By design, a monopoly produces a different kind of worker. Unwilling to have their wages capped and freedoms restricted, the best inevitably leave. Mediocrity, unfortunately, gives rise to fewer malcontents and thus is a prerequisite for stability in the system. Put it this way: if a socialized system wants to survive, it must expunge the most driven and gifted from its midst. When wages, moreover, are tied to a negotiated deal with labour, rather than, in the case of a competitive market, to the individual physician's performance, the position of the mediocre practitioner is further reinforced.
How scary is that??? Buy a gun..... if you couldn't buy a gun then perhaps government law enforcement agencies could cope and healthcare would be better able to serve.
Huh??? How in the world is my right to bear arms affecting the abilities of law enforcment to do their jobs?? Even if a law were passed banning guns, criminals could still get them. They don't abide by the laws, remember?
if the market could take care of all issues, why then did the right wingers (and their left of center allies in the democratic party) support a socially funded war against iraq?
Specializes in Cardiac Surg, IR, Peds ICU, Emergency.
Huh??? How in the world is my right to bear arms affecting the abilities of law enforcment to do their jobs?? Even if a law were passed banning guns, criminals could still get them. They don't abide by the laws, remember?
You rather constructed your post in a manner that makes it appear that I made the above quote...which I didn't. I'm not criticizing you, I just think it's important to point out.
Specializes in ICU, Paeds ICU, Correctional, Education.
Huh??? How in the world is my right to bear arms affecting the abilities of law enforcment to do their jobs?? Even if a law were passed banning guns, criminals could still get them. They don't abide by the laws, remember?
Sorry you don't get it perhaps this will help make the connection
Cost of firearm violence
Direct costs
Medical costs $2 -$2.3 billion
Administering criminal judicial system (including incarceration costs: $2.4 billion)
Indirect costs
Costs to society: law enforcement, investment in protection and avoidance, restrictions on freedom to live or work, lost productivity of victims, cost of pain and fear, changes in quality of life, deterioration in community living (about $100 billion -willingness to pay methodology)
Specializes in Cardiac Surg, IR, Peds ICU, Emergency.
Sorry you don't get it perhaps this will help make the connection
Cost of firearm violence
Direct costs
Medical costs $2 -$2.3 billion
Administering criminal judicial system (including incarceration costs: $2.4 billion)
Indirect costs
Costs to society: law enforcement, investment in protection and avoidance, restrictions on freedom to live or work, lost productivity of victims, cost of pain and fear, changes in quality of life, deterioration in community living (about $100 billion -willingness to pay methodology)
with much more info on the impact of your "right" to carry a gun.
So are you saying that our right to own firearms results in the above-mentioned costs? Maybe that's an obvious question since the post is concluded with "info on the impact of your right to carry a gun."
Well, you shoulda thought this through.
Canada has much stricter firearm laws, but last decade they thought they'd tighten them up with a mandatory firearm registration program. By 2000, the cost of the program had exceeded $600 million and was expected to pass $1 billion by 2001. Keep in mind, this is a country that is 1/10th the size of the US (population) with far fewer guns overall and per capita. By now, the cost estimate has exceeded $2 Billion, and has largely been deemed a failure.
It has bred corruption, and has done nothing to reduce gun-related crime, therefore it has done nothing to reduce related costs. In addition, people who have registered have become victims of crime where their weapons were stolen...possibly targeted by criminals who have hacked the registry. In comparison, it would take more than $20 billion dollars to implement even this basic tool, because while the US population is approx. 10 times that of Canada, the gun ownership rate is much higher. And I call this a basic tool because you can be sure that gun-control advocates would demand far more than just a costly registry.
And you can be sure that only honest people will register their guns to avoid becoming criminals while criminals will disregard this law with the same prejudice they have against any other law.
If you want to make this Amendment about cost, you need to look at more than just one balance sheet, and you need to remember that "freedom ain't free."
Sorry DarrenWright, I did not mean to address you with this. I am just confused as to how co2emission intended to relate the ownership of guns by law abiding citizens to socialized medicine.
Sorry you don't get it perhaps this will help make the connection
Cost of firearm violence
Direct costs
Medical costs $2 -$2.3 billion
Administering criminal judicial system (including incarceration costs: $2.4 billion)
Indirect costs
Costs to society: law enforcement, investment in protection and avoidance, restrictions on freedom to live or work, lost productivity of victims, cost of pain and fear, changes in quality of life, deterioration in community living (about $100 billion -willingness to pay methodology)
with much more info on the impact of your "right" to carry a gun.
Oh, I do understand that. I don't see what that specifically has to do with socialized healthcare. No more so than morbid obesity, drug abuse or other matters of self harm. Sorry for assisting in the derailment of the original topic, but I feel very strongly about my freedom and individuality. If the government decides we can no longer bear arms, what next will be banned? Cigarettes? Sodas? Red meat? Sugar? All of those items are bad for us. Some have said that healthcare is a basic human need, so we should provide it for all. Isn't shelter also a basic human need? Food? Transportation so that everyone can get to work? Child care so that they can stay at work? My problem with this is that when all needs are the responsibility of the government to provide through taxation of the people, the people lose the ability to care for themselves. I have no wish to belong to a Marxist society. If there is a system out there that allows purchase of affordable healthcare to all, reform of the tort laws, and strict regulation of the insurance and pharmaceutical industry, I'm all ears.
Some have said that healthcare is a basic human need, so we should provide it for all. Isn't shelter also a basic human need? Food? Transportation so that everyone can get to work? Child care so that they can stay at work?
Personally, I DO think our society would benefit from more accessible and affordable child care & housing. There are many different strategies to do this (such as tax incentives or government-sponsored programs). I don't think we can leave *everything* up to the individual or to market forces. For example, there are currently practical limitations for individual choice in the area of basic utilities (water, electric). And public schooling is crucial for an active democracy, a good economy and a higher quality of life for all. Thus, I think that perhaps some aspects of health care might be better addressed on a social level as well.
That doesn't mean I'm advocating free handouts or complete socialism across the board, just considering different angles.
Specializes in ICU, Paeds ICU, Correctional, Education.
Sorry DarrenWright, I did not mean to address you with this. I am just confused as to how co2emission intended to relate the ownership of guns by law abiding citizens to socialized medicine.
Bowling for Columbine meets Sicko
Hi.... I'm not too sure that I made reference to law abiding but since it has been raised, 1 in 100 US citizens are now incarcerated in jail; I'm sure they were all law abiding once. Owning a gun expands the window of opportunity for a law abiding citizen to become a criminal. A culture of fear, uncertainty and the belief that the individual is central to society is a bad place for guns to be. To seek shelter in a "right" does not make it right. One irony about rights is that the US still has not ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, even though 190 countries have and believe that children have rights.
Let me explain the relationship for those that are confused which (I think), is based on reasonable assumptions:
1. Socialised medicine is publically funded health care.
2. Gunshot wounds, deaths and the fallout make significant fiscal demands
(second only to motor vehicle accidents [uS trauma statistics])
3. "Victims of gunshot injuries who are hospitalized often are uninsured and typically stay in the hospital for nearly a week. Most (86 percent) hospitalized victims are males, nearly half (47 percent) are younger than 25 years of age, 29 percent are uninsured, and 25 percent are insured by Medicaid" (Jeffrey H. Coben, M.D.,Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, and Claudia A. Steiner, M.D., M.P.H., of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality).
Hence logically... if guns are not owned then the cost to socialised medicine is reduced because people aren't being shot and this makes socialised medicine more workable. I hope this has helped to join my dots.
Personally, I DO think our society would benefit from more accessible and affordable child care & housing. There are many different strategies to do this (such as tax incentives or government-sponsored programs). I don't think we can leave *everything* up to the individual or to market forces. For example, there are currently practical limitations for individual choice in the area of basic utilities (water, electric). And public schooling is crucial for an active democracy, a good economy and a higher quality of life for all. Thus, I think that perhaps some aspects of health care might be better addressed on a social level as well.
That doesn't mean I'm advocating free handouts or complete socialism across the board, just considering different angles.
I don't at all disagree. As long as a clear line is drawn that requires contribution on the part of the recipient except in extreme cases, I'm sure something is workable. It very much depends how much control is taken away from the citizens as to how much I will like it. I am not willing to pay 60% of my income in taxes for a cradle to grave system. That to me is a really scary prospect.
Hi.... I'm not too sure that I made reference to law abiding but since it has been raised, 1 in 100 US citizens are now incarcerated in jail; I'm sure they were all law abiding once. Owning a gun expands the window of opportunity for a law abiding citizen to become a criminal. A culture of fear, uncertainty and the belief that the individual is central to society is a bad place for guns to be. To seek shelter in a "right" does not make it right. One irony about rights is that the US still has not ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, even though 190 countries have and believe that children have rights.
Let me explain the relationship for those that are confused which (I think), is based on reasonable assumptions:
1. Socialised medicine is publically funded health care.
2. Gunshot wounds, deaths and the fallout make significant fiscal demands
(second only to motor vehicle accidents [uS trauma statistics])
3. "Victims of gunshot injuries who are hospitalized often are uninsured and typically stay in the hospital for nearly a week. Most (86 percent) hospitalized victims are males, nearly half (47 percent) are younger than 25 years of age, 29 percent are uninsured, and 25 percent are insured by Medicaid" (Jeffrey H. Coben, M.D.,Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, and Claudia A. Steiner, M.D., M.P.H., of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality).
Hence logically... if guns are not owned then the cost to socialised medicine is reduced because people aren't being shot and this makes socialised medicine more workable. I hope this has helped to join my dots.
Yes....I do understand all of the above. I am sure that to people who live in a culture that is not accustomed to guns, the thought of anyone owning one is apalling. I live in a culture where many would never consider not having one. Only law abiding citizens are able to legally buy a gun in this country. The ability to defend one's family should that be needed is crucial.
As I have said before, criminals can still get whatever they desire. The only benefit of banning guns is that there is a lot less resistance on the part of the victim when threatened with gun violence. That being said, back to socialized medicine. Relating gun injuries to reducing cost of medical care is the same to me as trying to ban cars to reduce the cost of treating motor vehicle accident injuries. Although I can follow your reasoning, I just think that is oversimplification of a very complex issue.
Specializes in Cardiac Surg, IR, Peds ICU, Emergency.
Let me explain the relationship for those that are confused which (I think), is based on reasonable assumptions:
1. Socialised medicine is publically funded health care.
2. Gunshot wounds, deaths and the fallout make significant fiscal demands
(second only to motor vehicle accidents [uS trauma statistics])
3. "Victims of gunshot injuries who are hospitalized often are uninsured and typically stay in the hospital for nearly a week. Most (86 percent) hospitalized victims are males, nearly half (47 percent) are younger than 25 years of age, 29 percent are uninsured, and 25 percent are insured by Medicaid" (Jeffrey H. Coben, M.D.,Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, and Claudia A. Steiner, M.D., M.P.H., of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality).
Hence logically... if guns are not owned then the cost to socialised medicine is reduced because people aren't being shot and this makes socialised medicine more workable. I hope this has helped to join my dots.
Here are the flaws in these assumptions.
1. Taking guns away is a fundamental violation of our Constitution.
2. A gun-control program respectful of the Constitution will not necessarily bring down the cost. As Canada has shown, it resulted in an extremely expensive program that took years to finally prove itself ineffective.
perhaps this will help make the connection
If there is a system out there that allows purchase of affordable healthcare to all, reform of the tort laws, and strict regulation of the insurance and pharmaceutical industry, I'm all ears.
tk3100
85 Posts