[Appolinaria]

iNow, on 10 December 2011 - 09:45 PM, said:

I'm rather biased on this question. I don't think medicine should ever be a profit driven business. In fact, I think profit should be removed from medicine entirely, and that any rewards given are based solely on efficacy. Profit AFAIC is anathema to patient wellness.

My hope would be that medicine is obliterated as a business, and instead used for what it ought to be... A way to improve the well-being of humans and their families, and available even to those who are not wealthy or suffering from desperate poverty.

Now, I recognize there are some issues in materials up front, and shipping costs, and education to know when to administer and when not to treat with certain items. I know there is work and research into learning about these solutions and huge investments needed to make them available. But I also know we could do it better if we weren't so purely profit focused and approaching the issue like nothing is ever better than a free market.

I fear, though, that until drastic changes are made to the system as a whole that cures and treatments like those you reference above will likely be available only to the wealthy, or those with high quality healthcare, and that those without money will not have access. I fear that we'd essentially prioritize the profit of the few over the wellness of the many... Because profits drive the world of medicine, not always outcomes.

It's got to be do-able, don't you think?

I'd probably still have my mom around.

[iNow]

What has to be doable, exactly? The diabetic thing? I dunno. Sure, why not.

[Appolinaria]

What Phi said in his original post.

Curing people, not just treating their symptoms. No sending sick people on expensive goose chases to get diagnosed and treated. No people strung out on painkillers to get by day to day. From what I've witnessed, there's something wrong here... I know we aren't expected to find cures right away, but with how many strides we've made in other areas, I'm not buying it.

[Phi for All]

Certainly another area where profit has replaced the intended goal is in defense. Consider the sheer volume of lives and resources the world, and especially the US, has spent on defending ourselves against a decentralized, poorly organized and technologically inferior enemy like Al Qaeda. By the time the US alone had spent a trillion dollars of taxpayer funds on the War on Terror, Al Qaeda had been primarily financed only by the personal wealth of Osama bin Laden, estimated to be a mere $300M. When you add in the technological superiority of the Western forces in training and equipment, the fact that Al Qaeda not only wasn't wiped out but actually grew in numbers and support seems to point to conflicted interests.

Can we ever expect peace when war is so profitable? Like private prisons who are looking for ways to gain more prisoners, are there arms merchants and war profiteers who are looking for ways to promote more armed aggression?

[Vent]

I don't think it's a leap of faith to assume that some companies would spring up to cure and not just treat symptoms. It's still the motive of profit after all. Company A charges 10 for treatment of symptoms and company B charges 100 for cure, for an erroneous example. Based on this oversimplification of business the profit is still driven by the competition in satisfying consumers it seems.

iNow, on 10 December 2011 - 03:55 AM, said:

Cover everyone equally from a collective risk pool...

I'm interested in how everyone can be covered equally. Does everyone have an individual quota of medical funds available in the collective pool? What about those who require more expensive treatment?

Phi for All, on 11 December 2011 - 05:28 PM, said:

Can we ever expect peace when war is so profitable?

Personally i think this confuses the issue a little. War doesn't exist due to the armament industries but rather the armament industries exist due to humans want of war. If humans didn't feel the need to wage war, or more accurately, couldn't see the purpose of it because it doesn't return a profit, then the armament industries would go broke. Sure, they could start a war themselves to stay in business but who are they fighting? The other armament industries?

I think a private penal system sounds complicated on the other hand and have never thought that it should be private, but maybe i'm wrong; i'm not even sure if i think healthcare should be private but i can see both points of view i think.

[iNow]

Vent, on 7 January 2012 - 09:09 PM, said:

I'm interested in how everyone can be covered equally.

You fund insurance coverage centrally, like the US does with medicare... but applied to all citizens. You could also follow models like those used in countless other countries. There are MANY ways that everyone can be covered equally. http://en.wikipedia....sal_health_care

Expense of the treatment and quotas are irrelevant, really... little more than moot points or red herrings.

[Vent]

iNow, on 7 January 2012 - 10:52 PM, said:

You fund insurance coverage centrally... applied to all citizens.

Ah i see, universal coverage. Cost wouldn't be a moot point under equal coverage since equal generally implies a quantity. No matter, i thought there was a new kind of idea for a US health system

[calabi]

Personally I think the whole thing is in conflict with civilization itself. We didnt start out or get to where we are today, just by looking after number one. We grouped together and had seeming unequal exchanges where one gained more than the other, but the group gained more as a whole.

Farming was extremely intensive in the beginning but it didnt take so many people. They must have allowed people to do other things. Like study tools and pottery, medicine which benefited the society greatly. I could be wrong but I cant see how it started out as some capitalistic dream whereby one guy made some tool and then exchanged that with another for food. These groups that had greater cooperation that didnt worry about about equal exchanges, had more redundancy. They let other people study new areas without impediment. Then their group had a better community which then dominated all the the other groups. I only say this because some of these people seem to be attempting to rewrite history.

I dont believe you should have a totally socialist, or communist envirnonment. But things have their own efficiencies in their own areas. Just making something private because it doesnt seem to be working well is stupid. They dont take into account things like entropy. I've seen it with companies I've worked for. They work great when they start every one is on the ball, but then things start to decline, people dont bother as much, things relax. There are other ways to fix this than just selling something.

Another thing there is no way a private company will get us to mars or the stars. Space exploration requires many disciplines a ton load of money, and nowhere near an immediate return on the spent money(if ever). We might get a few little touristy things coming from private companies which will be exclusive to a very few people but nothing more than that. We need to seriously start space exploration now to move forward with methods and theories for what resources are out there and how to get at it. While we have the abundant resources. Its no good waiting till we are starting to run out. The companies wont have any incentive to do something till then and then it will be too late.

We need large social programs, science should be put at the top of that agenda(as well as health and welfare). Its funny as well, these people discounted that limitless study, which hasnt actually been disproven, which suggest that we may run out of resources within the next fifty years or so. They said science(they also disproved that though) will sort it out, but then they dont put adequate resources or money into science.