The following is an email dialogue between Paul Antonik Wakfer and a US medical student concerning the problems of medical care in old age related to government interference.
From [med student]:
Hello Paul,
I'm a reader on sci.life-extension and a medical student in a US MD program.
I'm considering doing a residency in Canada but I don't want to move to a place where the restrictions on supplements limits my health benefits even though the Canadian medical system is more equitable for all income brackets than the one at home.
-[med student]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From Paul:
[med student] wrote:
> I'm a reader on sci.life-extension and a medical student in a US MD program.
> I'm considering doing a residency in Canada but I don't want
> to move to a place where the restrictions on supplements limits
> my heath benefits
Then you must be prepared to be an outlaw. "Where laws restrict moral actions, then moral men must become outlaws".
> even though the Canadian medical system is more equitable for
> all income brackets than the one at home.
This is just so much Canadian propaganda. Any socialized medicine system simply steals from some to give to others. It has certainly *never* been "equitable" for me and others who keep themselves healthy. Government programs are like a blood transfusion from the right arm to the left arm during which half the blood is lost on the way!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From [med student]:
Paul wrote:
>> even though the Canadian medical system is more equitable for
>> all income brackets than the one at home.
> This is just so much Canadian propaganda. Any socialized
> medicine system simply steals from some to give to
> others. It has certainly *never* been "equitable" for me
> and others who keep themselves healthy. Government
> programs are like a blood transfusion from the right arm
> to the left arm during which half the blood is lost on
> the way!
Paul, in principal, I agree with your stance but at the same time, the system south of the border is mainly geared towards robber baron big corporate interests and does not respect the individual either. Many people have been declined health insurance and/or coverage during times of crisis and that has caused many families to declare bankruptcy. I believe the '94 Dietary Supplement Act was really the only godsend during the expansion of corporate greed in the US. In addition, a lot of people do not have a private pension plan here anymore because their companies squandered them. My mother, right now, is depended upon me for her retirement. So, perhaps there's a workable middle ground between socialized medicine and corporate US robber baronism?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From Paul:
[med student] wrote:
>>> even though the Canadian medical system is more equitable for
>>> all income brackets than the one at home.
>> This is just so much Canadian propaganda. Any socialized
>> medicine system simply steals from some to give to
>> others. It has certainly *never* been "equitable" for me
>> and others who keep themselves healthy. Government
>> programs are like a blood transfusion from the right arm
>> to the left arm during which half the blood is lost on
>> the way!
> Tom, in principal, I agree with your stance
There is no conflict between *valid* principle and its practical application.
> but at the same time, the system south of the border is
> mainly geared towards robber baron big corporate interests
> and does not respect the individual either.
Big business in cahoots with the legalized use of force by government is just as bad. The Canadian system is more socialist. The US system is more fascist.
> Many people
> have been declined health insurance and/or coverage during
> times of crisis
There have always been and there always will be people who have run into hard times either because they have not wisely saved for a "rainy day" or because of pure bad luck. This is reality. No one has a "right" to medical care because that would necessarily imply the right to make others provide it for them, which in turn means the right to take the property of others. For that matter no individual even has the "right" to stay alive. All that people have is the right to be left alone to do their utmost to remain healthy and to stay alive using their own resources, and those which they can obtain from others by exchange of goods and services to mutual advantage (which implies totally voluntary).
Besides, if the government did not steal and waste so much of the assets of the populace, many people would be more inclined to voluntarily help those in need through no fault of their own. Finally, most health problems are brought on by the lack of care of the patient. Most could be either totally prevented or greatly delayed.
> and that has caused many families to declare bankruptcy.
Which is just another form of legally sanctioned theft.
> I believe the '94 Dietary Supplement Act was really the only godsend
> during the expansion of corporate greed in the US. In addition, a lot
> of people do not have a private pension plan here anymore because their
> companies squandered them.
I would need some evidence for this. If true, then a simple lawsuit by the employees acting together should regain the funds. If this does not work then it is the government and its laws which is to blame. The major purpose of law is to uphold contracts.
> My mother, right now, is depended upon me for her retirement.
Why did she not save, keep working and/or keep herself healthy?
> So, perhaps there's a workable middle ground between socialized medicine
> and corporate US robber baronism?
Yes, it is individual responsibility, and strict/strong rewards of restitution for all victims of the initiation of physical force, against the criminals who initiate it (whether they are governments, mafia, mass murderers, bank robbers, or mere pickpockets.
---------------------------------------------------------------
From [med student]:
Paul wrote:
> There is no conflict between valid principle and its practical application.
Except that there are few libertarian societies, most are either socialistic, corporate fascistic, or simply banana republics run by a junta.
> Big business in cahoots with the legalized use of force by government
> is just as bad. The Canadian system is more socialist. The US system
> is more fascist.
The USA is definitely fascistic and is getting worse by the year.
> There have always been and there always will be people who have always
> run into hard times either because they have not wisely saved for a
> "rainy day" or because of pure bad luck. This is reality.
Considering that my general practitioner charges $200 USD for a 5-10 min visit, a major medical emergency could run into the greater than $100K+ range very easily and much of it goes into the hospital's administration. Most people's rainy day funds can carry a family through a bout of unemployment for a year or two.
> Besides, if the government did not steal and waste so
> much of the assets of the populace, many people would be
> more inclined to voluntarily help those in need through
> no fault of their own. Finally, most health problems
> are brought on by the lack if care of the patient.
> Most could be either totally prevented or greatly delayed.
This is all very true.
>> and that has caused many families to declare bankruptcy.
> Which is just another form of legally sanction theft.
If you think that the individual debt situation is bad, just look at American corporations like Worldcom, Enron, Tyco, and the list goes on. These were private enterprises which had lied to shareholders, manhandled a/o threatened the watchdogs, paid off politicians, etc and costed society billions.
>> In addition, a lot
>> of people do not have a private pension plan here anymore because their
>> companies squandered them.
> I would need some evidence for this. If true, then a simple lawsuit by
> the employees acting together should regain the funds. If this does not
> work then it is the government and its laws which is to blame. The major
> purpose of law is to uphold contracts.
Yes, the govt is to blame! The US court system is rigged in a way that big corporations can hire major law firms to slow down the deposition process so that the funds of the small guys trying to sue, let's say an IBM or Arthur Anderson, for fraud et al runs out before the case can be heard. My mom's group tried something like this with their prior employer and ran out of cash before anything happened.
>> My mother, right now, is depended upon me for her retirement.
> Why did she not save, keep working and/or keep herself healthy?
Her pension fund was liquidated after her corporate career end.
>> So, perhaps there's a workable middle ground between socialized medicine
>> and corporate US robber baronism?
> Yes, it is individual responsibility, and strict/strong rewards of
> restitution for all victims of the initiation of physical force, against
> the criminals who initiate it (whether they are governments, mafia, mass
> murderers, bank robbers, or mere pickpockets.
Yes, if the justice system works, then you're correct. Perhaps I'm living in a soon-to-be banana republic?
--------------------------------------------------------------
From Paul:
[med student] wrote:
>> There is no conflict between valid principle and its practical application.
> Except that there are few libertarian societies, most are either
> socialistic, corporate fascistic, or simply banana republics run
> by a junta.
Very true, but what that means is that one must work harder to educate
more people about the true requirements for peace and prosperity, and
optimal human life, so that a society where these exist can be formed. I
see no other answer. I don't see that giving in to being satisfied with
the best of many bad societies is any answer. If there was one place
which was clearly much superior than all the others, then that might be
so, but it is not. There was a time when that was true for the US, but
it no longer is.
>> Big business in cahoots with the legalized use of force by government
>> is just as bad. The Canadian system is more socialist. The US system is
>> more fascist.
> The USA is definitely fascistic and is getting worse by the year.
Glad to see we agree there.
>> There have always been and there always will be people who have always
>> run into hard times either because they have not wisely saved for a
>> "rainy day" or because of pure bad luck. This is reality.
> Considering that my general practitioner charges $200 USD for a 5-10 min
> visit, a major medical emergency could run into the greater than $100K+
> range very easily and much of it goes into the hospital's administration.
Those are the inflated prices that are charged to the insurance companies which then pay only a percentage of them. Just recently Kitty needed to be hospitalized suddenly in Casa Grande AZ for a difficult kidney stone which came from nowhere. We found that the hospital and most of the doctor's would give up to 35% discount for cash payment. Though the total bill still came to over $20K after discounts, we weathered it fine because of our savings accumulated over the years from not paying insurance premiums.
> Most people's rainy day funds can carry a family through about
> of unemployment for a year or two.
There are only three alternatives:
Actually, I think that a combination of 1 and 2 is the best that one can do.
>>> and that has caused many families to declare bankruptcy.
>> Which is just another form of legally sanctioned theft.
> If you think that the individual debt situation is bad, just look
> at American corporations like Worldcom, Enron, Tyco, and the list
> goes on. These were private enterprises which had lied to shareholders,
> manhandled a/o threatened the watchdogs, paid off politicians, etc and
> costed society billions.
The fiction of corporate entities and the veil of limited liability is merely another government created distortion of the responsibilities inherent in viable contracts. It is more legally sanctioned theft.
>>> In addition, a lot
>>> of people do not have a private pension plan here anymore because their
>>> companies squandered them.
>> I would need some evidence for this. If true, then a simple lawsuit by
>> the employees acting together should regain the funds. If this does not
>> work then it is the government and its laws which is to blame. The major
>> purpose of law is to uphold contracts.
> Yes, the govt is to blame! The US court system is rigged in a way that
> big corporations can hire major law firms to slow down the deposition
> process so that the funds of the small guys trying to sue, let's say an
> IBM or Arthur Anderson, for fraud et al runs out before the case can be
> heard.
Aha! Then this is merely another example of the immorality of limited liability, not something new and different.
> My mom's group tried something like this with their prior employer and
> ran out of cash before anything happened.
One answer is to not work for corporations! And to be very careful with whom you choose to do business, either as a purchaser or a seller. Over 25 years ago I realized that the only way to go was to be self-employeed.
>>>My mother, right now, is depended upon me for her retirement.
>>Why did she not save, keep working and/or keep herself healthy?
> Her pension fund was liquidated after her corporate career end.
Okay. I now understand and I sympathize. However, since we know that things like this are promoted by government actions and can legally happen in our society this is an example of learning from one's errors. The existence of this kind of theft should be widely broadcast so that others learn to avoid it. Once again, one does not have to work for corporations or governments. If more
people would make their choices of where to work and where to buy with their long-range interest in mind, this would be a market action which would promote integrity and eliminate dishonesty, theft and fraud.
>>> So, perhaps there's a workable middle ground between socialized medicine
>>> and corporate US robber baronism?
>> Yes, it is individual responsibility, and strict/strong rewards of
>> restitution for all victims of the initiation of physical force against
>> the criminals who initiate it (whether they are governments, mafia, mass
>> murderers, bank robbers, or mere pickpockets.
> Yes, if the justice system works, then you're correct.
And we must work harder to create one which works that way.
> Perhaps I'm living in a soon-to-be banana republic?
More like a combination of Nazi Germany and the British Empire, I am afraid.
