From: clements@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Clinto and Space Funding(long...apologies)
Date: 1 Oct 92 10:44:24 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <BvEMCo.2Kw.1@cs.cmu.edu>, amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes:
>> I would suggest one area that need serious consideration are lung cancer
>> subsidies (ie. the money given to the tobacco producers which goes to subsidise
>> lung cancer all over the world)
>>
> 
> I agree. The government should at the same time stop all subsidies to anti
> smoking organizations. Smokers should pay very large (market and risked based)  
> insurance premiums for their health insurance, commensurate with the extra risk  
> they have chosen.

I think some support somewhere for anti-smoking campaigns is needed to offset
the effects of tobbaco advertising like Joe Camel and Malboro Man (I may have
the names wrong as they have yet to make a strong appearance in the UK).

> (I wonder... will there have to be smoking and non-smoking space settlements? :-)
> 

I'd hope they'd only let the intelligent ones (non-smokers) on :-)

>> and other agricultural subsidies. At least
>> Europe ios making some moves on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), I have
>> seen no sign of similar moves in the US (though I may have missed them). 
> 
> 
> Strange, I was under the impression that GATT broke down because there was a  
> refusal to end subsidies on the part of the EC.

The Uraguay (sp?) GATT round was stalled because of this. However, early this
summer a major rearrangement of the CAP was achieved which answered most of
Bush's points on it. The has rather embarrassed Bush as he was relying on the
usual EEC confusion to give him an excuse not to settle the US agricultural
subsidy problems. I do not think they have done anything about it yet, for
obvious electoral reasons, which is probably why you haven't heard what's been
going on. In this case, Bush is certainly not helping the free market...

[more comments about fgarm support... agreed with]

> 
>> a great deal of wasted GNP can be sorted out by changing your ridiculous legal
>> system (70% of lawers in the world are in the US, and all earning lots of
>> money that could go to real commercial use elsewhere),
>>
> 
> Again, totally agreed. The tort system abandoned the ideas of simply "making an  
> injured party whole" where "whole" was commenserate with damages and  
> responsibility was assigned to the one at fault rather than by search for  
> a patsy to pay the bill.

Might I suggest an alternative system? No-fault compensation...

The majority of the money awarded in these cases is punitive and is generally
over the top for the actual needs of the injured party. In addition, at least a
third, and probably more, or this money gets wasted on legal fees, and never
goes to help any injured party, and that is after all what we want to achieve.
At the very least a limitation on liability (for Cessna and the like) is
needed.

>> and getting your medical
>> system sorted. You can lambast the UK and other Eropean countries for having
>> doctrinally unsound socialised (gasp!) medical systems, but the fact is *our
>> health services are ****cheaper***** in terms of GNP than yours.
> 
> Having experienced both, I prefer the US one. In three years here I have yet to  
> recieve a call from my doctor.

I'm not sure what you mean here. In 28 years in the UK I haven't had a 'call
from my doctor' I only see her when I'm ill.

>Wellness programs are unheard of.

I am also unsure what you are refering to here, as none of the practices I have
been part of have mentioned such schemes.

> And if you need  
> certain classes of operations, you are best off flying to the US and paying for it  
> because you might be dead before your turn in the queue comes up.

This is a bit of a distortion. The waiting list system is for non-urgent and
non-life threatening treatments. Things like varicose veins. You *never* have
to wait for something life threatenning (at least in an acute sense). Vhronic
care and other long term things w are less well sorted, but I suspect the US
has problems with these as well, usually generated by money or the lack
thereof.


>There ARE NO QUEUES in the US.

*Come on*! I have even seen US TV programmes lambasting the US medical 'system'
for its dreadful treatemnt of people who can't afford to pay the hideous costs
of medical bills or medical insurance. I have heard stories of people who have
been cut off by their insurance company when they are found to have  a serious
chronic medical problem. Are you living in the same country as these people or
have you got the US and UK confused????

> Oh, and my blue cross/blue shield were job benefits at CMU. And even if taken as a  
> cost on my paycheck there versus here, they cost less (for far better and more  
> aggressive service) than the amount taken out for National Health Service (NHS) in  
> the UK.

I repeat the statistics I mentioned earlier. The US medical 'system' spends
more GNP than the UK one, by about a factor of 2. It *is* thus *more expencive*
for you and *everyone* else. I do not see how this relates to your suggestions
here (unless you are so hideously healthy that BC has given you a no claims
bonus or something...).

In addition, and agressive care system is not necessarily the best. Any medical
action has a side effect. Everything. A drug without a side effect is a drug
without action (as my GP father says). Most of the time leaving something alone
is the best, and most effective, thing to do. But the medical/legal system in
the US prevents this. This is also why you get banks and banks of (expencive)
tests at US doctors, so they can't be sued for missing something that might
just perhaps be there. This is a silly waste of money and resources (yours).

> As long as you don't get too sick and just do things like have babies, NHS  
> APPEARS to work quite nicely.

It generally does work quite nicely. Its just that it is such a political
football that people make votes by suggesting that it isn't working well for
99% of the population.

>> The legal and
>> medical issues are in some sense linked too because fo the degree of litigation
>> in US medicine.
>> 

> Oh, and catastrophic coverage was handled by blue cross or in worst case, by  
> charity. Hospitals and doctors NEVER turned anyone away.

I understand they do now...

> He can tell you what publications are available from the Libertarian Alliance in  
> London.
> 

Having heard several libertarians at the 1990 World SF convention I have been
sickened by the whole breed. I used to thinnk it was a pretty good idea, but
the shear arrogance and inability to cope with real issues (like the
environment) and the inevitable litigousness of a libertarian society (which
would make todays US look calm) have turned me off the whole proposition. It
cannot work with todays people.

> Unmucking the legal system and placing responsibility where it belongs and to the  
> degree with which it belongs are important issues.
How do you do this? Go to court, and where back at the same old USA problem...

> A society that tries for Total  
> Safety and which reimburses people for an accident, no matter what level of  
> stupidity was required for said accident, is not going to be a society that  
> pioneers the way to the stars.

I agree on this one...

-- 
================================================================================
Dave Clements, Oxford University Astrophysics Department
================================================================================
clements @ uk.ac.ox.vax			|  Umberto Eco is the *real* Comte de
dlc      @ uk.ac.ox.astro		|           Saint Germain...
================================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space