Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Father Terrence who wrote (82951)	6/26/2000 4:17:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

<<...at its core the immorality (and violation) exists because of the lien that is placed on the life and value of the individual in the healthcare industry...>> The healthcare practitioner is required to qualify themselves to perform the services the are offering. They are in essence saying let me use your body to do my thing with and I will return it with some predictable benefits of my service. So the state does have a right to put a lien on their license to practice. That doesn't imply a lien on any basic rights of the practitioner. The real immorality of the system is that the responsibilities assigned by the state are not equitable. If the state and therefore the licensed practitioners are required to provide services, then the person receiving services (education, health, economic, employment) should be required to demonstrate the same level of qualification. For example: all students are required to do, is to show up and take a seat. Although they receive performance/achievement scores they can choose to not perform in the classroom. Whereas the practitioner would loose there license to participate for non-performance. Students have the right to education with no investment in their own requirements to qualify for services. Research on job retention shows that the level of investment made in qualifying for a job is directly correlated with job retention and success.

To: Father Terrence who wrote (82951)	6/26/2000 8:58:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

The idea of a right to health care is of course absurd, but from a pragmatic standpoint it makes perfect sense for a government to guarantee - and pay for - basic care for those who cannot afford it. The proposition may be appalling on a theoretical plane, but it makes more sense than having a bunch of people staggering around carrying infectious diseases and passing them on, or a bunch of corpses rotting in the streets. Yes, free health care places an unacceptable lien on somebody's resources. So would picking up the bodies of the people who wouldn't have health care in your ideal state. The sad fact is that if we give people the right to succeed or fail, some will fail, and it is cheaper to support them at a minimal level than to clean up the mess they make if they aren't supported. It's not a compassionate calculation, it's a purely economic one.