Technology vs. Reality

[Johansen8]

I've seen self-checkout counters, self-checkout libraries, robots performing surgeries, computers taking out most of the work like telemarketing, etc.... How will the future be mankind's if technology, even though created by mankind, will soon take over occupations humans are becoming to take advantage of?

[Goldy1]

Yes I was at the local grocery store the other night. They have dozens of lanes and only 2 were manned by an employee. They have this no limit sel fchack out lanes and the 6 or so of them had long lines. It is despicable. It's like a machine does the job or the human has to be a machine. They time the clerks and have minimum speeds they must keep up with.

[disneysteve]

I almost always pick self-checkout when it is an option. Very few stores around here offer it - just Home Depot and WalMart. It is much quicker generally. I wish the supermarkets did offer it. Especially when you just run in for a few items, it sure beats standing in line behind folks with a cartful of stuff.

[PrincessPerky]

I almost always pick self-checkout when it is an option. Very few stores around here offer it - just Home Depot and WalMart. It is much quicker generally. I wish the supermarkets did offer it. Especially when you just run in for a few items, it sure beats standing in line behind folks with a cartful of stuff.

The trouble is when there are more self checkouts than clerks and lines at all of them!

back to insurance, requiring coverage doesn't work, I didn't ask to be born, but with car insurance I can choose NOT to drive (BTW, I don't)

requiring care on kids I might understand, (and we have) but on self..

[cptacek]

It's like a machine does the job or the human has to be a machine. They time the clerks and have minimum speeds they must keep up with.

Why is this bad? If the machine is more efficient, why not use it?

[cschin4]

maat - I think you have nailed it. There really is only 2 forms of economy. Either you, the individual own it or the government owns it. There is really nothing in between. Of course, in the real world, we recognize that there are people who cannot fend for themselves such as the sick, aged, etc and we as a society have decided to make provisions. However, as we do so, we now are making more and more provisions for every perceived difficulty under the sun. And, as we are doing so, we give more power and control to the govt over our own lives and our means of living. And, as the machine of govt begins to consolidate power, it will continue to seek to do so.
The result is that in the end, capitalism will be destroyed and you and I and everyone else will merely be agents/employees of the state who then decide what you should be allowed to have.
So, there really is no middle ground. Individuals always have to be on guard of the govt trying to consolidate its power. Presently, nobody wants to live a life where the possibility of failure or pain exist. So, they are willingly turning over their power to the govt. Unfortunately, if there is no risk of failure, there is no chance of reward either. To get one, you must give up the other. So, while you may ensure your existence from the govt crumb you will be doled out, you remove any chance of real success for yourselves or your children in the future.
Furthermore, the govt then has a vested interest to keep you in a state of poverty because, then you need them to continue your existence. If you are doing well and wealthy, you don't need them. Think about it. Govt WANTS dependence, not your independence. If people don't soon wake up to this, I shudder to think of how we are bankrupting our own children's future for the sake of today and many of our imaginary "needs".

[cschin4]

Socialized care is not the only way to make health care fair.

Health care never was, never will be and shouldn't be "fair". We simply cannot give everything to everybody. We cannot give everybody any and all medical procedures just because they want or desire them. We now pay for Viagra under Medicare. Is that a "need"? Medical care is no different than technology. There is a certain amount that improves your life, but then gets to a point where more is not necessarily better and in fact could be harmful. However, I do not decide that point, but someone is ultimately going to decide that. It can be you, who can be allowed to have some control over one's care, or you can choose to place those decisions in the hands of govt and then you have NO control.
Health care is a false economy. Unless we return it some level of reality, where the actual customer/patient has to make some choices based on price, then there is no competition or any reason for health care to be delivered in an efficient manner. And, less efficiency means less real care for those who really need it.
I don't know what the answer is. It is a complex issue for sure. But, so far America has offered the best healthcare in the world. We have seen that socialized medicine works OK in some countries but very poorly in others. If we try to give everyone all the medical care they want, the country will go bankrupt. In reality, there will be rationing and somebody ultimately is going to decide what care will be delivered.

[disneysteve]

cschin4 - Excellent post. Healthcare is a very complex issue and there needs to be a link between the patient and the cost in order for there to be any meaningful or effective reform. Today, patients often don't know or care what the treatment they receive actually costs. All they know is what their copay is, what it costs them out of pocket. That has to change. People pore over the weekly ads to save $.50 at the grocery store but then go out and get a presciption filled for $100 at CVS that would have been half as much at WalMart, but since they aren't the ones paying the bill, they don't care. That needs to change.

[cschin4]

Nobody wants to deny healthcare to anyone. HOwever, do we really need the entire country to be on Lipitor? They recently pushed to start prescribing it to children then backed off on it. Yes, preventative medicine is useful but why not do full body scans of everyone and weekly blood tests and on and on? Why? Because it is cost prohibative. There has to be a cost/benefit analysis and a cost/benefit/risk assessment. Should we give a 95 yr old a transplant? Should society pay for cosmetic surgery? What about maintainance medications? Who should pay for those? Is there anything that the individual should be responsible for?
Insurance removed the notion that the patient has some interest in the actual cost to deliver the care. Nobody cared because insurance paid the full amount. There HAS to be some form of payment by the individual consumer or there will be no competition, no real progress and searching for better care and healthcare will become a model of corruption and inefficiency if this isn't part of the plan.

[disneysteve]

cschin4 - I think the best thing to happen to medicine in a long time has been the WalMart $4 generic drug plan (and the similar plans that copied it). I've seen a big shift among my patients from "give me the best medicine you can as long as it's covered by my insurance" to "give me whatever is on the $4 plan." Transparency in pricing is what is needed. People need to see the cost and see the savings personally. Just try to tell someone that a treatment option is very expensive but is covered by their insurance. They still want it. They don't care what the cost is if it doesn't cost them anything out of pocket. They don't understand that the reason their insurance premiums are so high is because of decisions like that. If I could tell them that option A would cost them a $25 copay but option B would be a $75 copay, guess which one they would choose.

The problem is figuring out how to deter unnecessary care without deterring needed care at the same time. I've had patients refuse to go to the ER for evaluation because they have a $50 ER copay. They'd rather wait to see me where they only have a $15 copay. That's what we need to avoid.

[maat55]

[QUOTE]

Health care never was, never will be and shouldn't be "fair". We simply cannot give everything to everybody.

Exactly my point, the gov wanted everyone to have a house and look what happened.

If we try to give everyone all the medical care they want, the country will go bankrupt.

That, or the gov. will create unlimited fees and surcharges to products and other that they deem unhealthy. They would probably start dictating who gets what based on age etc.

As it is, it's between you your money and the doctor.

[Inkstain82]

It really amazes me how many people can only see an issue like health care through their preconceived political ideas, and how many apply slippery-slope bogeymen and argumentum ad absurdum to the issue.

[maat55]

It really amazes me how many people can only see an issue like health care through their preconceived political ideas, and how many apply slippery-slope bogeymen and argumentum ad absurdum to the issue.

I really didn't want this to be a political debate. But I do see this country riding the fence between the two philosophy's. I just want for our generation to not enslave our future generations with serious debt.

They used to hang people for stealing a horse in the old days because they had to. Not all problems have a nice fuzzy solution to them.

[Inkstain82]

I really didn't want this to be a political debate. But I do see this country riding the fence between the two philosophy's. I just want for our generation to not enslave our future generations with serious debt.

They used to hang people for stealing a horse in the old days because they had to. Not all problems have a nice fuzzy solution to them.

I respectfully disagree with the idea that we're riding the fence, and would argue that it's marriage to an ideology that makes the world appear that way.

It's certainly true that all problems don't have nice, fuzzy solutions. It's also true that each problem is complex and can't be solved based on a few predefined rules of thumb such as "free market good" or "everyone should have their needs met."

[GrimJack]

What I do not understand is why do people think that there are only 2 solutions? This is called "False Dilemma". There is no knife edge between 'free market' and 'socialism' nor between 'capitalism' and 'socialism'. The idea that there is only private ownership or government ownership is another false dilemma. The world is not black or white. I mean where do corporations, llp's, partnerships, and all that fit into a dichotomy?

Even the title of this thread is a false dichotomy - technology vs reality. Zippers, velcro, buttons, glasses, chairs - all are both technology and reality.

Currently, the United States stands 45th in maternal death rate and 24th in infant mortality when compared to other industrialized countries. These stats are only vaguely accurate due to a wide variety of reporting methods and so on so please don't call me on the actual numbers - the point is really about where do we want health care to go here in the US? On the health care discussion, we should decide what we want and then figure out how to get there and not worry about false dichotomies.