Conflict of Interest with a Market Economy

[iNow]

I'm interested in how everyone can be covered equally.

You fund insurance coverage centrally, like the US does with medicare... but applied to all citizens. You could also follow models like those used in countless other countries. There are MANY ways that everyone can be covered equally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

 

Expense of the treatment and quotas are irrelevant, really... little more than moot points or red herrings.

[Vent]

You fund insurance coverage centrally... applied to all citizens.

 

Ah i see, universal coverage. Cost wouldn't be a moot point under equal coverage since equal generally implies a quantity. No matter, i thought there was a new kind of idea for a US health system

[calabi]

Personally I think the whole thing is in conflict with civilization itself. We didnt start out or get to where we are today, just by looking after number one. We grouped together and had seeming unequal exchanges where one gained more than the other, but the group gained more as a whole.

 

Farming was extremely intensive in the beginning but it didnt take so many people. They must have allowed people to do other things. Like study tools and pottery, medicine which benefited the society greatly. I could be wrong but I cant see how it started out as some capitalistic dream whereby one guy made some tool and then exchanged that with another for food. These groups that had greater cooperation that didnt worry about about equal exchanges, had more redundancy. They let other people study new areas without impediment. Then their group had a better community which then dominated all the the other groups. I only say this because some of these people seem to be attempting to rewrite history.

 

I dont believe you should have a totally socialist, or communist envirnonment. But things have their own efficiencies in their own areas. Just making something private because it doesnt seem to be working well is stupid. They dont take into account things like entropy. I've seen it with companies I've worked for. They work great when they start every one is on the ball, but then things start to decline, people dont bother as much, things relax. There are other ways to fix this than just selling something.

 

Another thing there is no way a private company will get us to mars or the stars. Space exploration requires many disciplines a ton load of money, and nowhere near an immediate return on the spent money(if ever). We might get a few little touristy things coming from private companies which will be exclusive to a very few people but nothing more than that. We need to seriously start space exploration now to move forward with methods and theories for what resources are out there and how to get at it. While we have the abundant resources. Its no good waiting till we are starting to run out. The companies wont have any incentive to do something till then and then it will be too late.

 

We need large social programs, science should be put at the top of that agenda(as well as health and welfare). Its funny as well, these people discounted that limitless study, which hasnt actually been disproven, which suggest that we may run out of resources within the next fifty years or so. They said science(they also disproved that though) will sort it out, but then they dont put adequate resources or money into science.