Net Llama! wrote:
On 03/11/2006 09:29 AM, Collins Richey wrote:
All three types share the belief: from each according to his
abilities, to each according to his needs. Simply put: if all do not
have equal excellent health care, then you must take from those who do
until all have equally shabby health care.
It always helps your argument when you make broad generalizations that
aren't based in facts.
This is always the reality of anything collectivized: everyone must suffer
equally. It is well supported by the facts. Examples: eastern Europe before
the fall of the wall, any "project" in any city in the US.
Apparently no one has let the Canadians flocking over the border for
health care they can't get at home in on the secret that our health
care system is an "atrocious embarrassment".
And which health care can't the Canadians get at home? Elective plastic
surgery?
Example: There was a considerable number of news articles in the last year
about how Canadians could get MRIs and CT scans and such for their *pets*
because they are allowed to pay for them. But they couldn't get them for
*people* because there is too much demand for too few machines/facilities. So
what was the solution, yep, you guessed it, they enacted a rule limiting the
number of such services that could be provided to pets. And the wealthier
Canadians continue to come to the US for such services because they are
available here. Google it.
You see, it will always be this way because centralized management can never
allocate resources appropriately. It's a tougher job even than attempting to
model the global climate - the number of variables is near infinity and the
model is reactive, not passive. It's a task too big and too complex for mere
humans. Socialism is the "central planning" model - perhaps more familiar to
us as the Microsoft or "cathedral" model whereas free enterprise is the
organic or "open source" model. Guess which one is the better way to deliver
services? Remember that software is really a service.
Is Linux better off being serviced by Torvalds and the organisms in the
ecosystem surrounding it or would it be better off being ruled by the iron
fist of that master planner Bill Gates? Is health care better allocated and
planned by the patients and doctors in the ecosystem (even with having to
contend with insurance companies) or is it better off in the hands of lawyers
and judges (er, magistrates).
I'd rather have a doctor (or even an insurance company) deciding my treatments
than a judge. I can always change doctors. I can always change insurance
companies. But I can't change out the federal government.
They (the government) have a monopoly enforced at the barrel of a gun. Their
business is assimilation. Everyone must be in the system. Their system. And
those who don't fit in must be *forced* in.
And if you don't like that idea, they will literally send men to your house
with guns and military hardware to eliminate you. Because your nonconformity
is a threat to the system. Their system.
The goal of those in government is power. Not money, power. And socialism is a
fine tool with which to acquire it.
Michael
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
