Enrique Diaz-Alvarez wrote:
> Jessica wrote:
> >> If I take your logic far enough I can make it suggest the way to improve health care - socialised
> > health care - is to cut it further.
> >
Enrique:
> No. Decide democratically what fraction of available resources should be
> allocated to health care. then use them in a manner that maximizes the
> health and well being of the population.
Another example to consider. In the early 90s in Oregon the population voted to expand public health care to include more people who could not afford private insurance. The idea sounds good but in effect it had some nasty details. Oregon did not want to spend any more money to expand health care so what it did was come up with a *rationing* plan - a treatment cut-off plan. Those conditions above the cut-off line were considered worthy of the state's expense(to be denied health care) and those below the line were not to be covered.
This discriminated against individuals who had the conditions below the line - and well - under the Oregonian plan were just plain out of luck. The federal government intervened against Oregon stating that by making such a list was discriminating against people with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In the end, the state had to refine its plan so that disabled individuals were not explicitedly targeted for rationing.
My point is this, that most people unless they experience the need for ongoing health care, do not understand the consequences of decisions that they make at teh voting booth. I am all for greater democratic control but with that control there needs to be education, An ill informed citizenry does not necessarily make enlightened choices.
Oregon is also home of the Hemlock Society and the first assisted suicide law passed in the nation.. No one who is disabled that I know wants to move to Oregon.
Marta