoral.

The problem with your idea here is that the alternative is nihilism.  For a good example of what that entails, observe much of the strife in Africa.

Regardless of your thoughts on the intrinsic value of life, society depends upon some sense of intrinsic worth to life, because without it....   society eventually collapses.

The same goes for what Galt was saying.  You can't judge the worth of someone by their payroll.  In practical terms, what someone makes in money determines their immediate, liquid worth, but their actual value to society is dependent upon their skills and the level of need of society for their skills.

How exactly does nihilism = Africa?

Society as we know it would collapse. If we have a collective little coming-of-age story and find our place in the circle of life if you will, we could find something worth breathing for besides breathing should such a thing exist. If we never come to a better understanding of what it means to improve the world beyond securing the basic necessities of life and then physical comfort, then boy do I have news for you - society is going to collapse anyways. We are already too good at maintaining our existence, to the point that in all our extra time all we have nothing to do constructively. For too much of the populace the marginal benefits of having "more society" as we know it is so small it's hardly worth justifying...so with nothing left to work for, the only thing left is to work for yourself, morally or otherwise.

This is fundamentally counterproductive to the idea of a society as we know it. Modern day morals work best in a communist sense, but once you set up a functioning communist society it is too productive for those morals to hold. It breaks because it works well, it breeds the very thing that it depends on being nonexistent - personal ambition. Then the opposite is complete individualistic anarchy, but some level of society in the cave-man sense is utterly necessary to survive in our harsh environment.

We start at the latter, forming small clans that grow larger and larger as the social groups become more successful. We keep working the same trend, because more society seems to work even better than less...but now (next couple centuries) we're reaching the tipping point. The same ideals that have brought us together don't make as much sense as they used to. From an animal kingdom perspective we don't look like mammals anymore. It's too easy to survive and reproduce. We are starting to look like insects, and our personal value to the only standard we have understood thus far (social value derived from personal instincts derived from instincts to promote survival of the species) is being rendered meaningless. Until we recognize that and do something about it our social decisions make little sense.

The last revolution was industrial. The next will be philosophical.

Their skillset in context of society roughly equates to their salary. Your salary is not how much you are worth because that is how much you are paid, you are paid that much because that is what you are worth. Money is a variable dependent on value, not in itself a measure of value.

PureFodder wrote:

Because the rest of the first world managed it and I don't think Americans are somehow less capable than the rest of the first world.

If the rest of the world didn't have us to free-ride on our medical technology and drugs that are developed primarily here in the states, the rest of you would hurt.

Haven't looked at all the universal health care systems, but the only one I've seen show some level of success is France's. Then again, taxes are high there.

PureFodder wrote:

Open up US doctor's jobs to free market competition. There's an absolute crapload of highly skilled doctors around the world who'd jump at the chance to undercut US doctor's salaries.

Medical boards have been preventing this.

PureFodder wrote:

For those who can afford it, it won't improve. For those who can't afford it, gaining access to it will improve their healthcare. Incidentally, healthcare IS a human right.

I don't agree that health care is a human right, if we are talking natural law here. It's the government's duty to protect your liberties and punish those who infringe on them or your life, but it's not the duty of the government to provide health care for you.

PureFodder wrote:

Single payer systems don't have to advertise and benefit from economies of scale, central planning and huge purchasing power to drive down costs.
Also, all single payer healthcare systems ARE less expensive.

The quality of care is also less. One issue with UHC I've seen is lack of capacity. Canadians come to the states all the time, and their government even pays for their care so that American doctors can treat them. Heart attack patients in the UK are sometimes held in ambulances as long as legally possible before being let into ER. Access is guaranteed to everyone, yet quite a bit of people have issue receiving that care in a timely matter, or at all.

I would love to see everyone have access to affordable, quality health care. With our hybrid private/government health care system here in the US, I don't see that possible.

Phrozenbot wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Because the rest of the first world managed it and I don't think Americans are somehow less capable than the rest of the first world.

If the rest of the world didn't have us to free-ride on our medical technology and drugs that are developed primarily here in the states, the rest of you would hurt.

Haven't looked at all the universal health care systems, but the only one I've seen show some level of success is France's. Then again, taxes are high there.

The US makes lots of new drugs and medical advances due to it's crazily inefficient patenting system that hugely overcompensates anyone who does any medical research. It has absolutely nothing to do with being single payer or not.

Phrozenbot wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Open up US doctor's jobs to free market competition. There's an absolute crapload of highly skilled doctors around the world who'd jump at the chance to undercut US doctor's salaries.

Medical boards have been preventing this.

This isn't a single payer issue at all. The US could greatly reduce doctor's salaries and increase their numbers whatever the medical system if any kind of serious market competition were introduced. The current protectionist measures are plainly harming everyone who isn't a US doctor.

Phrozenbot wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

For those who can afford it, it won't improve. For those who can't afford it, gaining access to it will improve their healthcare. Incidentally, healthcare IS a human right.

I don't agree that health care is a human right, if we are talking natural law here. It's the government's duty to protect your liberties and punish those who infringe on them or your life, but it's not the duty of the government to provide health care for you.

It certainly IS a human right. Number 25 to be precise.

Phrozenbot wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Single payer systems don't have to advertise and benefit from economies of scale, central planning and huge purchasing power to drive down costs.
Also, all single payer healthcare systems ARE less expensive.

The quality of care is also less. One issue with UHC I've seen is lack of capacity. Canadians come to the states all the time, and their government even pays for their care so that American doctors can treat them. Heart attack patients in the UK are sometimes held in ambulances as long as legally possible before being let into ER. Access is guaranteed to everyone, yet quite a bit of people have issue receiving that care in a timely matter, or at all.

I would love to see everyone have access to affordable, quality health care. With our hybrid private/government health care system here in the US, I don't see that possible.

Certainly the outcomes of single payer sytems are at least the same as the US system, and come with half the price tag. The current system (assuming the Obama reforms don't solve things) is unsustainable as it costs twice as much and is increasing at approximately double the rate of all the single payer systems. Any comparison between the US system and single payer systems must carry the footnote that in reality the US must choose between a single payer system and a greatly cutdown version of it's current system or face economic collapse.

The US is one of the main outsourcers of medical treatments, not places like Canada. The medical tourism industry is booming in the US.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

How exactly does nihilism = Africa?

Most of Africa shows us what happens when compassion is clearly not the focus of society.  A lot of it is currently embroiled in civil wars.  Communication between people has broken down because of badly distributed resources and the powerful only caring about themselves rather than the citizens under them.

Tell me where compassion is the focus of society.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Society as we know it would collapse. If we have a collective little coming-of-age story and find our place in the circle of life if you will, we could find something worth breathing for besides breathing should such a thing exist. If we never come to a better understanding of what it means to improve the world beyond securing the basic necessities of life and then physical comfort, then boy do I have news for you - society is going to collapse anyways. We are already too good at maintaining our existence, to the point that in all our extra time all we have nothing to do constructively. For too much of the populace the marginal benefits of having "more society" as we know it is so small it's hardly worth justifying...so with nothing left to work for, the only thing left is to work for yourself, morally or otherwise.

You've never been poor or worked with the poor, have you?

I got minimum wage working at a glass factory. I was the only white boy there working on the line.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

This is fundamentally counterproductive to the idea of a society as we know it. Modern day morals work best in a communist sense, but once you set up a functioning communist society it is too productive for those morals to hold. It breaks because it works well, it breeds the very thing that it depends on being nonexistent - personal ambition. Then the opposite is complete individualistic anarchy, but some level of society in the cave-man sense is utterly necessary to survive in our harsh environment.

There is nothing about ambition that requires you to screw others over.  If anything, helping others is more likely to help you in the long run.

Where did I say that it did?

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

We start at the latter, forming small clans that grow larger and larger as the social groups become more successful. We keep working the same trend, because more society seems to work even better than less...but now (next couple centuries) we're reaching the tipping point. The same ideals that have brought us together don't make as much sense as they used to. From an animal kingdom perspective we don't look like mammals anymore. It's too easy to survive and reproduce. We are starting to look like insects, and our personal value to the only standard we have understood thus far (social value derived from personal instincts derived from instincts to promote survival of the species) is being rendered meaningless. Until we recognize that and do something about it our social decisions make little sense.

Nietzsche's Ubermenschen and Untermenschen duality still holds true and probably always will.  It's doubtful we'll ever become more than social beings, because the whole of human history so far has never hinted otherwise.

What about human history 3,000 years ago hinted that we would have an industrial revolution?

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The last revolution was industrial. The next will be philosophical.

Their skillset in context of society roughly equates to their salary. Your salary is not how much you are worth because that is how much you are paid, you are paid that much because that is what you are worth. Money is a variable dependent on value, not in itself a measure of value.

But to assume someone's worth to society is matched by income is assuming that only business worth matters.

Social worth is business worth. Not because only business is what matters, but because anything that matters turns into business.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Tell me where compassion is the focus of society.

It's an underlying focus when you look at things like Good Samaritan laws.  Legally speaking, we're expected to help others given certain situations.  There are more subtle elements like charges of "obstruction of justice" when you aren't forthcoming about info regarding an investigation.  All of this relates back to helping society help others.  Laws against negligence are similar as well.

While our economy is not based on compassion, our rule of law at least attempts to be.  That rule of law is lacking in most of Africa.

It also goes back to the Constitution.  You can't have a society that respects the rights of others without having a decent level of compassion.  We allow each other personal freedoms partially out of self-interests, but also because we set laws in place with at least a momentary consideration of others.   If this wasn't true, then civil rights wouldn't exist for minorities, because the majority would only care about itself.

The laws have nothing to do with basic human tendencies. If Africa was more stable politically and economically, they would have similar laws. "Compassion laws" don't bring stability, stability brings compassion laws.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I got minimum wage working at a glass factory. I was the only white boy there working on the line.

What was your impression of the poor from that experience?

That they are wholly more interesting than rich kids. The working poor anyways.

Goes to show people living closer to the edge are socially better than those living far from it. The wealthier a society, the more it rots from the inside.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

What about human history 3,000 years ago hinted that we would have an industrial revolution?

The growth of technology itself.  Inventions and discoveries have been a long road for humanity.  The only thing that made the Industrial Revolution significant was the speed at which these inventions and discoveries were made.  Ironically, you mentioned a philosophical revolution coming up soon, but I would argue that part of what made the Industrial Revolution as influential and as successful as it was involved a philosophical shift to ideas like the division of labor.

Perhaps, we will see another revolution that is philosophical, since there are precedents for them, but I don't see how it would succeed with a shift away from compassion.

Spears are a far cry from spinning jennys.

I don't mean another philosophical revolution like the enlightenment, I mean a social revolution like the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution wasn't about the technological innovations, it was about the first few technological innovations in farming allowing large-scale urbanization. Once so much of the labor was moved to the city then yes, there were a series of technological advances as people put their minds to how to make use of all the labor. The revolutionary part however was in the changing attitudes about what constituted work, what constituted daily life, what a person now meant as a part of the whole. Division of labor wasn't an idea, it was a shift that had been a long time coming.

It's not about shifting away from compassion. It's about recognizing compassion as we know it now for the nonsense that it is. Recognizing self-worth for what it is brings a fundamental shift.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Social worth is business worth. Not because only business is what matters, but because anything that matters turns into business.

What about non-profits and charities?  They're certainly worth a good amount in what they do for the world.  They usually make a lot less than Coca-cola, but I think it's safe to say that society depends more on them than soda.

But we are talking about individual worth, not the worth of companies. Even non-profits pay people to work for them.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The laws have nothing to do with basic human tendencies. If Africa was more stable politically and economically, they would have similar laws. "Compassion laws" don't bring stability, stability brings compassion laws.

When we began as a country, we didn't exactly have the most robust economy.  While it is true that prosperity makes it easier to be compassionate (once your own needs are served), there are other factors involved, like culture and education.

Our laws are compassionate not because of prosperity but because we had many compassionate leaders during the formation of our country.  I'm not one to glorify the "Founding Fathers" or wax patriotic, but when compared to a lot of other revolutionaries, George Washington was remarkably humble and selfless.  He had his failings as well, but his level of dignity and intellect was not exactly a fluke among our original leaders.

Part of that dignity involves compassion.

That is my point. If Africa had better leaders, they would have better laws. The law is not an indication of the compassion of the people, it is an indication of the compassion (or political finesse) of the leaders. People will change shape to fit their container, but they're still people who would act the same way as other people do if put in the same container.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

That they are wholly more interesting than rich kids. The working poor anyways.

Goes to show people living closer to the edge are socially better than those living far from it. The wealthier a society, the more it rots from the inside.

In some respects, yes.  Adversity builds character, but it can also breed widespread suffering.

Ironically, I think a lot of this actually goes back to something you mentioned a few months ago.  You stressed the importance of having good leaders as being essential to society progressing.   It may seem like an obvious observation, but it's often overlooked.

I honestly believe that a lot of why Africa hasn't positively responded to adversity is because their leaders are typically so shitty.  Had George Washington and the rest of the Founding Fathers been men with a mindset similar to Mugabe, we probably never would've become the country we are today.  Sadly, it doesn't look like there are any "Washingtons" among most struggling African nations.

So I wouldn't say living close to the edge is what's desirable, but rather having the proper mindset to handle it is.

I talked a lot about the first part above.

The thing is being closer to the edge is where the Western and even more generally the human mindset makes sense. The problem isn't that people lose that mindset when they become wealthy individually or as a society, it's that the same mindset is being applied to a radically different circumstance. An awful lot of the world has moved past the significant daily threat of harm to themselves or their kin, but our mindset hasn't. A different world with a different set of problems at a very basic level is what we have, and we don't know what to do with it. We don't even recognize the problems for what they are yet - problems like an abundance of food and the ability to raise youth at leisure.

We work well in crisis mode. That's how nature works. Now we venture into the realm of the unnaturally cushy.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It's not about shifting away from compassion. It's about recognizing compassion as we know it now for the nonsense that it is. Recognizing self-worth for what it is brings a fundamental shift.

You'll have to elaborate on this part.

It's not that compassion is good or bad, compassion doesn't make any sense. We act as if the long term goal is survival of the species, in which case compassion is a very good thing. Survival of the species is practically a given these days, but we're still stuck on auto-pilot. We don't need every person to survive to maintain our place in the world. We don't even need most people to survive to stay where we are. The ultimate goal needs to be changed. When the goal is changed, the value of every person changes.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

But we are talking about individual worth, not the worth of companies. Even non-profits pay people to work for them.

And most of these individuals make a lot less than a typical worker at Coca-cola.

I don't see why you would say that. Human resources people make what human resources people make. It's the same job in both places. Maybe productivity is better in places where people are working where their passion is, but as far as the pay scale the administrative people aren't in it for the warm fuzzy feeling.