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.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gg cox who wrote (8845)	8/30/2009 10:26:17 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

The vast majority of this thread are the opinions from "the tip of the iceberg."<<gg>> That implies, however jokingly, that the opinions are immediately self-serving. I don't deny that that happens, only that it is inherent and inevitable.

To: gg cox who wrote (8845)	8/30/2009 10:54:22 AM
From: Brumar89	5 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Ted Kennedy was never and would never be subject to socialized health care. He cares about the public as much as he did Mary Jo Kopechne* who he let die of asphyxiation rather than call the police and get caught in a DUI. *not to mention a host of other women he used like kleenex.

To: gg cox who wrote (8845)	8/30/2009 12:25:16 PM
From: longnshort	4 Recommendations Respond to of 42652

In reality, these types of so-called "rights" are offered to groups of Americans by politicians in exchange for votes. Claims of humanitarian concerns are merely a fig leaf over a naked power grab by the state. As doctors, we took an oath. We created the profession of medicine and claimed our standard required us to use our own best judgment at all times for the greater benefit of our patient. We claim we base our treatments on "the evidence." An attorney would be considered unethical if he used consideration of the greater good of society to influence his representation of an accused murderer. It is a betrayal of our duty to our patient to use any consideration of some greater social good defined by the government to alter the best course of action for the patient. Our customer rightly expects us in the doctor-patient relationship to have his welfare as our absolute priority. It is immoral to use "average number of years of life a procedure would buy" — or any other government-inspired social utility — as a justification to limit the options we offer our patient. Medical care is not a right. Medical care is a service provided by doctors and others to individuals who want to purchase it. A patient presents to the doctor with a request for care. The fact that the patient has a serious condition — even a life threatening one — does not entitle him, as his right, to the services of the doctor. To claim that he does means that doctors and others who provide these services have no rights, or that society can deliberately ignore these rights for the "greater good." It is immoral for a professional organization to participate in, or to lend legitimacy to, any attempt by the government to control how care is defined and who will provide it. If doctors will be prevented by the government from offering their services outside of a government plan, this is further confirmation that coercion is at work. Indeed, if doctors are prevented by law to work outside of the plan — as is the case already in Canada, North Korea, and Cuba — it will mean the wholesale corruption of the profession of medicine. mises.org