"needs" vs "mere wants": a false and useless distinction
Wilson Woods
the looters often disparage people's desires, "mere wants". Sometimes
this phony distinction is further disparaged by expressing it as
"necessities" vs "luxuries".
The distinction is bogus and useless. There are *only* wants; there is
no such thing as a "necessity". People want things: food, shelter,
clothing, transportation, health care, entertainment, recreation, etc.
None is a "necessity" in any absolute sense. Things are only needed as
instruments to the achievement of a want.
Things are needed only in an instrumental sense to satisfy wants. If
you want to continue living, then you "need" food and water. If you
want to play golf, then you need golf clubs. If you want to attend a
concert, then you need a ticket.
No one "needs" health care, in any absolute sense. People want health
care in order to affect the quantity and quality of life.
A bogus distinction between wants and needs cannot serve as the basis
for taking resources from those who produce them and showering them on
parasites who don't produce enough value to buy their own medical care.
Mrs Irish Mike
Wilson Woods
> I want you to go away. You need to get a life.
I have a life, and your wants are of no interest to me.
ne...@millions.com
wrote:
>The looters often posit a distinction between "needs" and "wants", or as
>the looters often disparage people's desires, "mere wants". Sometimes
>this phony distinction is further disparaged by expressing it as
>"necessities" vs "luxuries".
>
Sort of like the Air Quality Board tells citizens, "The air is free to
breath. Sure! it's filled with pollutants. Breathing is a choice!"
>The distinction is bogus and useless. There are *only* wants; there is
>no such thing as a "necessity". People want things: food, shelter,
>clothing, transportation, health care, entertainment, recreation, etc.
>None is a "necessity" in any absolute sense. Things are only needed as
>instruments to the achievement of a want.
Like buying a Lamdorghini and driving in rush hour traffic.
>
>Things are needed only in an instrumental sense to satisfy wants. If
>you want to continue living, then you "need" food and water. If you
>want to play golf, then you need golf clubs. If you want to attend a
>concert, then you need a ticket.
When I played golf, I was able (want) to visit parts of the course
where no man had ever been. The course master needed me to get back to
the fairways.
>
>No one "needs" health care, in any absolute sense. People want health
>care in order to affect the quantity and quality of life.
. . . and to also maintain the bad habits that limit the level of
health in the first place. "If you choose to live an unhalthy
life-style, don't expect me to support you."
>A bogus distinction between wants and needs cannot serve as the basis
>for taking resources from those who produce them and showering them on
>parasites who don't produce enough value to buy their own medical care.
Amen1
DCI
mg
. . .
> No one "needs" health care, in any absolute sense. People want health
> care in order to affect the quantity and quality of life.
>
> A bogus distinction between wants and needs cannot serve as the basis
> for taking resources from those who produce them and showering them on
> parasites who don't produce enough value to buy their own medical care.
I've never known anyone who needed health care who didn't get it if
they tried. They might need to go the an emergency room and wait in
line. Or they might need to apply at the appropriate government
agency, like Medicaid, for instance, but they can get health care.
So, the argument isn't about whether or not people should be denied
health care. The argument is about who pays and how they pay and
whether we should continue to give insurance companies an exemption
from anti-trust laws so they can continue to charge whatever the
traffic will bear.
Michael Coburn
Thank you.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Wilson Woods
Crap.
Wilson Woods
> On Oct 12, 10:16 am, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> . . .
>> No one "needs" health care, in any absolute sense. People want health
>> care in order to affect the quantity and quality of life.
>>
>> A bogus distinction between wants and needs cannot serve as the basis
>> for taking resources from those who produce them and showering them on
>> parasites who don't produce enough value to buy their own medical care.
>
> I've never known anyone who needed health care who didn't get it if
> they tried. They might need to go the an emergency room and wait in
> line. Or they might need to apply at the appropriate government
> agency, like Medicaid, for instance, but they can get health care.
>
> So, the argument isn't about whether or not people should be denied
> health care.
That's simply false; people getting or not getting health care is a very
big part of the argument. No one on the left is satisfied with the
quantity or quality of health care given to people without health
insurance. The left feel some people don't get enough, and that what
they get is of low quality. They want those people to get more and
better care.
> The argument is about who pays and how they pay
No, it isn't.
> and whether we should continue to give insurance companies an exemption
> from anti-trust laws
The anti-trust exemption has no bearing on insurance company pricing.
There are far too many insurance companies, each with too small a market
share, to be able to affect price.
> so they can continue to charge whatever the
> traffic will bear.
Of course they should charge what the traffic will bear. Every well run
business does that.
mg
"The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (42 U.S.C. §
1395dd, EMTALA) is a United States Act of Congress passed in 1986 as
part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. It
requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone
needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship,
legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions.
As a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be
discharged only under their own informed consent or when their
condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to
administer the treatment."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act
In addition, there are government programs that insure that people can
receive medical care. So, if the argument were only about sick people
being denied medical care, there wouldn't be much of an argument. A
big part of the argument is that we pay too much and people go
bankrupt in the process, or they don't seek medical care because they
don't want to go bankrupt, and the care we do get isn't all that great
compared to some other countries.
The US is the only industrialized nation that does not have a
universal health care system. The amount we spend on health care is
estimated at more than 15% of GDP, a greater portion than in any other
UN member state except for East Timor. Our health care system is
ranked 37th by the World Health Organization behind the following
countries:
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
Part of the problem is the big chunk that the insurance companies take
out of the health care dollar.
Wilson Woods
Doesn't address pricing when prices can be charged, of course.
tmclone
Bing, bing, bing, we have a winner. Yes, my local ER is required by
law here
in NY to treat me even though I have no insurance. I don't care if I
have a
body part falling off, I would NEVER seek medical treatment because I
simply
cannot afford it. Sure, they'd treat me, but then I'd get a gigantic
bill I
could not pay. I would have to sell my house, pay off the small
mortgage and the huge hospital bill, and then I'd be out on the
street. I'm
self-employed and work at home. Even flea-bag studio apts around here
cost
about 3 times what I pay for my mortgage plus there wouldn't be room
for my
work equipment so I'd have no income. Frankly, I'd much rather be dead
than
homeless, so I simply never see a doctor. Period. I'm thankful to be
healthy
and it's only 12 more years until I can get Medicare, assuming, of
course,
that it's still there when I hit 65.