The Boss is no longer the Expert

[Amianthus]

Your local Works Council will make sure that everyone in the region gets the same quality care.

Why shouldn't I get the same standard of care that the guy in the next region over gets? Is he better than me?

[_JS]

Your local Works Council will make sure that everyone in the region gets the same quality care.

Why shouldn't I get the same standard of care that the guy in the next region over gets? Is he better than me?

Why do you assume that you won't?

I find it interesting that you and Professor are the ones fighting the notion that the Federal Government and thousands of tons of red tape are an absolute necessity.

In this case we are talking about a society free of class distinction. With hospitals set up as co-operatives (or a similar organisational structure) there is absolutely no reason for information to not be shared. The hording of information on organisational, management, medical, and scientific breakthroughs would be a thing of the past. There's no need for it. If a hospital in one region has a better way of doing things, then others would go and learn and see if it is useful in their respective regions.

Without class distinction and without the hording of information for profit, there is no need for some massive central government to regulate everything. Standards will balance of their own accord.

[Amianthus]

Why do you assume that you won't?

Yes, but how will I KNOW that I'm getting the absolute best care?

I find it interesting that you and Professor are the ones fighting the notion that the Federal Government and thousands of tons of red tape are an absolute necessity.

It's called using your own arguments against you. For years the liberals have been saying that only a big, all encompassing government can make sure that everyone gets the best health care.

Using the same arguments I have been using here.

[_JS]

Why do you assume that you won't?

Yes, but how will I KNOW that I'm getting the absolute best care?

I find it interesting that you and Professor are the ones fighting the notion that the Federal Government and thousands of tons of red tape are an absolute necessity.

It's called using your own arguments against you. For years the liberals have been saying that only a big, all encompassing government can make sure that everyone gets the best health care.

Using the same arguments I have been using here.

For your first point: you'll know through the free flow of information. There's no reason for anyone to lie.

As for your second point: 1) I'm not a "liberal." and 2) Really? That's your reasoning? I expected better from you.

[Amianthus]

Really? That's your reasoning? I expected better from you.

It's always fun to use other's arguments in unexpected ways.

[The_Professor]

Your local Works Council will make sure that everyone in the region gets the same quality care.

Why shouldn't I get the same standard of care that the guy in the next region over gets? Is he better than me?

Why do you assume that you won't?

I find it interesting that you and Professor are the ones fighting the notion that the Federal Government and thousands of tons of red tape are an absolute necessity.

In this case we are talking about a society free of class distinction. With hospitals set up as co-operatives (or a similar organisational structure) there is absolutely no reason for information to not be shared. The hording of information on organisational, management, medical, and scientific breakthroughs would be a thing of the past. There's no need for it. If a hospital in one region has a better way of doing things, then others would go and learn and see if it is useful in their respective regions.

Without class distinction and without the hording of information for profit, there is no need for some massive central government to regulate everything. Standards will balance of their own accord.

Why do you assume people will do the "right" thing? What is in it for them?

In a cooperative hospital, there might not need any reason why information cannot be shared, but how do you know that one of these supposedly honest individuals won't sell leading medical information to other cooperatives for profit, thereby class distinctions are now present and accounted for?

And, Ami makes a good point that there will have to be some mechaism to assure everyone, regardless of class, gets the best care available.  A cooperatives "word" for it will simply not suffice. And wouldn't that require more paperwork, auditing personnel, information sharing infrastructures and people to maintain and update them and on and on and,,,well, you get the drift. Also, how will medical breakthroughs get communicated from cooperative to cooperative without this overhead? After all, wouldn't it be beneficial to all that this information get shared, therefore you simply must provide this far-ranging capability, right?

"Standards will balance of their own accord." Sounds like free market economics to me. Friedman would be proud...

[sirs]

I've made this reference many a time before.  With increased government intervention, my Physical therapy Evaluations in the home, that use to take no more than 30minutes, now run on for 2 hours, primarily because of the exponential and frequent duplication of paperwork necessary to satisfy the Government.  The patient sits there while I ask question after question, often having nothing to do with why I'm there.  The patient does have the right not to answer, but I still have to ask, and document, and document why there are any non-answers.  1 great example was how I had to spend nearly 2 hours "evaluating" (which includes the copius questioning & documenting) a patient, simply to spend no more than 5 minutes making sure she was safe using a single point cane

Thank you Medicare......Thank you Federal Government.      And the UHC crowd wonders why so many are not supportive of this being applied universally     

[Amianthus]

I'm not a "liberal."

From the dictionary:

liberal adj.

[snip]
         2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
[snip]

Interesting to know that that description does not fit you.

[_JS]

I'm not a "liberal."

From the dictionary:

liberal adj.

[snip]
         2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
[snip]

Interesting to know that that description does not fit you.

Wow. That's just being nasty.

[_JS]

Your local Works Council will make sure that everyone in the region gets the same quality care.

Why shouldn't I get the same standard of care that the guy in the next region over gets? Is he better than me?

Why do you assume that you won't?

I find it interesting that you and Professor are the ones fighting the notion that the Federal Government and thousands of tons of red tape are an absolute necessity.

In this case we are talking about a society free of class distinction. With hospitals set up as co-operatives (or a similar organisational structure) there is absolutely no reason for information to not be shared. The hording of information on organisational, management, medical, and scientific breakthroughs would be a thing of the past. There's no need for it. If a hospital in one region has a better way of doing things, then others would go and learn and see if it is useful in their respective regions.

Without class distinction and without the hording of information for profit, there is no need for some massive central government to regulate everything. Standards will balance of their own accord.

Why do you assume people will do the "right" thing? What is in it for them?

In a cooperative hospital, there might not need any reason why information cannot be shared, but how do you know that one of these supposedly honest individuals won't sell leading medical information to other cooperatives for profit, thereby class distinctions are now present and accounted for?

And, Ami makes a good point that there will have to be some mechaism to assure everyone, regardless of class, gets the best care available.  A cooperatives "word" for it will simply not suffice. And wouldn't that require more paperwork, auditing personnel, information sharing infrastructures and people to maintain and update them and on and on and,,,well, you get the drift. Also, how will medical breakthroughs get communicated from cooperative to cooperative without this overhead? After all, wouldn't it be beneficial to all that this information get shared, therefore you simply must provide this far-ranging capability, right?

"Standards will balance of their own accord." Sounds like free market economics to me. Friedman would be proud...

It isn't that they have to be 100% pure as the driven snow. You're missing the point. There is no incentive to horde information. There is no profit to be made by doing so. Class distinction is no more in the society we're discussing. You are still applying capitalist class thinking to a society that does not use it. It would be like applying Fedual economics to modern society, constantly trying to understand where the serfs fit into modern neoliberalism. You cannot fit your square peg into the round hole.

Trust me, Friedman would find the idea anathema, as he'd find many of the ideas I've heard both you and Sirs support. There aren't many in here that would pass the Friedman test of purity. I'm proud to say that I wouldn't even try because I don't believe his base theories are worthwhile. Monetarism proved to be a disaster.

[Amianthus]

There is no incentive to horde information.

There is also no incentive to do so, either.

You're assuming that all human beings are altruistic - I find that unlikely.