Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun May 16, 2021 3:11 pm
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun May 16, 2021 2:13 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun May 16, 2021 12:10 pm
Not ethical in my view.
In my view, health care should be treated as a human right and
*there should be no cost to particular individuals period.
Ideally I'd have a completely different sort of economy overall. But even without that, the idea that someone might need medical care, medication, etc. but can't get it because they can't afford it is outrageous and highly unethical in my opinion.
Same thing in my view re housing, food, etc. and education as far as one might like to pursue it.
*So, who absorbs the cost of all this health care, housing, food, and education?
Ideally, there is no cost. We don't have to organize society around money in any traditional sense. We can do tasks simply because they can get done, and a competitive incentive for doing the needed tasks would be that it's the way to acquire more scarce resources (such as homes in particular locations, fancier homes, etc.). We can do that without organizing so that anything is based on money.
Well, I didn't mention money.
I asked about
cost.
The doctor has costs: his equipment, the medicines he issues, his time and energy.
You say the doc will doctor cuz he can, and his compensation for doctorin' will be access to resources.
In capitalism/free enterprise: the doc works and gets a mutually agreed symbol of value (cash, not money) or actual money (gold, for example)...with this value symbol or money he gets to, based on his wants and needs, transact. No central planners or overseers are needed.
In your system (may I call it socialism?) someone else controls the menu of products or services the doc can access if he meets his quota. This implies oversight and central control.
This is an improvement how?