Slashdot Mirror
Michael Bloomberg Defends Science
blonde rser writes "This weeks Scientific American Podcast plays excerpts from NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg's commencement address at John Hopkins University (text and video can be found online).
Once he gets past the standard pomp and circumstance he makes a strong, pro-science speech. It is impressive how he very directly demonizes those that would politicize stem cell research, global warming, Terry Schaivo, and evolution." From the speech: "Hopkins' motto is 'Veritas vos liberabit' - 'the truth shall set you free' - not that 'you shall be free to set the truth!'" Stirring stuff.
The law is pretty clear. The spouse has the final say in terms of medical decisions made on behalf of the spouse.
And if there is plausible evidence that the spouse is lying?
Ah, but you believe THEOCRACTIC institutions should ultimately decide who has the right to decide medical decisions.
It's obvious you are clueless about what I believe. Decisions, IMO, should be based on truth. If the truth cannot be decided, then life should be favored over death. Again, IMO.
Yes, thank God the Fundamentalist Taliban failed.
The Taliban would have used guns, not the courts.
Interestingly enough, I did not grow up in the US...
But besides that, are you saying that if I go to France and figure out a way to make a million Euros, that the government is fine with me keeping it?
Or are you just saying that 1) noone has revolted yet, so the government has not found it neccessary to point guns (just reminds everyone that only the police have them) or 2) all the welfare recipients seem to like the system.
I'm talking about a stable system where the people that want to work in exchange for (things or experiences) of value can, and where other people that don't want to work can just sit there and get (things or experiences) of value (and healthcare).
The problem with healthcare systems outside the US is that it does not atract the capital necessary to create new treatments. Essentially all of the new treatments developed in the last few decades were paid for by the US market. I know of no treatments that were developed and paid for by the systems you seem to think are better. (Of course, if you can have someone else take most of the burden of your healthcare you would be foolish not to do so - but that does not make it a viable system for everyone).
Healthcare is especially tricky, really. Everyone agrees (even in the US) that poor people should not die from lack of treatment. The real problem that arises is how do you allocate resources (brain cancer verses bone cancer, for example). The most efficient allocator of resources we know of is the free market - but that would mess up the first assumption, that poor people should not die from lack of treatment. So in the US we have this system that says that if you can't pay for treatment (and you need it) you still get it, but if you can pay for it (and even if you don't really need it) you get it. Of course, who is paying (typically insurance companies) and who is receiving the benefit are different, so the free market screws up and overpays.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;