>
> Society is ducking the hard morality decisions in health, just like it
> ducked the energy decisions that would have avoided the present energy
> crisis. A similar crisis will arise in health care, particularly in
> universal health care, unless 'hard' morality decisions are made.
> In private health care, you get what you can afford no matter your
> medical history! Whatever you want will be provided. For-profit
> medicine provides life-saving diagnostic procedures that routinely lie
> beyond the financial resource of most of us. But should health care
> be measured by survival of a minority of the rich or by the general
> health maintenance of the productive population?
>
> In a Univeral health scheme, tax-payers money is not well-spent when
> the behavior history and age of patients is ignored in assessment of
> patient treatments.. The level of Universal' health care cannot exceed
> what society can afford, though what it can afford the general
> population is far superior to that what cannot be 'afforded' from
> 'for-profit' HMOs and private medical practices.
> ...

> Nature condemns humans, who choose to indulge in certain behaviors, to
> disability and to premature death. Is it immoral for a society to deny
> expensive medical treatment to patients who have knowingly indulged in
> behavior that clearly increased the risk of their malady. For example,
> given that the risk factor of smoking,is so obvious now, should
> society in 50 years time spend less on treating a 65 year-old 3-pack
> a day life-time smoking, lung cancer patient than on a 65 year-old non-
> smoker, lung cancer patient?

> In a Univeral health scheme, tax-payers money is not well-spent when
> the behavior history and age of patients is ignored in assessment of
> patient treatments.

> zinnic gate.net> wrote in news:664fe739-e841-4a1e-b14d-
> 887b39608...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>

>> Nature condemns humans, who choose to indulge in certain behaviors, to
>> disability and to premature death. Is it immoral for a society to deny
>> expensive medical treatment to patients who have knowingly indulged in
>> behavior that clearly increased the risk of their malady. For example,
>> given that the risk factor of smoking,is so obvious now, should
>> society in 50 years time spend less on treating a 65  year-old 3-pack
>> a day life-time smoking, lung cancer patient than on a 65 year-old non-
>> smoker, lung cancer patient?

>
> Well, you're off on the wrong foot already. "Society" (meaning gummint...

> On Jul 23, 7:18 pm, zinnic gate.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>
>across the globe?"
>
> Just how did the Europeans get so smart? The education figures tell a
> similar story. Although the United States devotes roughly the same
> proportion of national income to education as the European Union
> nations, on average, European nations all rank higher in math and
> science. They also enjoy, on average, an additional year of education
> and have a higher proportion of young people in higher education.
>

> To be a 'human animal' is to indulge in activities that stimulate
> immediate pleasurable mental responses. To be 'homo sapiens' is to
> selectively forego immediate pleasures in order to maximize survival
> and future pleasures.

> Nature condemns humans

> Is it immoral for a society to deny
> expensive medical treatment to patients who have knowingly indulged in
> behavior that clearly increased the risk of their malady.

> Society is ducking the hard morality decisions in health...

> IMO, a stable society needs government, an essential activity that you
> try to preclude, invalidate and dismiss as "gummint".
> .I guess that, in your non-tax payer ,"non-gummint "world, you accept
> that you should pay up front for a 'private for-profit company' to
> investigate the murder of one of your loved ones, Once a crime has
> occurred despite policing (sustained by voluntary contributions?) , do
> you believe that its investigation is the responsibility of the
> victim.?

> zinnicgate.net> wrote innews:8b741b4d-44a3-4365-aecd-95450f29e2c8@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
>

>> IMO, a stable society needs government, an essential activity that you
>> try to preclude, invalidate and dismiss as "gummint".
>> .I guess that, in your non-tax payer ,"non-gummint "world,  you accept
>> that you should pay up front for a 'private for-profit company'  to
>> investigate the murder of one of your loved ones,  Once a crime has
>> occurred despite policing (sustained by voluntary contributions?) , do
>> you believe that its investigation is the responsibility of the
>> victim.?

>
> Actually, throughout most of history, that is how it worked, in all
> societies. Citizens (or subjects) were usually (but not always) prohibited
> from imposing punishments arbitrarily upon alleged offenders. But
> investigating an offense, identifying and locating the offender, and
> returning him to the jurisdiction if he had fled, were up to the victim.
> Some public official or body would then conduct a trial and impose any
> prescribed punishment (usally some form of restitution to the victim).
> Until the 12th century in England, there was no distinction between civil ...