From: ahk@chinet.com
Charles Ellson wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
>>Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
>>>>Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>>>"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
>>>>>>Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>>>>>"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
>>>>>>>>Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>On 22-Apr-15 09:16, John Levine wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It's just like the stupidity of our CDMA/TDMA/iDEN war while the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>world standardized on GSM. Despite its flaws, GSM is far
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>superior to all of the US-developed systems _and_ costs less due
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to economy of scale, which is why all US carriers are finally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>moving that way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Oh, c'mon, GSM came later. And it was mostly Europe that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>decided to use an international standards-making process
>>>>>>>>>>>>>because of the relatively small countries; I don't recall
>>>>>>>>>>>>>any other part of the world being involved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Quite right. It was developed by ETSI, where E stands for
>>>>>>>>>>>>European.
>>>>>>>>>>>It was developed by CEPT and later transferred to ETSI.
>>>>>>>>>>That would be the consortium of European post offices, not a
>>>>>>>>>>world-wide standards-making process, so your earlier statement
>>>>>>>>>>was wrong. Who else would have developed it? Under European
>>>>>>>>>>socialism, the post office was put in charge of the telephone
>>>>>>>>>>infrastructure.
>>>>>>>>>In most cases long before socialism was a working (FSVO "working")
>>>>>>>>>concept. Communications were generally kept within control of
>>>>>>>>>government agencies from long ago, the most convenient department
>>>>>>>>>tending to be the national Post Office which already dealt with
>>>>>>>>>letters and later usually inherited telegraphs followed by telephones.
>>>>>>>>>Describing the governments at the relevant times as "socialist" would
>>>>>>>>>in most cases be a bit of a joke.
>>>>>>>>Both telegraph and telephone began as utilities owned by shareholders;
>>>>>>>>neither was begun by government.
>>>>>>>This was in a European context ("Under European socialism" above).
>>>>>>>Even if private, the operations would often be subject to a government
>>>>>>>monopoly. In the UK, the GPO claimed a monopoly on telegraph services
>>>>>>>and this was confirmed by statute in 1869, telephones being later
>>>>>>>ruled to be included within telegraphs, the last non-municipal system
>>>>>>>being taken over in 1912; none of this involved anything recognisable
>>>>>>>as "socialism". A possibly unintended consequence was that failing
>>>>>>>systems which would otherwise have closed down were taken over and
>>>>>>>kept in use as part of the expanding national network.
>>>>>>I have no idea why not, then. Coulda sworn I've heard the government
>>>>>>single-payer system for health care referred to as "socialized medicine",
>>>>>>so what else could it be? It ain't capitalism.
>>>>>A form of compulsory health insurance originally.
>>>>So in your view, nothing that has the characteristics of socialism
>>>>is socialism.
>>>Is compulsory motor insurance "socialism" ?
>>Your analogy sucks. There's no comparison between a requirement to have
>>liability insurance with single-payer health insurance. For one thing,
>>liability is to other people and perhaps that is society's business.
>If you are ill beyond self-help you become a medical liability upon others
Well, no, I haven't, not in a litigious society in which doctors encountering
injured or ill people outside clinical settings have rendered first aid as
good samaritans and have been sued for P.I.
An injured or ill person can receive life-saving care (but not full treatment)
in a hospital emergency room without ability to pay, but that's a condition
of federal law for receiving payments through socialized medicine or having
received past grants for new facilities or having a nonprofit tax status.
Otherwise just showing up at an emergency room shouldn't impose a duty
of care upon the hospital. In a free society, why shouldn't that be a
choice an adult can make for himself, as the only person he would harm
is himself?
>just as with having a car accident involving more than your own
>vehicle you become a liability upon others.
That's not analogous and you know it. Driving a motorized vehicle upon
a public highway imposes risk to other people, because as a society, we
take no steps to prevent people from driving without giving a shit about
the safety of those they share the right of way with. Society has imposed
minimum duties upon a driver, including licensing, vehicle registration,
and liability insurance. Society DOES NOT require the driver to carry a
medical rider on his auto insurance to pay for his own injuries if he's
at fault, nor does it require comprehensive coverage to pay for his own
vehicle's repair if he's at fault.
>>>Both deal with circumstances where the great majority of the those
>>>"insured" will be involved in requiring the service at some time and in
>>>the end it costs everybody less to have a more or less uniform method
>>>of charging.
>>That's simply absurd. No one else at all is involved in one's personal
>>medical choices,
>You might not have the opportunity to make a choice so have you got
>relevant instructions tattooed somewhere ?
Probate law gives one the opportunity to create advance directives and to
designate others to hold your medical power of attorney. I agree that the
documents aren't necessarily available on one's person at the critical time,
but I don't agree just because one wants or needs something at a critical
time that one has the right to get it without ability to pay, not without
such a duty imposed in law.
>>or they shouldn't be except for socialized medicine.
>You treat all your own ailments ? Good luck when the chainsaw slips.
I feel that I am entitled to Usenet discussions with people who make
decent arguments. I rarely get it. There ought to be a law...
--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
* Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
|
