Letters to the Editor
McGarrett50
Published Letters: 28 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Response to JackAckroyd & Anonymous
[Read the article: Don't think of a sick child]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Jack, I think you and I do have a disagreement about how reality works.
You're response starts with "To begin with, nobody has an incentive to "get as much service as possible regardless of cost" when you're talking about health care, because such service is both unpleasant, and results from undesirable events."
I disagree with your assertion that somehow health care is unique and doesn't obey the normal cost/benefit intuition that all of us apply every day. Some things that I think would make it possible to determine what reality is is to have some set of facts about where the money goes for healthcare. My guess is that the average person's healthcare costs rarely include invasive, painful procedures. Instead, they tend to include numerous tests after tests and then lifelong prescriptions for medications. For example, I only know of one person is my rather large extended family who had a serious surgery. But, everyone I know over the age of 40 are on medications and routinely have repetitive tests to monitor certain variables in their health.
My view is that if the customer were the one paying for the day to day care, they would in fact ask for fewer tests rather than pay for them. For example, they would likely forego CAT scans for headaches if other common tests and the doctor's experience said that all they have is a headache. But, when someone else is paying, well then, sure they'll take the CAT scan.
Now, I fully agree that people should purchase insurance to cover catastrophic costs for the complex procedures you describe that most people never want. Because most people never need these, these costs can be spread across a risk pool through insurance.
To "Anonymous"
Your assertion that healthcare is a need while the TV in my analogy is not has some partial truth but is not entirely true. The true part is that in situations like auto accidents or life-threatening diagnoses like yours, the person has a need. As I mentioned above, this need can be met with insurance that covers catastrophic situations because most people do not have the problem. The risk calculation that you seem to believe is not possible is no different than the same type of mortality calculations that life insurance companies provide.
Now, the part that is not true is that the vast majority of healthcare in this country is not for catastrophic situations. Restless Leg Syndrome, Acid Reflux, Blood Pressure, Migraines, Depression, etc are maintenance healthcare where the market place will work wonders in matching the willingness of people to pay to the desire for companies to make a profit. And, the really neat thing is the profit part of the health system is what moves things from catastrophic to maintenance. HIV/AIDs used to be catastrophic. It's on its way to being a maintenance issue. It is not there yet but compared to where we were in 1990, people are now living fairly normal lives and we just need to have the market work a bit more to get the costs down. Having a reasonable patent period is the challenge here because the investors in R&D need a return on their up-front costs while the expiration of the patent provides the ability for the costs to drop dramatically. I agree that the balancing of the patent period is a function of government. This also happens to be the view of the Founders since copyrights/patents are mentioned in the Constitution.
-
Hmmm
[Read the article: Should I come out as an atheist?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]At the risk of getting people mad again, this seems like another situation similar to Cary's questioning the LW who dressed in ways that people perceive as lesbian and then was frustrated that her boss thought she was a lesbian. I do not understand why today's LW chose to go to a religious school when he did not believe the religion that the school asked people to believe in. There are thousands of schools in this country with non-religious ones often having the best reputation. Why not go to one of those? It makes me wonder if the LW is actually more ambivalent about his own beliefs and less the perceptions of others.
Now, the issue with the parents is different. Parent-child relationships are the exceedingly powerful and important but not chosen. Believers and non-believers have a natural struggle because the believer fears not seeing their loved one in the afterlife. I don't think there is a good answer here. My general advice would be to just not force the conversation much, show love through deeds, and everyone will either be judged someday or not.
Random advert for a good charity: www.trickleup.org
-
How Long?
[Read the article: How long can this go on?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A fight with an enemy goes on as long as the enemy wants to fight. Turning the other cheek only works when all the enemy wants is to be left alone. Many enemies are not like that. The islamic terrorists the US is fighting are not like that. If they were, they would have already tried the Gandhi strategy and it would have worked to perfection. Simple non-violence and peaceful protest by Iraqis would have the US out of Iraq pronto. The unattractive truth is that the terrorists are fighting to defeat their local enemies and the US so they can take over territory, become stronger, and impose their will on more and more people. They will continue to do so until they win or are defeated enough to cause them to turn the other cheek.