Thanks again for pointing that out, Muirgeo!

Thanks again for pointing that out, Muirgeo!

You're missing the point in the Kelvin scale being codified into law. Yes, it is formally defined by the CGPM, but that's separate issue than the one here. I have no objection to the governments setting an exact definition for the Kelvin scale. After all if I don't like the Kelvin, I can always use a different one, or invent my own and use that. A better analogy to the issue here would be government regulations saying that every temperature scale must conform with certain guidelines. There is no way for anyone to know what the desired properties of a temperature scale will be for every application. The same holds for health care; there is no way to know what what makes up a desirable health care plan for every person.

You're missing the point in the Kelvin scale being codified into law. Yes, it is formally defined by the CGPM, but that's separate issue than the one here. I have no objection to the governments setting an exact definition for the Kelvin scale. After all if I don't like the Kelvin, I can always use a different one, or invent my own and use that. A better analogy to the issue here would be government regulations saying that every temperature scale must conform with certain guidelines. There is no way for anyone to know what the desired properties of a temperature scale will be for every application. The same holds for health care; there is no way to know what what makes up a desirable health care plan for every person.

Are you here or in Singapore?

Are you here or in Singapore?

If that is the case, how do you allow yourself to work with lawyers?

But what the hell, so does your pals muirduck, Disingenuous Kuehn, et al., so have at it.

If the U.S. congress were really interested in reforming our health care system, they would at least take a look at Singapore's. But, health care reform in this country has nothing at all to do with reforming health care. It has everything to do with nationalizing a critical sector which is 16% of the U.S. economy in order to grow the power of politicians – and to divert attention from the fact that government run medicare is bankrupt.

In Britain, women are denied yearly mammograms after a certain age – can't remember if it's 65 or 69. After that age, they can only get them every 3 years. Unfortunately, breast cancer is highly correlated to age.

In the U.S., if you're on Medicare (government health care), and you need a root canal, you won't get one. It's cheaper to extract the tooth. That would be okay if you could just pay the same doctor to do the root canal, but you can't. It's illegal to pay out of pocket to a doctor who has accepted you as a medicare patient.

My understanding of the Singapore system is that government will pay the amount that it would cost to extract the tooth and if you want the more expensive root canal, then you have to pay the difference (usually, out of the HSA account everyone is required to contribute to). Also, the Singapore government runs like a business – in general. There's very little bureaucracy, very few entitlement programs in need of funding and very little interest in killing the private sector. At least, that's my impression. This is a government that understands the importance of markets. I believe Singapore recently legalized a market in kidneys.

Things work very differently in Singapore. Things work. I've been trying to learn more about the medical system there, so if you can provide insight, I'd love it.

I recognize that you said you agree with me, but I am still compelled to reply.

For instance, as I said, law, regs, rules, can theoretically all get us to convergence and probably much quicker than standards. In Russ's piece note that the people he mentioned as supporting standards to reach convergence were really talking about rules, regulations, and law, not standards; at least not in my lexicon and understanding of the word standards.

Standards, as I said, evolve more than are dictated. Again I go to examples of what I see as standards:

Consideration of others, a standard, can not be legislated.

Ambition to excel, a standard, can not be legislated.

Kindness, a standard, can not be legislated.

Honesty, a standard, can not be legislated.

Courage, a standard, can not be legislated.

Faithfulness, a standard, can not be legislated.

Responsibility, a standard, can not be legislated.

I am not fussing at you, just trying to articulate my thoughts on this subject, which by the way is not the first time I have thought long and hard about standards.

It is in my mind that we can have rules, regulations, or law without character, but no standards without character.

It is in my mind that if people have personal character and standards they can not be enslaved or controlled, no matter the rules, regulations, or laws they are subjected to.

Destroy the standards, you weaken or destroy the character, and then you can have your great collective.

Am I making sense to any one but me?

Are you sure? That sounds crazy. In Singapore we have both government run hospitals and private sector hospitals, but I dont see the private sector going out of business here. Also, I'm not sure that government hospitals can refuse to do mammograms for people who come in to do them either. (Of course Singapore may be different since government services in general are run is ways that net them a healthy profit and allowed to be subject to market forces. Which as part of a larger libertarian project, simply means that these aspects of the government are much closer to privatisation)

Where did anyone one say “necessarily”? I see “prefer”. Straw man.

I too prefer market based outcomes. Dollars usually provide more reliable feedback of true individual preferences than measures of success that are subject to statistical manipulations, misinterpretation, invalidity, groupthink, bias and politics. But, it's not always the case. But, it doesn't have to always be the case, it just has to consistently be the case, which it is.

Are there exceptions? Sure. There always are. But, an exception doesn't necessarily rule out that the exception wouldn't have happened otherwise.

But what the hell, so does your pals muirduck, Disingenuous Kuehn, et al., so have at it.