Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site x.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!frog!x!wjr
From: wjr@x.UUCP (Bill Richard)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Medicalert
Message-ID: <776@x.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 25-Sep-85 02:31:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: x.776
Posted: Wed Sep 25 02:31:12 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 1-Oct-85 07:37:30 EDT
Reply-To: wjr@X .UUCP (STella Calvert)
Distribution: net
Organization: Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA
Lines: 99



Note:  This is STella Calvert, a guest on ...decvax!frog!wjr.

In article <756@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes:
>In article <568@x.UUCP> wjr@x.UUCP (STella Calvert) writes:
>> No, no, no!  I will be carrying (probably on the back of my medicalert
>> necklace) a toll-free number to notify my medicare plan that I am in need of
>> service.  That plan will have some qualified (by my standards) personnel on
>> the scene as soon after I call (or you as my agent) as I am willing to pay
>> for.  Response time is important.  So is quality of care.  I'll pay for both,
>
>If you are rich enough to afford that sort of medical service, you can buy it
>right now.  The only thing that might make it slightly more expensive is
>that you still need real doctors.

The big thing that will make it cheaper is that I will be using my former
tax dollars to pay the premiums.  Think about it.  Now I pay for coverage in 
aftertax dollars.  When I get all the value my customers are willing to pay, 
I can afford to pay for more of the good they produce.
>
>People who can't afford high medical premiums (many plans cost about $2000 a
>year) will still have difficulty.

Please read the next sentence twice.

Medical care is expensive because it is a limited resource;  it is a limited
resource because the present government requires that you have a union card 
from the AMA to apply the science that should be common property.
>
>Assuming a real libertaria, then your flavor of medicine is quite likely to be
>Dr. Smith's Astrological Aura Manipulation.  Once you remove medicine and

Ad feminam arguments? Or just that you don't see where libertaria is 
different.  I was fairly careful not to specify the medical model I would
support (take that discussion to net.med and "n" past it).  I don't think 
I've noticed you posting to net.adhominem, though.

>medical practice from regulation, you end up with the full spectrum of
>snake oil and other fraud, only now with better advertising.  Look at all
>the people who use fraudulent (unregulated and sometimes lethal) diet
>plans.  Advertising dollars generate much better profits than research or
>training dollars, and advertising reaches a much larger audience than product
>comparisons.  If you were brought up within a libertaria, bombarded with
>propaganda and counterpropaganda, with no statistics you could trust,

Where do you get THAT?  In a libertaria, if you attempt to defraud me, I post
bond and file an account of your wrongdoing on as many information nets as I 
can afford to post bond on.  If you dare, if you want to risk _your_ bond, 
you sue me for libel.  Adjudicators on the various nets investigate, the bonds
we posted would be returned or applied to the cost of running the
services as the facts require, and only people silly enough to listen to 
only one expert would be in any danger of being misled.  And because it is 
in my interest to monitor the treatment less wealthy people receive (I may 
join that class with my next bad business decision.) I contribute to 
something rather like legal aid, which guarantees the bond for folks that 
can't cover their own.

Perhaps the legal aid fund would need some way of fairly refusing to
finance suits by people who have demonstrated that they never have a
case -- they should pay for their hobby, and if they can afford the
damages for nonsense suits they can surely afford their bonds.  Mike,
I'm sure you can find the holes in this one.

>you would probably pick a popular, well advertised quackery.  After all,
>it would probably be cheaper than the best medicine.  Kidney machines too
>expensive?  Oh, then they're bad for the aura.  Pills cheap?  They brighten
>the aura.  And let's not forget the addictive "health" prescriptions,
>whose ingredients need not be divulged.  But wait, you need psychic
>surgery for your muffler bearing (oops, that was the "doctor"'s previous
>employment.)
> 

You assume, it seems, that people make decisions only on the basis of cost.
Do you ride a bike rather than owning a car?  Do you eat soybean extract or
beef?  If you smoke tobacco, do you handroll Top?  I know I consider other
factors and I hope you do.

>> I will also be paying, in my premiums, for the right to call my plan if I
>> encounter a John Doe who does not appear to have medical coverage.
>
>Very generous of you.  I'm sure that your provider will provide enough
>disincentives to reign your generosity in, and thus prevent your
>distribution of medical services to everyone in libertaria.

Disincentives?  What disincentives?  It's all in the rate structures.  If you
want to be a selfish s0n of a b|tch and have one-person coverage, you'll pay
the single-person rate.  If I want John Doe coverage, I'll PAY for it.  And 
I'll shop for a plan that sets rates for it.  My self-interest demands that 
I avoid the kind of devil-take-the-hindmost libertarianism you describe,
because I may someday be hindmost.  (In fact, since I value many things more
than cradle-to-grave financial security, I'm planning for it.) And
since I am paying for that coverage, I will determine (not you and not
the insurance company) how much Samerit I can acquire.

				STella Calvert
				(guest on ...!decvax!frog!wjr)

		Every man and every woman is a star.