I was referring to a priority queue based on how rich one is, not on how badly one needs what's at the end of it. I'm really sorry to disappoint you, but people are really terrible creatures. Whether bribery is illegal and against an organization's code of ethics is irrelevant. The point is that it happens, in some places much more often than others. For example, in the Soviet Union, and even Russia nowadays, bribery was commonplace. It was a way of life. For simple things, a bottle of vodka did the trick, while others required hard cash.Pengu wrote:And priority queue means people who need it more get to be higher in the queue. If you're going to die in 3 weeks without a transplant while others have at least 2 months, then the person with 3 weeks left to live and is further back in the queue will get priority. It's illegal to get ahead of the queue by bribery and it's against the CMA's code of ethics.
Now, when one lives in such a society or hears constant stories of things involving that from relatives what others, one really sees things differently. After all, judges are being bribed for more lenient sentences. Lobbying is a form of bribery too. Corp pays politician in hope that he will vote for some course of action favourable to the corp, whether or not the politician thinks it's morally right or wrong. I'm wouldn't be surprised if people skip ahead on the organ transplants list by bribing those who control such things.
Admit it, it cannot be assumed that that ethics is adhered to adamantly and unanimously.
As for legality, people do a lot of illegal things. People take drugs. Lots of people smoke marijuana even though it's illegal. Nevertheless, some offences are enforced more weakly than others. Others are simply worth the risk, especially if it's a life-and-death sort of thing, I imagine.
It was a thought experiment. I'll admit that fundamentally the specific idea is flawed. It is far cheaper and healthier to prepare one's own food, but people have another terrible quality: sloth, I believe. Laziness. One of my close friends used to eat take-out chinese food pretty much constantly for some time. His parents didn't cook much for one reason or another and when they did, it tended to be pretty inedible. The crap they bought from the local Russian store was probably less healthy than the take-out. He refused the idea of cooking his own food for a nice long while due to laziness. In economics, I guess one would say that his opportunity cost was too great. His idleness was worth more. If one takes that into account, then healthy food for many people is quite an expensive thing. Of course, this is still a thought experiment of sorts. The opportunity costs can't be concretely defined.Pengu wrote:And your logic that 'good food' is expensive is flawed. It's still cheaper to cook at home and eat at home than to eat out or buy processed foods. It is also healthier to make foods from scratch. I believe home-economics should be mandatory again and more emphasis put on it as an important life skill.
IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer). In any case, in my opinon, The Constitution is worded far too vaguely for my liking. Insurance companies are not denying individuals their rights of life by denying to pay for procedures that weren't agreed upon in the first place. Remember, resources are finite. Everyone can't have everything they want/need...People innately want more than they need. It's part of our human nature.Pengu wrote:It is part of your constitution that the State does not deprive any person of life. Yet you allow a private company, which is regulated by the state, to deprive certain individuals of life by denying health procedures they don't deem necessary when in fact, they are. And if we use the constitution, denying the best possible treatment for the life and sanctity of an individual can be considered cruel and unusual punishment. It's like letting someone die a slow death even though a cure is possible, just not affordable. None of this justifies putting a monetary limit on the amount of care a person receives.
I probably wouldn't be very happy with that, though there's a small chance that I'll get mentally fucked up along the way and feel totally fine with that. Chances are that I'd try to scrounge up funds to re-attach all the fingers that are possible assuming I deem them worth the effort and the money.Pengu wrote:If an example were that an accident claimed 4 of your fingers and the insurance company says your deductible only is enough to re-attach one, would you be happy with that? Despite the fact that all of the fingers are re-attachable?
There are some people who in their lifetime, can't save up enough to pay for a devastating illness. Even if they are upper middle class, it would bankrupt them if their deductible ran out. Universal healthcare is utilitarian. It benefits the most people and tries to do the least amount of harm.
The idea of a devastating illness causing one to go bankrupt is certainly very real. However, it all depends on how much people value their lives. I just can't comprehend the idea of life being absolutely sacred and, thus, priceless. For me, life and health aren't rights. They are privileges. Almost everyone struggles to attain and keep those privileges. I guess that would be the hard Darwinist standpoint.
It doesn't matter whether they leave their health up to a company that seeks to maximize its profit or the doctor who probably also seeks to maximize his profit. After all, if one cannot pay for treatment in the first place, he won't get the treatment unless he comes up with the prerequisite amount of money. A universal health care system with medical bills so inflated would simply bankrupt the government instead of the individual in question. Is that really a better alternative? Plus, the US government already has health care programs, namely Medicare and Medicaid.Pengu wrote:Why should Americans leave their health up to a capitalist company out to maximize profit? I thought the saying was doctor knows best; not insurance companies know best. Instead of doctors making medical decisions, it becomes insurance companies making medical decisions.
Hell. Fuck that. If people only demanded less treatment, the situation would be far simpler. Let's return to the food argument in THIS post for a moment. People are generally too lazy to take preventive measures to preserve their health. They eat crap that makes them fat (or thin, in my case). They eat too much sugar, fucking up their teeth. Few excercise. People smoke, drink, and imbibe drugs aplenty. After all of that, they expect medicine to keep them alive. It's simply absurd. It's idiotic for people to seek treatment for things that they are at fault for that they could not have been had they lived a healthier lifestyle.
