This discussion is a wonderful example of what Doug is talking about. Notice
how the more imponderable the situation is the more confident become our
opinions. Think about the following conundrum. Let's imagine -- for the
purposes of argument -- that health care is a genuine imponderable ... we NEVER
will have enough information, with enough precision, to know what we should do
about it. Given that assumption, what behavior is proper?
It's like that old distinction between Dionysians and Apollonians. We all know
that there are Dionysian Fools ... they are the people found dancing to their
ipods on the railroad tracks with the train bearing down on them. But aren't
there also Apollonian Fools ... people who engage in carefully planning and
thoughtful argument about a situation what is too complex to make a decision
about?
Anyway, as a leader among Apollonian Fools and a Knee-Jerk Liberal, in the
bargain, allow me the following: I shudder whenever anyone talks of a right to
healthcare, because it sounds so much like a Right to Health. The chances
that I will die in the next 20 years are almost 1.00. You do NOT want to get
into the business of guaranteeing my health.
Rights talk is madness.
nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu)
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
http://www.cusf.org [City University of Santa Fe]
----- Original Message -----
From: ERIC P. CHARLES
To: friam
Sent: 2/14/2010 10:54:13 AM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Health care [was Sources of Innovation]
But Owen, we are NOT required to buy car insurance! It is an if-then thing: If
you want to drive, then you need insurance. That doesn't map on well to health
care.
I agree that the health care debate is not just about profit. At least one
other thing it is about is whether or not to consider health care a "human
right". I for one (and I anticipate being skewered for saying it) don't
understand this line of reasoning. I am told that "it is unfair that rich
people get better medical care than poor people", and what I hear is "it is
unfair that rich people drive better cars than poor people." If we really just
wanted to make health care cheaper we would up training for people to
self-diagnose and self-treat easy problems, we would reform malpractice
litigation, and we'd invest a boat load in grief and end of life counseling so
that people were, in general, more accepting of death (their own and other's).
If we wanted reform in the industry, the best we should be pushing for is to
enforce contracts so that the insurance companies pay out what they are
supposed to.
Insurance is a business. It is a gambling game, where you try to get people to
give you more money than you think you will have to pay out. It is true that
some times insurance companies make insane profits, but it doesn't take too
many people who cost them a million dollars each to shift things around. The
basic model for any insurance situation should be to give a security blanket to
people who are not at much risk (i.e., give healthy people insurance against
crippling disasters). You know, like the home owner's insurance you don't go
running to every time your toilet is stopped up, but you are glad you have if
there is a bad fire. And even if you think that people have the right to health
care, how can anyone argue that people should be guaranteed the right to be
insured?!? Car insurance companies turn down people who are high risk, ditto
home owner's insurance, flood insurance, business insurance, etc., etc., how is
health care any different?
The whole medical situation in this country is crazy, I got in a 15 minute long
argument with a doctor who wouldn't tell me how much a procedure cost, only
that my insurance wouldn't cover it. The notion that I would consider simply
paying for something the insurance didn't cover made no sense to her.
Blah,
Eric
P.S. Aesthetically, I would actually be much less offended by fully socialized
medicine - take the business out of it, and have the state run everything -
just stop trying to tell perfectly reasonable businesses they can't follow
simple and intelligible business models.
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:26 AM, Owen Densmore <o...@backspaces.net> wrote:
I don't buy the health care debate being quite so one sided. Certainly there
is self interest in the insurance world, but there is equal opposing interest.
Businesses both large and small realize health care in other countries is
subsidizing their competition. Thus Detroit was first in line to lobby for
health care.
Doctors too are lobbying against the absurd malpractice litigation which has
become a barrier to practice.
There are a few steps that could be made that would get little resistance from
the corporate devils you paint. For example, why not require people to pay for
a reasonable insurance plan? We are required to do so for car insurance. Our
current practice drives folks to use the emergency room for their doctor at a
huge and silly additional cost.
So: 1) Require universal health care insurance. But 2) Remove preconditions.
See the yin/yang? Insurance companies have already said that pair would work
for them, as have the AMA/doctors. And yes, 3) Subsidize those who cannot
afford the base rate. And 4) limit malpractice litigation. It is claimed that
just these 4 steps would reduce the cost of current health care and increase
businesses competitiveness significantly. And properly put in place the right
market counter forces to the evil corporations.
We ourselves need to change. How many of us spend as much on medical care as
we do our cars? In my calculations, cars and their care still cost more.
Compare auto leasing costs for two cars for the standard family and insurance
for same and they're surprisingly close. Add upkeep of the car and they are
way ahead.
-- Owen
On Feb 14, 2010, at 9:04 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
Pamela,
I think the healthcare issue goes way beyond just the usual corporate profit
protection, pay for play political game. Look at how polarized the nation has
become over just this issue alone. Look at how many people don't believe that
the healthcare issue is really about healthcare insurance industry profit
protection.
We truly are a nation of idiots. We deserve Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, and
Pat Robertson.
Model that, if you like. The agents in the individual based simulation won't
need much sophistication.
--Doug
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 8:00 AM, Pamela McCorduck <pam...@well.com> wrote:
When Kennedy envisioned going to the moon, no lobby existed to fight
ferociously for the sole right to take the profits from going to the moon, and
the sole right to decide who gets to go.
If you read the not-very-deep subtext in this fight, you will see that it's not
about giving better healthcare to Americans (which we desperately need) but
about protecting the enormous profits of the healthcare insurance industry.
It's dressed up in "right to choose," and "privacy between doctor and patient,"
and "keep the government out of medical care," but it's really about profit
protection. From several different and reliable sources (one of them a
congressional candidate) I have heard that since early last summer, the
insurance and pharmaceuticals industries have been spending over $1 million per
day on lobbying. It continues. You can do the arithmetic.
The media regularly reports on how much better, cheaper, and more effective
medical plans are all around the developed world. It doesn't penetrate $1
million-plus per day.
On Feb 13, 2010, at 3:55 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
Where does all this whining about health care
come from? Everyone in Germany has a health
insurance, it is obligatory. There is general
agreement here that the European (and esp.
the German) health care system is better
and more social than the one in the US.
The USA obviously needs a better health care
system. Where is the American optimism and
the "i believe we can do it" spirit? I've heard
that optimism and positive thinking is a typical
American attitude.
America is lacking a vision, something like
Kennedy's vision to bring a man to the moon
and back. Military and NASA won't do it
this time. A vision or a common dream which
would foster technological innovation. Schmidt
mentioned "renewable energy" and green
technology. What about a clean L.A. with
fresh air? A large scale scientific initiative
to create the first AI would be another one.
America would have the resources to do it, it
has the companies with the largest data centers.
It should be proud of Google, Microsoft,
Amazon, and Apple. It is difficult to understand
why it disputes about health care so long.
-J.
----- Original Message ----- From: Roger Critchlow
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Sources of Innovation
[...] We're too busy defending ourselves from hedge fund vampires and health
care ghouls to worry about growth. Say what you will about the undead, they
steal their profits fair and square and invest them in the rule of law.
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Eric Charles
Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601
Eric Charles
Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
