CS314 - Unhealthy Numbers

[Martin Hash]

Not much quality of life in a lot of end-of-life care. Tubes feeding you, hooked up to a ventilator, unable to tell anyone if you're actually conscious and suffering. (shudder) In-home hospice should be a much larger part of our end-of-life care.

I think anyone would agree with that, but it would have to be subsidized.

Also, we can't make the assumption that everyone has surviving children, who are able to provide that care. It's not easy. At all.

Yes, it's obviously much better that the "quality of life" be parceled out by the state.

This stuff is really hard!

I actually have some experience with all of this, and coincidently, one of the most famous "end of life" experts in the nation lives in my neighborhood, and is a friend of ours. My wife, a nurse, & I have been to her presentations several times. We (the medical profession) have a good handle on this. We also have an excellent understanding of the needs for general healthcare. It's not all that complicated or mysterious. Really, the only problem is the profit-motive aspect of healthcare. (There is some over-utilization issues but those require a mental health response, not a regulatory one.)

[Speaker to Animals]

But even Trump thinks the tax rate on the 1% should be much higher.

Damn, when did we start thinking alike? (Weren't you just calling me a weenie a week or so ago?)

Hardcore central planning will always bring a bunch of people back to you broHash. Patience is a good strategy, IMNSHO.

On one of Dukenog's podcasts last night, an interesting point was made. It was argued that individualism and state centralization go hand-in-hand. They have a point.

[Fife]

Damn, when did we start thinking alike? (Weren't you just calling me a weenie a week or so ago?)

Hardcore central planning will always bring a bunch of people back to you broHash. Patience is a good strategy, IMNSHO.

On one of Dukenog's podcasts last night, an interesting point was made. It was argued that individualism and state centralization go hand-in-hand. They have a point.

Explain, please. I haven't seen dog's post or linked podcasts yet.

If individualism is consistent with state control, I want to read up on it. I'm all ears.

[Fife]

I think anyone would agree with that, but it would have to be subsidized.

Also, we can't make the assumption that everyone has surviving children, who are able to provide that care. It's not easy. At all.

Yes, it's obviously much better that the "quality of life" be parceled out by the state.

This stuff is really hard!

I actually have some experience with all of this, and coincidently, one of the most famous "end of life" experts in the nation lives in my neighborhood, and is a friend of ours. My wife, a nurse, & I have been to her presentations several times. We (the medical profession) have a good handle on this. We also have an excellent understanding of the needs for general healthcare. It's not all that complicated or mysterious. Really, the only problem is the profit-motive aspect of healthcare. (There is some over-utilization issues but those require a mental health response, not a regulatory one.)

Nobody here, as far as I know, contests your personal experience. Certainly not me.

First, tell me how "the only problem is the profit-motive aspect of healthcare" affects terminal care.

Then, tell me how any alternative program changes terminal care.

[TheReal_ND]

I haven't seen this either but I can probably pm you the link if I look for it.

[Speaker to Animals]

Hardcore central planning will always bring a bunch of people back to you broHash. Patience is a good strategy, IMNSHO.

On one of Dukenog's podcasts last night, an interesting point was made. It was argued that individualism and state centralization go hand-in-hand. They have a point.

Explain, please. I haven't seen dog's post or linked podcasts yet.

If individualism is consistent with state control, I want to read up on it. I'm all ears.

That there was no such concept until after the Enlightenment and it's predilection towards state centralization. That state centralization obliterates kin bonds, community bonds, racial and ethnic bonds, and so on. It does things like create a standing army to maintain its power and prerogatives or seizing control of health care and charitable programs; and in so doing, it eliminates social duties like mustering to a militia, serving the poor in your community, etc.

The very concept of individualism belies a rejection of your social duties to your kin, your community, your ethnic group, and even your nation. This doesn't happen until those duties are removed or become optional.

Yet in creating a highly individualistic, centralized nation state, we also create weakness and sow the seeds for the kinds of dysfunction we experience in our own time.

[Speaker to Animals]

I haven't seen this either but I can probably pm you the link if I look for it.

https://soundcloud.com/musonius-rufus/r ... er-wallace

[TheReal_ND]

Oh that was next on my listening list.

[Fife]

Yet in creating a highly individualistic, centralized nation state, we also create weakness and sow the seeds for the kinds of dysfunction we experience in our own time.

What or which "highly individualistic, centralized nation state" or states are you referring to?

Name some, or one, and I'd like to discuss with you.

[TheReal_ND]

Probably the perfect union of the United States in at least an historical concept.