Promoted by Brendan
I think this story helps to illustrate what's wrong with the medical insurance industry in this country, and why/how we should change it.
During the period when my wife and I were dating she was unemployed, having been laid off from a job at an ambulance dispatch service. One day while leaving my house she stepped in a pothole and twisted her ankle. It hurt a fair amount but not so much that she needed to go to the emergency room. Not being employed she had no employer insurance. The Oregon Health Plan (a health welfare program) has had to cut way back because state funding just isn't available. Being unemployed there was no way she could afford an uninsured doctor's visit (assuming she could find one who took the uninsured, good luck with that).
Consequently she was not treated for the injury. She soldiered on, assuming it was just a sprain and would heal. Except it never did. She'd actually damaged her ankle pretty badly given that she could still walk (with pain).
Consequently ever since then it's been a lot harder for her to hold down a job. Any kind of work that requires standing for significant portions of the day is torturous. We use mass transit, which involves a fair amount of walking to and from stops. She hasn't been able to exercise as much which leads to further health risks. She's had to buy special motion control shoes which she would otherwise not need. An ankle brace is her standard accoutrement now. Forget dancing, hiking, or anything of that nature. Now that she's on my insurance she's had long costly physical therapy, which really amounted to nothing because the injury is essentially healed wrong by this point.
The loss in terms of productivity and quality of life is really quite staggering when you consider that she's 31 and will likely live with this pain the rest of her life.
All because of a pothole.
A pothole and our retarded medical system. We've been told by everyone at this point that the injury would have been pretty easy to treat when it was fresh. A simple little visit would have prevented all of this, but it was financially out of reach, and so we all suffer. And I guess we should because it was *we* who made it out of reach- we decided to have a system where health insurance is conflated with employment.
Here's the second story-
I was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis last year. The meds they want me to take cost in the neighborhood of 30-40 grand a year and I'll probably be on them the rest of my life. I think it goes without saying that I don't have a spare 30-40 grand a year. The drawbacks of not being on medication are painful to consider.
Which means one thing- I'm a slave.
My work can essentially do anything to me because what am I going to do? Quit? I'll never get Health Insurance again. Or if I do the rates will be outrageous to the point of being as unaffordable as the meds. So I'm stuck here. Probably for the rest of my life, unless we change the system. I am pretty literally enslaved by our current system.
And that won't change unless the system of for profit insurers goes away. So long as health insurance is a get rich scheme for parasites it will never be equitable, it will never have reason to cover those with preexisting conditions (or will find loopholes around laws that bar such exclusions). So long as insurance is an industry they have a very strong financial motive not to help people like me- the very people who are supposed to be getting help.
So, yeah, I do take this issue kind of personally.
__________________________
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
There are so many stories
out there like this.
To add insult to injury......
Humana Posts Record Quarterly Profits
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
My thoughts
Yes. I'm very opposed and always have been. It's a bad idea. A very bad idea. We need a serious deregulation on this or at least a continued push away from employer based health insurance. It should be individualized to suit people's needs and should never be tied to employment.
That applies to your diagnosis as well. People should never be slaves to their job. Health insurance should be your own.
Health savings accounts are token step in the right direction. But without a serious push away from employer based health insurance, the idea will not flourish or evolve into something better.
But keep in mind, the things you complain about are problems with the current system...which is anything but free market. Far from it. few things have been gotten as much tapering and regulation as health insurance and the problems it has spawned has led to a multitude of new problems...cost of care being one of them.
BTW, my aunt, who has a ton problems with arthritis and my cousin who is on heavy medication to maintain a chemical balance in his brain were forced to get off my group policy after I random audit showed they were no longer employed by me. The insurance company simply moved them onto individual plans at the same rate with the same coverages. Something to look into....if you haven't.
The employer insurance link is #1 on Gary Becker's list as well.
Best of luck Tlaloc. I think it's safe to say we're all on the same side even though we would address what we'd all concede is a mess with very different solutions.
Gary Becker is a very smart man :)
Seriously. And it's not because I happen to agree with on many many things.
He's a brilliant economist and one our great thinkers.
He was cited often by Tim Harford in his new book The Logic of Life
. BTW, an excellent and stupendous book. I just finished it last week. Fascinating.
I was going to write about but I figured nobody would care. ;)
I dunno. I may pick a few chapters and make separate posts. He covers some really juicy stuff. I highly recommend the book to everyone!
Powerful diary, Brendan.
Powerful diary, Brendan. Healthcare policy is an area in which I'm shamefully ignorant. I've just never taken the time to read up on it and try to weigh the options. But whenever I get around to it, I'll definitely keep in mind this diary. Thanks.
Apologies Tlaloc. I see now
Apologies Tlaloc. I see now that the diary is yours. Kudos to you. (and good decision to promote, Brendan)
I think I may have just made up my mind
-- finally -- about who to vote for.
This and Krugman.
__________________________qui tacet consentire
I agree
My fiancée had severe headaches for several years because she couldn't afford to get her impacted wisdom teeth out. Her teeth also are misaligned, after having been corrected by braces due to the same.
I know the feeling. It sucks.
__________________________I didn't break the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Max Baucus is taking Hank Paulson to task
right now this minute on the insane cost of health care!!!
The dogma that Medicare and Entitlements are gonna bust the budget...... the mantra of the right.
Baucus is making the distinct point that it isn't medicare that is the problem, but the rising cost of health care! Yeah!
Go Max!
This magic trick of nearly doubling the cost of health care, them pointing out that after you raised the prices to the sky, medicare is just too too expensive.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
John Roberts (R) Kansas
is spittin' mad...... sounding like a liberal!!
Paulson actually looks somewhat ashamed.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Roberts is a Dem
and he's also a SCOTUS justice. And he's also not mad...he's just spittin'....missknowitall.
:)
stop evangelizing
and I don't think
they are really Baucus and paulson...just because. And don't tell me that are and that I don't know what I'm talking about. Maybe it's just not like you say.
;)
Tlaloc, As noted above, I
Tlaloc,
As noted above, I find your diary powerful, moving and thought-provoking. I do have one question, however. I see that you are an "anarchist". Assuming you are advocating universal healthcare or some other governmental assurance of at least the opportunity for healthcare, how does that square with being an anarchist?
BR-
There's a contradiction there, and you aren;t the first to notice. The key to understand is that I think Anarchism is something to move towards not something to impose now.
As much as I might wish otherwise people (and I do not exclude myself here) are just not ready. We've had 10 millenia of organized society, we can't go to an anarchist mode of society over night. I deally I'd like to see a slow and steady dismantling of the state as people take on more and more personal responsibility. Even if everyone thought it was a goal worth working towards I doubt we'd be ready in my lifetime. And it goes without saying that there are more than a few who think the whole idea is asinine on the face of it.
So consequently the question is what to do in the meantime. Now one line of thought is that you try to screw up the system to encourage people towards anarchy. I don't see that as productive. If people are uncomfortable because the system is bad they won;t go towards anarchy, they'll go towards someone who wants to fix the system, and you can't blame them for that.
As I see it the only way people will really choose anarchism is if we get a well ordered and functional society that does everything fairly well and people realize it just isn't enough. It isn;t good enough to be comfortable pets, they want to be really free. At *that* point we can start moving towards anarchism confident that it's the right thing.
And if it turns out I'm wrong about people we still get a nice well ordered society that does everything fairly well. That's a decent consolation prize.
So, yes, I do take a lot of positions that are not directly based on the idea that we should get rid of authority systems. And yes it does seem contradictory to my stated goal on the surface, but underneath it really does have a certain logic.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
BTW
if you want to read a bit more about my views on anarchism you can start here.
I'm always happy to discuss the topic if it interests you.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Re: "yes it does seem
Re: "yes it does seem contradictory to my stated goal on the surface, but underneath it really does have a certain logic."
Can you spell out that logic for me, because either there's an unstated assumption I'm missing, or you haven't addressed the contradiction between the policy you advocate and your ideal political structure (or ideal absence thereof), but rather have only said that others aren't ready for your ideal. If you could have your ideal, whether now or later, wouldn't anarchy mean the opposite of the kind of healthcare system you (apparently) feel is needed and which, if I'm understanding you correctly, you are passionately advocating? Saying that others are not ready for your ideal doesn't address this (apparent) contradiction, unless you think that under your prefered political scenario, some alternative solution would emerge, making your policy preference under the current political system unnecessary and inferior (and that's where perhaps there's an unstated assumption between the lines of your comment).
My 2 cents
having read about anarchism at length and with a very charitable spirit, the contradiction is there. It just doesn't add up.
Well, your "2 cents" are
Well, your "2 cents" are coinage created by the government, so you're obviously biased.
Gee, didn't you know ...
John maintains his own monetary system and issues his own coinage! :)
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Well, if I must explain the
Well, if I must explain the premise of my joke, I presume that one offering "two cents" is offering two pennies minted by an arm of the U.S. Government.
OK,
How 'bout
My quick and passing opinion on the matter.....
Better?
:)
That and a dime will get you
That and a dime will get you a cup of coffee, so I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that you're being penny wise and pound foolish ;)
(no intended meaning by any of that; just pure silliness)
pretty much
:)
Obviously...
and why is my retort not a direct counter to that? It was just a joke.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
M'kay
I'm assuming that's a joke.....??
of course
of course
On another note,
even the extreme Rothbardian view, which we can call "anarcho-capitalism, doesn't agree with the central tenets of simple anarchism.
At least on the Rothbardian Anarcho-Capitalist view, we can honestly say that it adds up....in a general sorta way....meaning that it broadly realistic, makes sense and is coherent. From there, there are a plethora of reasons for not agreeing with it if one is so inclined it because of a dislike of it due to priorities or goals. Anarchism, OTOH, lacks that coherency, IMHO. There are too many leaps of faith that have no answers and contradict eachother...mind you....neither have a government in their framework. Anarcho-capitalism is theoretically possible in ways that Anarchism is not because AC doesn't require unrealistic preconditions of the people involved while simple A does.
Hrrrm.
I thought I did spell it out. Apparently, not very well.
The policy I am advocating is a stop gap. We aren't going to have anarchism now, tomorrow, or in my lifetime, and so I have to select from the available options. Of the available options I am advocating the one I think does the most good and the least harm.
I would like to hope someday anarchism is an option, but that's just not realistic now.
Oh, certainly. Advocating for something under these circumstances does not mean I am saying it is the ultimate solution for any eventuality.
Ah, I see the hang up.
The issue is not that under anarchism there would be some new solution but that we are talking about a radically different way of life. Healthcare policy is a meaningless term when there are no governments, no companies, no bureaucrats. We have policies because we have huge institutions and we need to give them philosophical and legal guidance as to how they are to act.
That's just not the case in anarchy. When you have no institution there is no need to set policies and so the issue becomes moot.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I get you :-)
I don't see what is so hard to understand. Even Ron Paul is for incremental reform. He's not going to immediately fire everyone in the IRS if he ever became president.
Sometimes you have to be pragmatic enough to temporarily abandon ideology in order to bring about needed reform. The only problem is that you can't stay in "incremental reform" mode for too long, or else you stay there. See USSR, Cuba for examples.
__________________________I didn't break the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
He's also not an anarchist
at heart, on a theoretical level, he's something of an anarcho-capitalist....but not totally.
Nope.
Stalinist anarchist is my assessment. Anarchy through governmental fiat!
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
If you;re talking about Paul
no, he really is somewhat of an anarcho-capitalist....at heart.
On a more pragmatic and realistic level, he's simply cannot be.
But if you're kidding, then disregard. :)
Allow me to translate....
GR is referring to Tlaloc. John is referring to Paul.
No, sorry.
I was referring to Tlaloc.
Now that I am thinking about it, where do you think the anarchists really do stand on the topic of big government run universal, single-payer healthcare? :)
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
That's hard to answer
The basic tenets for commercial exchange strike me as incoherent.
are you calling tlaloc an AINO?
LOL !
LOL !
:) Would I do that? You decide.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I'm still not seeing an
I'm still not seeing an explanation. Let me try again by putting it this way:
1) In your ideal political scenario (anarchism), not only would there NOT be the type of healthcare availability you are apparently advocating (i.e., assurance of universal healthcare, or at least assurance of an opportunity to obtain insurance coverage), but we'd actually be much FURTHER from it than we are today (most notably with Medicare and Medicaid, as well as state regulations), agree? If not, in the absense of government, how would universal healthcare (or at least opportunity to obtain coverage) be assured?
2) Assuming you agree with #1, are you saying that you prefer this anarchism DESPITE the fact that it would not provide the type of healthcare availability (or at least insurance availability) that you badly want -- and would move us even further from it?
3) Are you saying that (1) you want anarchy AND (2) you want assurance of universal healthcare (or of insurance availibility), AND (3) the only way #2 can be provided is via government? If yes, isn't that a role and level of government that is antithetical to anarchism?
Let me change to letters in
Let me change to letters in my question #3 for clarity and for reference:
3) Are you saying that (a) you want anarchy AND (b) you want assurance of universal healthcare (or of insurance availibility), AND (c) the only way "b" can be provided is via government? If yes, isn't that a role and level of government that is antithetical to anarchism?
I think answering this
will answer the earlier issues (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
You mention later "ultimate" goals, and that's a useful way to look at things. Universal healthcare is *not* my ultimate goal. It is the best case for the given situation. It is not a step towards anarchism either, it is merely the best way to organize our healthcare resources during this period.
I want universal health care now, because right now it is for the best. At some future point I'd like for people to embrace anarchism because I believe it will be a lot better for them as human beings. At that point universal health care will not be a viable solution (for one thing there will be no state to provide/arrange it).
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
So you are saying "Yes" to
So you are saying "Yes" to my questions #1 and #2, correct? (i.e, that universal healthcare does not fit with anarchism and that you nevertheless prefer anarchism despite the fact that universal healthcare will not exist under that scenario.)
Correct. -nt.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
ok. Got it. So it seems,
ok. Got it. So it seems, then, that as passionately as you feel about ensuring universal healthcare (or at least universally available, affordable insurance), you consider the benefits of anarchism in other areas to outweigh that disadvantage in healthcare, even if that disadvantage means moving even further away (and substantially so) than we are today from the healthcare situation you would like to see, correct?
And if so, have you considered just how different an anarchy scenario would be from your ideal healthcare scenario? NO more Medicare for the elderly, NO more Medicaid for the poor, COMPLETELY unregulated insurers free to, say require DNA tests to determine health risks and rejecting applications on that basis or denying coverage for whatever reason and whenever they choose (as long as they design the policies accordingly) -- oh and no income-related safety net for those folks, either. You've written eloquently and powerfully about your own experience, so I assume you can envision and consider what would happen to all those people. What would happen to a poor 80 year-old woman from a poor family who doesn't have nearly enough money to pay for the medication without which she'll quickly die a painful death? What would happen to a poor child? What would happen to someone with HIV who who was kicked off his insurance by his unregulated insurer and can't afford medication to prevent/delay AIDS? Now multiply all of the above (and more) by many millions. Unless you just assume that private philanthropy will always provide, which would be a pretty big assumption, the above is a pretty huge drawback, right?
So I'm kinda perplexed that someone who has experienced what you have (your diary) and who seems to feel so strongly about the need for universal healthcare (or universally available affordable insurance), would advocate a political system (or lack thereof) that would bring experiences like his -- and, I must say, even worse -- to many millions of people.
Do you agree with my characterization above, and if so, what are the benefits of anarchism that are so great that they outweigh what I have to think you consider this huge drawback on healthcare??
There are a lot of potential options
I think you are missing somethin here. There wouldn't be any unregulated insurers because there wouldn't be any insurance companies. There wouldn't be income-related safety nets because there wouldn;t be income.
When I said anarchism was a radical break from current life I wasn't just whistling dixie. :)
So you might well ask what there would be. The problem is that there isn't one answer. One possibility is what's known as primitivism. The name kind of speaks for itself as it represents a life style such as individuals or small social groups can sustain without large infrastructure.
That's not my preference, by any means. Instead what I'd like to see is, while people are slowly dismantling the aparatus of authority, is a focus on technology that is optimized to be simple to operate, manufacture, and repair. I gave an example of this here. I believe that a very pleasant sustainable technological base could be created which could be maintained without extensive infrastructure and without overarching authorities.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
How do you stop such companies from forming?
There's a reason I say anarchism
is very very different from any other system of social organization. All others are formed on the basis of force used to compell the individual to behave in some manner, whether it's soviet gulags or libertarian restitution. That doesn't exist in the anarchism I'm talking about.
It doesn't force anything because there is no one to do the forcing, or if there is then what they push quite simply can't be anarchism.
This anarchism doesn't exist because we compell people to be part of it but because they choose to be. They either choose to be and it is, or they choose not, and it isn't. Forming a company (in any modern sense of the term) would be choosing "not."
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
So again,
How do you stop such companies from forming?
You don't *stop* them from forming.
There will be no companies in the kind of anarchism I suggest, not because anyone prevents people from forming the companies, but because if people choose to form companies then it isn't actually anarchism after all.
By making that choice they are implicitly rejecting anarchism.
It's a syllogism. Anarchism is the lack of authority structures, if people make an authority structure this isn't anarchism.
Again, the only way this anarchism works if if people choose it. If they don't want, it there's no way to push it on them because the very act of pushing it negates it.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Is your concept of anarchism
Is your concept of anarchism like religion in society: Just as some people in a society are Christians, some Jews, some atheists, etc., some people in a society are living in anarchy and some -- their neighbors, let's say -- are not?
Or are you saying anarchy would exist if everyone in the village (or whatever) would agree and commit to (by vote or by voting with their feet if they don't like it) anarchy (and therefore won't form a company within that village, and if they did they'd be run out of town on a rail by the townsfolk)?
The concept as you've presented it so far (on this thread, that is) is quite murky to me. Maybe you could spell it out in more concrete (less abstract) terms. How would it be formed, what would it be with regard to activities that would not be part of it, what would happen if someone chooses to engage in one of those activities (e.g., setting up a business, hiring people, serving customers, etc., if that's something you're saying doesn't fit), etc.
:)
well we're getting into some of the more fiddely bits but if you wanna go there...
In theory each of us can simply choose anarchism right now. But there will of course be repercussions. The society around you will not take kindly to you ignore the dictates.
When talking about anarchism, then, I am talking about a movement of the mass if not all of humanity, at least within a region to being anarchists such that the overarching society that would punish you or I simply no longer exists.
Theoretically you could have an organized state side by side with a region of anarchists. Practically speaking though sooner or later the state is almost surely going to interfere in one way or another. That's less than ideal (although it does not compromise the anarchy itself).
Damn, I'm not being very clear here. Let me write a diary on it when I'm more focused (tonight or tomorrow). There's a particular allusion I've found to be somewhat effective in getting the point across.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Fair enough. I'll await your
Fair enough. I'll await your diary. Just please be sure to address in concrete terms (please stay away from vague abstractions) the kind of questions I asked upthread (what it is, how it's actively formed or otherwise comes into existence, what activities do not "fit", what happens if someone chooses to engage in one of those activities, etc.). And if you don't want it to be too time consuming (and/or potentially confusing) you might want to just describe your ideal type of anarchy rather than getting into all the comparative stuff among the various types of anarchy (perhaps just using footnotes to describe variations on particular points). Just a suggestion.
this is but one of the reasons it makes no sense
that is just simply an impossible precondition now and forever. It ignores far too much reality. And the implications of who chooses to do what in a voluntary manner to contribute society's needs makes this impossible to coordinate.
Maybe.
You'll notice that I've never said anarchy is inevitable or even likely. Quite the contrary I find it very likely that we'll continue as we have these last 10 millenia, in ignorance of the thousand millenia that proceeded them.
Then again, maybe it just seems impossible because we are products of society. Victims of abuse tend to be abusers. Products of society tend to think they need society. And the cycles perpetuate themselves.
Don't you sometimes worry that a nanny state government encourages further dependence on the government itself? What then does that say about the very first government and our life before the great social compacts?
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
you're asking the wrong person
Like, duh!!!
Exactly
so if you believe that dependence on government can be addictive then isn't your belief that people can't choose to go "straight" or "clean" simply a function of your own addiction?
If everyone in the world was an alcoholic it'd be easy to dismiss out of hand that sobriety was possible. But it only requires the choice (and the will to stick to that choice).
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Excuse me?
At the risk of getting side tracked, your point is moot. People, by their very human nature...now...100 years....1000 years ago....or forever into the future...could not live as you suggest.
You are waiting for everyone to want to live by your vision. If but one person wants to live by his accord, he cannot. It's not as free as you think. Everyone has to be willing to cooperate with no incentives. Anarchism, as you describe, cannot allow people to truly self organize as they see fit.
Please, don't misunderstand me. I get it. I really do. I'm not missing anything. I tried to like it. It simply doesn't wash. We could live without government. It's possible...but it would be anarcho-capitalism. It is total freedom to self organize as people see fit. It is the epitomy of totally free human self-organization.
Granted, I don't think we need that extreme version. Minarchism could work just fine
+3
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
+3?? What's missing?
See the scale in my signature. :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
You aren't a student of history
As I not so subtly tried to point people have already lived in a manner that is similar to what i suggest. In fact the vast majority of the human race's existance society did not exist in any form we no think of it. Homo Sapiens Sapiens is at least 200,000 years old. The first organized societies only originated 10,000 years ago. Do the math.
So what you claim could not possible happen ever ever ever has in fact already happenend and is the norm for our species.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
OK. I'm sorry
I didn't consider the hunter gatherer phase of primitive early man....where nearly 100% of man's time was devoted to sheer survival. I won't even touch this one.
c'mon, don't be a wuss.
c'mon, don't be a wuss. Nothin' wrong with goin' back to the good ol' days of huntin', gatherin', and invadin' the other guys' caves and stealing their females. Gotta be some kinda 1984 totalitarian authoritarian commie fascist to have a problem with that. Wait, I kinda got lost between accusing you of lacking a desire for liberty and accusing you of lacking a Y chromosome. Either way, point it, we gotta get back to our roots, man.
;)
(gotta put the smiley so everyone knows I'm kidding)
Umm, I just HATE to disagree with you ...
and burst your bubble like this but you are completely off your rocker on this one.
You don't think there were power structures (i.e. pecking orders) in primative man? Hogwash. Or is it that you don't believe that primative man lived in social groups then? Hogwash.
All of today's primates exhibit social orders which implies power structures which by your definition implies NOT anarchism. Hell, even the chickens have pecking orders! :)
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
ROFL
Is it just me or is there a huge irony here where a self-professed anarchist is asking this of a libertarian in the context of the anarchist promoting government run universal healthcare?
Universal healthcare ... is the not a better poster child for a nanny state program that fosters dependence on the government?
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
tell me about it. :)
My eyes were the size of grapefruits.
I am curious ...
How do big decisions get made in your anarchic eutopia? Things like what to produce? What research to perform? Who gets access to the scarce resources which are required for conflicting societal needs? That sort of stuff.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
While my first inclination
While my first inclination is to stop and just to back away slowly (sorry for the snark, but I'm kinda gettin' a feelin' I'm gonna turn around and see Rod Serling), I'd like to point out that you're missing -- or at least not responding to -- my point/question. To restate more briefly:
1) Have you thought through the consequences (the impact on people) of this scenario with regard to healthcare?
2) Do you agree that there would be enormous incremental suffering (from a health perspective) by millions of people under this extreme scenario, as illustrated by my examples? And if not, how not?
3) If "yes" to both, and in light of what I assume (from your diary) is an ability on your part to emphathize and sympathize with the people who would experience this suffering, why do prefer this scenario? I ask partly rhetorically and partly inquisitively, what are the benefits of anarchism that are so incredibly great as to outweigh the aforementioned harm?
Please directly answer all three questions above. Broad philisophical statements and neat ideas are great, but please answer those central questions.
Fair enough
a lot of people get that feeling. What I'm talking about is something very very different and it is natural, even healthy to be skeptical of things that we don't have experience with.
(slight aside here- I would argue that we have more experience with anarchism than it seems at first glance, but we can get into that argument another time if you like)
It's complicated because as I was trying to point out this isn't *one* scenario. It's like saying what are the consequences of liberal democracy to health care? Well, what kind of liberal democracy? It's not like all democracies work the same.
Similarly we have a range of possibilities with this anarchism. If it went a primitivist route then life spans would almost assuredly shorten dramatically. Medicine for various conditions would be unavailable in general and would likely not be known how to be used if available (like penicillin).
Now we could start arguing quality of life issues and whether a long life as a slave is preferable to a short life of freedom, and all that jazz, but since I really don't prefer primitivism (by a long shot) let's just skip that for now. :)
On the other end of the spectrum, what i half jokingly called anarcho-technocracy, if you read the thread I linked to in my last post to you you'll see that brendan and Ender and Specter and I discuss medical technology a fair amount.
Did the above explain this or should I get into it more?
(I do not agree that there *has* to be an increase in suffering by moving to anarchism, I do agree it is certainly a *possibility*)
The answer to 2 was a qualified "no" so I'll take this one as answered.
did that answer the question for you?
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I only scanned your
I only scanned your technology diary and a couple of the comments, but how about this: How about you just answer my question (or point me to a specific comment on that thread that answers it) instead of directing me to a thread with lot of detail? It seems that you are suggesting that it's reasonably possible that the answer to my question #2 is "No", which brings us to "How so?" So just give me the brief bottom line to whatever your contention is: How will this suffering be avoided under some form of anarchism (with no Medicare, no Medicaid, no insurance regulation or even insurance at all, etc.)?
Sorry, I missed this comment earilier
The point of the anarcho-technocracy thread is that our current technology infrastructure is optimized in a certain way, and yet we could choose to optimize it along other lines. If we chose to optimize it for simplicity then it is possible, maybe even likely, that we can develop technology that is not as efficient as what we have no but which can be operated and maintained by laymen without access to massive infrastructure.
In other words, what if the majority of common ailments- everything from headaches to an inflamed appendix could be treated with something no more complicated to use and maintain than a first aid kit? Why then there'd be little need for a huge medical infrastructure. Most health care would be routine and practiced within the family or social group, with special knowledge only required for more esoteric issues. In that situation the lack of medicaid is not a problem.
people only need medicaid because medical care is expensive. If medical care becomes simple and affordable then it ceases to be useful, and losing it is not a bug but a feature.
Anarchism only means degraded technology if we insi