I hold no illusion that we can be perfectly free to do whatever we want. I'm not someone who believes socialism is always bad, just because it is socialism. Incorporating elements of socialism is fine, to an extend. And 19th century factory owners would hate me, because I also believe in regulation that protects workers' rights. I also know how important education is. I just don't think this particular kind of socialism is a good idea. I think this one comes with far too many strings.

Under a nationalized system the cost of everything should drop. Dramatically. And no, I don't just mean the patient will pay less because it's nationalized. With the government deciding what to pay the doctors, they will invariably decide to pay them much less. Furthermore, it will spread the cost of individuals like Cool Matty across several healthy individuals like your or me. I probably won't pay any more in taxes than I do in health insurance now.

Of course, the problem will only get worse. There was a time when children born with horrible diseases didn't grow up and breed. Now, with our advanced health care, there is more and more chance of them passing the disease on to their children.

Ultimately a nationalized system will only save us money if it FORCES preventive medicine. On the other hand, it also cannot force me to do anything : It ultimately has to be my choice. But the plan can cover, and even require, yearly checkups, by hooking into driver's license renewals or public school prerequisites and such things.



I believe in my Liberty. The rest of you can worry about yourselves.

Keep in mind that I've been arguing all along, not that nationalized health care is bad or that the current system is good. I dislike both systems. What I'm arguing is that they can't be mixed. It has to be all or nothing. Either we keep it the way it is and try to fix it, or we entirely replace it. No more private doctors. No more health insurance. No nothing; make it all nationalized.

Incidentally, I would be quite opposed to, under a nationalized system, anything that denied coverage to smokers or the obese or such. At that point, if I'm stuck paying for it anyway, I'm going to pay for everyone.

It's a lot like Masher's moaning about having to pay for stupid people, except I don't object to doing something compassionate even if I'm 'forced' to.

The only issue left to address then is that the government can't do anything. Nationalized health care will be a bloated, wasteful bureaucracy, and people will still fall through the cracks. There will be times when people die waiting for something that they would have got right away under the private system. It won't magically turn us into a utopia. Life will still be pretty ****ty and unfair.

The best way to prolong human lifespans is to ban breeding until late thirties/early fourties. Of course, this may not be a hugely popular idea.

You're going to have to explain that, as right now, it makes no sense at all.

It's in chapter one of The Selfish Gene, but the basic premise is quite simple:

Genes that cause us to die before we breed tend to die out quickly because you tend to not be able to breed if you're dead. Genes that cause you do die after you breed, such as a genetic disposition to getting cancer late in life, accumulate in the species because they have no negative effect on the ability to propogate the gene. It's even possible that the same gene that kills you later in life is what makes you a stronger candidate in your early years, but that's not really relevant here.

If you force people to breed later in life, less people will breed successfully but you'll start to eliminate genes that cause death at late middle-age. Keep doing this (continuously pushing the age of breeding back slowly) and you'll end up with a species that is effectively immune to most of the things that kill us now (though obviously they'll be vulnerable to things that kill them later in their lifespans).

Actually, before reading his explanation, it makes a lot of sense. Even taking the genetic aspects out that he describes there are a lot of other social and economic factors that come in to play. The fact that people tend to be in better social and economic conditions towards the middle of life would vastly improve the quality of upbringing for offspring.

Of course you would also end up with some old losers tired of being alone that decide to hook up just to bump uglies.

Yeah that's not going to happen ever which is good because the idea is horrible.

Not to mention it wouldn't even work because women CAN'T breed past a certain age. And for the most part the kind of things you're fighting against affect post-menepausal women.

But even if it would work it would still never happen. For a good discussion of the consequences of such a system read anything in Niven's ringworld universe.

Also : We must die to make room for the young. Evolution knows this. A species where the old die before they become a burden on the young does better.

Yes, there difinitely are things that work against it. I was thinking about the health risks to older woman (but 30s and at least part of 40s is still pre-menepausal for most) and the increased risk to babies for things such as Downs Syndrome as well. I think there are sound reasons why people should wait until at least the late twenties to have children but that has more to do with the viability of the family as a group than any health concerns.

Your last comments, though, can be used to justify all sort of nefarious health care practices.

1. Nobody said it was a good idea
2. The exact age of menopause varies, which is factored into the idea. I said late thirties/early fourties for a reason.
3. Evolution doesn't 'know' anything, it's simply a mechanism. But yes, a world where people live longer might result in a massive population growth, on the other hand it might not.

Also remember other significant reasons not to wait too long:

1. Women become much less fertile, even in their mid to late thirties. I'm not even talking about menopause.
2. Risk to the mother grows as she gets older, for pregnancy.
3. Many women don't want to be raising their kids in their 50's. Or putting their kids through college in their sixties. (Which would happen if they had a child even at, say, 40) They want to be able to keep up with their kids as they raise them.

Not being as intelligent as most here I'm disadvantaged when it comes to hypothetical discussions like this but it seems to me that it absolutely might not ("absolutely might", WTF?). People waiting until later in life to actually have children quite possible won't be screwing like rabbits generating so many. It could be that you just end up with a similarly sized, or smaller, more healthful population. Kind of a moot point since it is apparent that smarter people than us can disagree on the outcomes of such theories. Kind of like Global Warming. Or is it now Global Climate Change? I can't keep up.

Don't forget evolution, Wookie.

Yeah, but the women who survive would pass that trait on to their kids. The thing about evolution isn't it doesn't care if it's politically correct!

I think that evolution, as a theory pertaining to the obserable change in life that may occur from one generation to the next, is fairly widely accepted. The problem is that evolution is a colloquialism to most and it is far from universally accepted in that understanding.

I've never been against the theory of evolution. I'm just against dismissing people and alternate theories because they rely on an understanding of things alien to many scientists.

But, please, let's not turn this into an evolution debate. That will simply end with me being labeled a retard and given a Downs smiley title for having tolerance of all beliefs. Whoa, Deja Vu.

Republican, you don't even know what the left and right wings are.

Also economists.

To be fair to you, I am talking about the left wing of American politics. I really wouldn't expect a foreigner to have a detailed understanding of our system nor have a common frame of reference from which to intelligently enter into the discussion. I also wasn't aware that you were an economist, nor that all economists agree. After all, I'm sure President Obama claims there are economists that believe his policies are econmically sound. Sorry to use American politics in this discussion again. Not being from your country I really can't give you an example you'd be familiar with.

Yep, I'm from Canada and I still understand the social and economic problems of your own country better than you do. Stop watching Fox News.

EUGENICS! because its worked so well in the past.

Yeah, Dawkins himself is very much opposed to the Selfish Gene being used to justify any sort of social engineering or eugenics. It's also used by American economists to justify dog-eat-dog corporate operations, and Dawkins hates that.

In fact eugenics was used in the US in the 50s and 60s and there are many people still alive that have been forcibly sterilised by the government. Fairly obviously, this has been ruled to be utterly wrong and disgusting, and the scientific merits are pretty dubious to begin with.

I would admit that you have a command of the material you choose to believe. Unlike you, I don't pretend to have to some absolute academic knowledge of wide ranging theory and systems of countries I don't live in. I do claim to have a varied life experience and form opinions based on my experience. And I thought I made it clear that it has been nearly a year since I have watched Fox News in any significant capacity. The news that I have watched over the past year would probably be 3 to 1 other networks versus Fox News. What is it with you Canadians hating Fox News anyway? Haven't you mostly banned it or has it started to work its way into your mainstream now?

Right, so you're concerned about those with experimental evidence not listening to crackpot lunatics with political agendas.

Well, Planned Parenthood is still around.

Er, Planned Parenthood provides health care information. That's pretty vastly different to forced social engineering.

Hogwash! You are just as capable of reading wikipedia as Joncy. Stop making excuses and start browsing.



A typical presentation from planned parenthood :

Having a baby hurts!
Have an abortion!
Many women die giving birth!
Have an abortion!
A child born to whatever age woman you are is more likely to have serious side deformities!
Have an abortion!
One out of every thousand children born has a horrible disease! That's like, half of them!
Have an abortion!

Planned Parenthood should not be considered a viable charity and should be aborted.

There are plenty of families for whom an abortion is entirely desireable. That's their choice and Planned Parenthood provides information to have the abortion carried out safely.

Whether you think they should be allowed the right to an abortion is irrelevant, as long as they do there needs to be an organisation that helps those that do.

Although your sarcastic and humurous representation of Planned Parenthood activity does raise some serious concerns over their pro-abortion mentality I was more referring to the founder of Planned Parenthood's eugenics, not to mention racist, philosophies. Strange how even though those philosophies might have left the organization, its practices still serve those purposes.

Mort, beyond the legalities of the issue, I feel they encourage women to have abortion over other options, and I object to that.

When I was uninsured, Planned Parenthood provided me with a place to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases. Not once did they mention abortion. Not ONCE.

Also, in regard to the comment saying that the intent of this reform is to tear down the system in place; Eventually everything comes to a point where building anew is a much more viable solution than "patch jobs". You see, my house is falling down. Beams are rotted from water damage. The whole thing leans to the right. There are holes in the floor and cracks in the foundation that I can put my hand through. But I grew up here all of my life. I don't want to leave. It hurts so much. It's so hard to say goodbye to yesterday.

I'm unsure whether you were advocating this, or just posing the theory behind nationalized system. Regardless, I'll chime in

One of the reasons that doctors get paid a lot of money is because it costs an asston of money to become a doctor. 4 Years of Undergrad, 4 Years of Med School, and then add on to that residency and internships where a lot of time you are not paid that well. Staying in-state the entire way could mean around 150k-200k+ in costs, out of state up to 300k. I know some med schools that it costs 300k ALONE to go to.

As a doctor, I'm sure that if you go through it, money isn't usually your PRIMARY concern, as evidence of people who are doctor's today. It costs a lot of money, no? However, a current doctor's average salary can pay off that debt in relatively standard time. Once you start regulating salaries, you stop providing that incentive to actually become a doctor because honestly, you will be living in a ton of debt for a much much longer time.

So if you are gonna start regulating doctor's pay, then you are going to also reform the system of how to become a doctor. Because on the margin, that decrease in income WILL effect supply of doctors. Who knows how much, but it will. And when you inevitably start getting increase in public health care consumption due to it, well, being "free" (assuming that everyone pays into it), that drop in supply of doctors won't be too good.

You lack a uterus.

Joke -> _


JM -> _

So is that an average house in Maine?

I should hope that one would realize that I am not actually talking about my house.

That said, yeah. It describes a lot of places up here. I'm only guessing about the foundations, because the houses scare me. I dare not enter.

I would argue that many of the problems we see with our system are a result of many of the "patch jobs". I saw it on Fox News.

I think this beautiful painting illustrates America's future

Stalin stole House's pills? That *******!

Why is Boba Fett flying out of that building?

Much like anthropogenic climate change.

I think it would be better to keep religion out of this thread.