Slashdot Mirror
The Outfall of a Helium-3 Crisis
astroengine writes "The United States is currently recovering from a helium isotope crisis that last year sent low-temperature physicists scrambling, sky-rocketed the cost of hospital MRI's, and threw national security staff out on a search mission for alternate ways to detect dirty bombs. Now the panic is subsiding, what is being done to conserve, or replace, helium-3?"
based on how the government usually operates I expect this would be a typical response.
Mind you, all I know about the subject is an old Macintosh game ...
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
The moon is hard enough on its own, but gas giants have much higher gravity than Earth.
Combine this with the fact that it takes us an incredibly long time to reach one of those planets, and we're looking at something that is still quite a long ways off. If anything, we're going to need a substantial economic boom before it becomes possible to dump funding into space programs again.
The thing is, we're looking at a problem that exists right now and we need solutions right now - not decades down the road.
For anyone who has problems visualizing the gravity wells: http://xkcd.com/681_large/
- These characters were randomly selected.
Probably the same as to peak oil and other pressing issues - bury head in sand == ignore == trust in god, it's His will anyway.
The MRI imaging requires the patient hold his or her breath for 10 seconds. Instead of just breathing out normally, the patient exhales into a helium-impermeable bag
Note to self: next time doing MRI in the hospital, do not inhale that stuff, don't want to imagine where it came from...
There are large amounts of He3 being made in heavy water reactors that is not being collected. Until now there has been little motivation to go through the trouble and expense of modifying these reactors to extract it, but it's not THAT hard. At some point it will just be done and then we'll be fine. This is only a short-term problem. DNRTFA, of course.
Don't Bogart the fish sticks
So is this one of the impacts of The Helium Privatization Act of 1996 or is separating the Helium-3 from the more common isotopes too energy intensive to have made the Bush Dome Reservoir a viable source?
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
and you end up with more than enough he3 and a better probability that earth survives the next world war.
The reason the helium is becoming scarce on earth is because it's too light and escapes from the earth's atmosphere. So how do we stop that? Simple, make it heavier like we did to our own fat asses. If there is one thing we are great at it, it's getting fat, why can't we extend that to Helium? "So Mr. Helium 3, would you like to supersize that today?"
By the time we are done with helium it won't even be able to get off the floor, let alone escape the atmosphere.
Monstar L
Perhaps, this is an indication that animals shouldn't be given X-rays. I know it's going to drive the PETA people nuts, but the bottom line is that animals < humans.
My guess is that if there were stockpiles of He-3 there wouldn't be a crisis.
FCKGW 09F9 42
You get the same result with private insurance. Insurance coverage is inelastic; that is insurance companies aren't going to change the policies because of a spike in prices for a particular procedure in a single year.
Now let's say the prices continue to rise, you might argue that private insurance will respond quicker. But then you have to ask yourself why private insurers in this country do such a poorer job holding down prices than gov't insurers (or more regulated insurers) elsewhere.
It's sad when liberal classical economic proponents today sound like the Marxist apologists of yesteryear. I think it's time to bow to reality and reconsider some of the basic premises underlying your theories, because as they are they don't capture reality, no matter how good they look on paper. (And hand-waving about the supposed crippling federal regulations just wouldn't seem to cut it, because while they might suffice to explain some inefficiency, they don't really explain the inexorable and dramatic growth in inefficiencies.)
Not if people are insured buddy.
This is why people are paying up to $1500 a month for insurance and other countries are going bankrupt trying to insure its citizens. If everyone had no insurance then I would agree the market would change this.
The problem is everyone gets xrays and that raises the cost for the uninsured and this is what we have today.
http://saveie6.com/
Lung x-rays? I work in healthcare and have no idea what this "lung x-ray" you speak of even is. I am assuming you are referring to MRI techniques. In any case realize there are plenty of cost effective alternatives for lung imaging, from plain film chest x-rays to CT (with or without pulmonary angiography) and nuclear ventilation with either xenon or aerosols. The if cost increased there wouldn't be fewer people getting treated, they would simply just go to alternate modalities of equal worth.
Because, naturally, the vagaries of the market are so much more important than human life. We live only to serve the economy, OH WAIT!
The economy and the market exist ONLY to serve us, never the other way around. Their "goodness" may be judged exclusively by how well they accomplish this.
I doubt a shortage will be allowed to continue though since DHS needs it to check our Chinese diethylene glycol laden toothpaste for bombs.
Damn it! You're not an Anonymous Coward! Now you've ruined it for everyone!
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Am I the only one noticing the plummeting quality in journalism across the board? Besides the drawbacks of relying on spell-check and other automation, the gradual shift in the publishing industry towards the Internet seems to have dented profit margins significantly enough to affect the QA process. Books, papers, magazines ... they all seem to be suffering from this malaise.
There's tons of it on the moon....
So all we have to do is to solve the Sam Rockwell clone shortage problem.
Have gnu, will travel.
That's what he's saying, yes. How is that either logically incorrect or morally wrong?
Self preservation is the most sensible, and yet, compassionate line of thinking that we evolved to have. I'd rather same a creature in my own species than a prize poodle.. but that's not out of a defined hate toward prize poodles.
I know it sounds silly.... but RTFA
a simple X-ray will show the lungs as black holes in the body, a mystery box of trouble. But if a patient takes a breath of helium-3, the resulting MRI is so bright it looks as though the patient inhaled a light bulb
But, oh wait!
Those ridiculously large stockpiles of an otherwise difficult-to-harvest material have been sold off at artificially cheap prices by the US. It's an engineered crisis. .. and in the cosmic irony department, this captcha was 'conspire'.
This is a consequence of the decline in the U.S's nuclear industry. Tritium is usually produced in nuclear reactors. It's useful for several purposes, from boosting nuclear weapons to exit sign lighting in aircraft.
Tritium is made by irradiating lithium with neutrons Tritium decays with a half-life of 12 years. He3, which is stable, is one of the decay products, and that's where He3 comes from. (This is a commercial application of transmutation.)
The US used to have a reactor at Savannah River to produce tritium, but that was shut down in 1988. Since the early 1990s, there have been efforts to set up a new source, and presently, two power reactors of the Tennessee Valley Authority are used to produce tritium, A few extra lithium rods are put in, and changed out occasionally to recover the tritium.
The He3 shortage is a side effect of the tritium shortage.
Fine you pedantic cock, Humans > (The set of all animals excluding humans)
I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
Not to deny the effectiveness of that technique but I had a collapsed lung a year ago and it showed up on X-Ray without and He3, granted it was rather faint but I guess it all depends on what you're looking for.
I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
That's not even superficially logical. What he's saying is that some animals (the human subset) are more important than other animals (the non-human subset). You're saying that humans are animals, therefore animals are humans. Nobody sane believes that.
Spread very thin though. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3#Extraterrestrial_supplies
The Moon's surface contains helium-3 at concentrations on the order of 0.01 ppm in sunlit areas,[40][41] and concentrations as much as five times higher in permanently shadowed regions.[2] A number of people, starting with Gerald Kulcinski in 1986,[42] have proposed to explore the moon, mine lunar regolith and use the helium-3 for fusion. Because of the low concentrations of helium-3, any mining equipment would need to process extremely large amounts of regolith (over 100 million tons of regolith to obtain one ton of helium 3),[43] and some proposals have suggested that helium-3 extraction be piggybacked onto a larger mining and development operation.[citation needed]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Yes, what is an outfall?
You can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation. -Plato
Given humans are a subset of animals, what you're basically saying some humans are more equal than others.
Yep - "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Some bastard keeps inhaling it to make chipmunk voices. Oh wait! That's me! *Puff* Squeak squeak suck it bitches!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I hadn't heard of that one but it makes sense. Interesting... thank you. (toothpaste with diethylene glycol impurities)
I am no doctor, I just read the article, a rare occurrence on /. :-). I had pneumonia a couple of years ago and that also showed up on X-ray. I guess this refers to some specific problems with the lungs.
There's tons of it on the moon....
So all we have to do is to solve the Sam Rockwell clone shortage problem.
I believe he has an Infinite Improbability drive so cloning him should be just a matter of finding how improbable it is.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Also the regolith is quite dense and tightly packed. Astronauts had trouble pushing a probe more than 20cm or so into the surface. So your mining equipment would have to skim the surface and deal with a lot of rocks and irregularities. Thats a lot of problems to solve for a little bit of Helium 3.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
This has always bothered me. "Free-market" fundamentalist (usually neo-liberals here in Sweden) seem to think of the "market" as a living organism that has precedence over all else, including human life (except their own of course). We all have different values I suppose, live to work or work to live, but they just seem completely out of touch with the real world to me...
That would send the price of American "beer" skyrocketing due to the reduced supply of the key ingredient.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
"The economy and the market exist ONLY to serve us, never the other way around."
"Respond to" /= "serve".
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Because, naturally, the vagaries of the market are so much more important than human life.
Sure, you can think of it that way. Or you can think of it as claiming one life is better than all lives.The label you use "the market" is just shorthand for everyone else's activity including such things as chest x-rays. Those activities are important in their own right (else they wouldn't be buying helium 3).
One effect of the higher price of helium 3 has been the invention of means to recycle helium 3. That wouldn't have been discovered in the absence of strong incentives (that is, high prices for helium 3) to do so. It's also worth noting that just because someone might want a chest x-ray doesn't mean that they need one. High prices discourage more frivolous uses of helium 3.
And like he said "nuclear ventilation with either xenon or aerosols"... in other words, there are other compounds, such as hyperpolarized xenon-129, that can achieve very similar results to helium-3. So yes, helium-3 is very useful in this area, but there are good substitutes available.
"A promising alternative gas for hunting down radioactive neutrons and gamma particles for example is boron, but for medical purposes nothing beats helium-3."
It's Dolomite Baby!
I too miss the old story icons. . .
The economy and the market exist ONLY to serve us, never the other way around. Their "goodness" may be judged exclusively by how well they accomplish this.
The problem with your statement is the definition of "us".
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Another possible use for He3 is in fusion reactors that can directly generate electricity with little radioactive by-product.
Nay. Serve is a proper choice of words. They are INSTRUMENTS with which we manage our resources. A set of tools. Not an entity comparable to us in any way.
The moment you lose control of your tools, you modify them to get control back or destroy them. In this regard, to reference popular culture, skynet is a great example.
You still have to deal with an unnecessary gravity well launching from the moon. Solar sails and asteroid mining present some fascinating economics: Solar sails can act as solar mirrors, providing rocket free orbital guidance, power for electricity generation and magnetic funneling of the solar wind into a centrifuge for refininng deuterium and tritium out of the solar wind.
There are interesting reasons to build lunar bases, but this is not one of them. If you need mining operations, use the solar sails to guide asteroids in for asteroid mining. The lead times for return on investment are very long, but that kind of long range investment is what governments are designed for.
Build some more atomic weapons.
That's a really silly idea. They shouldn't build any more atomic weapons until they've used up the ones they've got.
Obviously, we should be scooping He3 from Deimos or Phobos.
I drank what? -- Socrates
and as a direct consumer and producer, we have not been impacted by the H3 shortage at all really. Anomalous materials research continues on despite the recent resonance cascade event.
regards,
G. Freeman
Theoretical physicist, Lead.
Black Mesa Research
Good people go to bed earlier.
we should have yearly quotas for use. Human nature being what it is most nuclear powers would slack off until the Christmas to New Years week to lob 'em.
"Just get it from the moon" -- as though it doesn't cost $5-15k per kilogram just to get a *vehicle* into *low earth orbit*. Let alone the surface of the moon. Let alone a return trip to the moon. Let alone a return trip to the moon and hauling enough manpower and equipment to mine the moon. For something that's found in parts-per-billion quantities, mixed in with parts-per-million quantities of something that's essentially chemically identical (He-4).
It's way, way easier to produce He3 here on earth; it's a decay product of tritium, which is bred from lithium which is exposed to a neutron flux (aka, a lithium blanket in a nuclear reactor). Which is why it was a byproduct of our thermonuclear weapon stockpile; as they sit, their tritium slowly decays.
Present day. Present time.
Market forces can be used for positive effects such as encouraging the development of recycling techniques. However, we must carefully temper that or it will instead create mostly human suffering.
The market *IS* often meant as a shorthand for everyone else's activities, but it's a terrible over-simplification that is more often used to sweep some of those activities under the rug. It is also far too often treated as some sort of oracle that automatically produces the most moral answer (naturally the people who believe that tend to be the ones who have enough money to never have to do without).
Clearly, there exist circumstances where a shortage is intractable and some form of rationing is required. The free market fundamentalists would say just jack up the price and let those who truly need it but have no money die even while others who are flush with cash use it to make party favors. Others would prioritize based on our best medical guess as to who is likely to be helped (no sense doing it for someone who will inevitably die or for someone in perfect health, the guy who could be saved by the diagnosis gets the scan) and if any is left over we can make party favors. Further dividing, some would try to accomplish this with a command economy (which has never worked in practice) while many others simply make a few adjustments (such as socialized medicine) to provide corrective input into the market so that it better reflects our ethics.
Yes. A great many assume when a politician says "us" he means citizens of the country when he actually means himself, his closest friends, and the corporations they run.
Market forces can be used for positive effects such as encouraging the development of recycling techniques. However, we must carefully temper that or it will instead create mostly human suffering.
There's another way to say this. I want to impose (or continue to impose) on the freedom of a lot of other people so I can get my health care cheaper. The problem is that your life isn't that valuable.
The market *IS* often meant as a shorthand for everyone else's activities, but it's a terrible over-simplification that is more often used to sweep some of those activities under the rug. It is also far too often treated as some sort of oracle that automatically produces the most moral answer (naturally the people who believe that tend to be the ones who have enough money to never have to do without).
Tell you what. Come up with a better way and then we'll have something to talk about. "Socialized medicine" might not be another command economy, but it commits the same mistakes. A central authority decides what everything costs, which medical care provider gets what resources, and how much people pay for it. And it has the same lethal flaw as a command economy, namely, it's run by people who don't and can't know what's going on.
As to this particular article, there are three important ways that the helium 3/health care markets deviate from free markets. First, the supply is controlled by the federal government and sold off in an irrational manner.
Second, health insurance through an employer is heavily subsidized, The worker gets an untaxed benefit.That's somewhere around 20-35% of the overall health insurance amount. By itself, it probably explains a considerable portion of the difference in health care costs between the US and the rest of the developed world. Then toss in the mandates on what employer-based health insurance is supposed to provide and that explains a bunch more.
The combination of the two result in more consumption of medical care and as a result more consumption of helium 3.
There are a few other cost-control things that could help like fixing malpractice lawsuits and improving supply of medical professionals. My view is that an effective health insurance market with these cost controls would reduce medical costs below that of current socialist countries.
Clearly, there exist circumstances where a shortage is intractable and some form of rationing is required.
Again, nothing better than a market at this. Even if an omniscient being could somehow make All The Right Choices, doesn't mean it would. After all, maybe the patient is of the wrong political persuasion or engages in behavior such as smoking, no exercise, poor diet, etc that becomes immoral because society rather than the patient pays for the health care.
to provide corrective input into the market so that it better reflects our ethics.
Or maybe the ethics are the problem. I don't favor markets because they are somehow moral or ethical. I favor them because they work.
We also need it for fusion reactors.
No we don't, in all probability. There are essentially limitless quantities of deuterium available for fusion in Earth's oceans. If we want to get practical fusion earlier, we need to invest more on fusion research. Betting billions on a long shot like Helium 3 reactors doesn't make a lot of sense - you might just as well convert your car to run on powdered diamonds.
People like you make me think that the rumours that NASA never reached the moon in person, are true.
Several things increase my suspicions, my original post has now been demoted to a '0' and your reply to it is nonsensical, getting to escape velocity from the moon, is in terms of cost and safety, negligible when compared to the cost of achieving escape velocity from the Earth, my only explanation for your daft negativity is that - you have a hidden agenda.
Goebbels once said "Make a lie big enough and you will get away with it", Goebbels learned his craft from the double nephew of Freud, Edward Bernays.
It makes no sense that the human race has not been back to the moon since 1972, imagine how much easier, it would have been in the 60's, had NASA had the technology we have today?
I'm not saying NASA did not go to the moon, how on Earth would I know for sure? I'm the English equivalent of 'Joe Sixpack', I'm saying comments like yours make me more suspicious.
It's called an elephant's trunk whereas it is in fact, an elephant's nose, a nose by any other name would smell as sweet
When you find yourself feeling seriously ill, be sure to sit on the curb next to the trash cans. Otherwise I'll have to charge your family 10 strips of latinum to drag your corpse there myself. For another 10, I'll try to keep the dogs from peeing on you till the trash men come.
As for your claim that I am out to get something for nothing, I haven't even needed healthcare for the last 25 years fortunately. Any benefit to me would be merely theoretical at this point.
There is a common pattern in socialized medicine I have seen over and over. That is people complaining about it until I tell them that in the U.S. they would just have to wait until their illness gets life threatening to get treated, then declare bankruptcy after. The look of horror on their faces tells the story well.
You may not understand why people getting health care is more important than your "right" to eat caviar on toast points while sipping champagne, but if it gate bad enough, you will when the rabble comes banging on your door with a shotgun.
You do a fine job building strawmen for the horrors of socialized medicine, but not such a good job finding real world examples where any of that happens.
However, If you REALLY want a free market in healthcare, you'll have to make all drugs available over the counter. Restricting them distorts the market If you want an FDA, it will have to be advisory only and it's funding will need to be based on voluntary membership. It could recommend drugs but not absolutely prohibit them unless there is actual fraud (such as they don't contain what they claim to or they have been solidly proven ineffective). If I want to cook up and sell my magic cancer elixir that's my business, not yours. Anyone may practice medicine. The patient would be well advised to check for credentialing by some reputable accreditation body but if they can't afford that, they can at least get something.
I'm guessing we'll just have to write off antibiotics. They will get misused until they are fully ineffective, but at least we'll keep the socialists at bay.
In other words, here in the U.S. the government has already seriously curtailed my rights to provide my own medical treatment and to find others who will do it cheaply, and so it owes me a suitable replacement for that.
Honestly, either of those polar positions would be moral but the current middle of the road is indefensible. Between the two though, the socialized medicine looks like the better solution for individuals and for society as a whole.
We don't dare try mining the far side of the moon! The Space Nazi's would get us!!!!!
http://www.ironsky.net/site/
Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
As for your claim that I am out to get something for nothing, I haven't even needed healthcare for the last 25 years fortunately. Any benefit to me would be merely theoretical at this point.
Since you haven't needed health care for the last 25 years, you probably won't need it for the next 25 years either, theoretically. Which is good given the general trend to more expensive health care. I can see no reason for self-interest either, theoretically.
There is a common pattern in socialized medicine I have seen over and over. That is people complaining about it until I tell them that in the U.S. they would just have to wait until their illness gets life threatening to get treated, then declare bankruptcy after. The look of horror on their faces tells the story well.
You must talk to some pretty stupid people then. There are two alternatives to this horror story. First, buy health insurance. Second, self-insure by saving a lot of money.
In other words, here in the U.S. the government has already seriously curtailed my rights to provide my own medical treatment and to find others who will do it cheaply, and so it owes me a suitable replacement for that.
You don't have a right to force anyone, people, businesses, or governments to provide you cheap health care. Your rights are only being curtailed in your imagination.
However, If you REALLY want a free market in healthcare, you'll have to make all drugs available over the counter. Restricting them distorts the market If you want an FDA, it will have to be advisory only and it's funding will need to be based on voluntary membership. It could recommend drugs but not absolutely prohibit them unless there is actual fraud (such as they don't contain what they claim to or they have been solidly proven ineffective). If I want to cook up and sell my magic cancer elixir that's my business, not yours. Anyone may practice medicine. The patient would be well advised to check for credentialing by some reputable accreditation body but if they can't afford that, they can at least get something.
The customer should be doing this already. Also keep in mind that it is grossly negligent, perhaps even criminally negligent to provide you with drugs that doctor knows don't work or are actually harmful.
You do a fine job building strawmen for the horrors of socialized medicine, but not such a good job finding real world examples where any of that happens.
You're not too shabby either.
You don't have a right to force anyone, people, businesses, or governments to provide you cheap health care. Your rights are only being curtailed in your imagination.
So, if I in my own considered personal opinion need a splint, a few doses of Penicillin G (for prophylaxis) and a couple days on morphine (and it's a good thing I know these things because doctors are too expensive) I can just pop on down to the pharmacy and buy it (not asking for a freebie here, I'll pay cash)? Nobody has passed any silly market distorting laws to prevent that have they?
Perhaps I'm industrious but cash poor, I'll grow poppies and make my own morphine, that should be OK shouldn't it? I'm pretty good at growing yeast cultures as well, I should be able to get some good antibiotics going too. Perhaps because I have the entrepreneurial spirit I'll produce extra and sell it to my neighbors for less than the CVS wants. Again, no market distorting laws to prevent any of that right? It's not like anyone is trampling on my right to self help or anything.
As long as there's nobody trampling on my market freedom, I'll modify that old color TV to produce X-Rays and I can set bones for myself and my neighbors as well.
OH! Look! the cops are coming. I'll bet they want me to give them a checkup too! What do you mean possession of a controlled substance? Practicing medicine without a license? Possession and distribution of a dangerous drug without a prescription? Never heard of it! I assure you, according to khallow my rights are only being curtailed in my imagination. Now SHOO!
lifetime is actually quite short.
OH! Look! the cops are coming. I'll bet they want me to give them a checkup too! What do you mean possession of a controlled substance? Practicing medicine without a license? Possession and distribution of a dangerous drug without a prescription? Never heard of it! I assure you, according to khallow my rights are only being curtailed in my imagination. Now SHOO!
Oh look, descent into madness. None of the above were relevant to my assertion. Getting arrested by the mean police for any of the above activities doesn't mean that you magically have a right to force someone to give you cheap health care.
Some people can take disagreement, even thrive on it. Others snap.
You claimed that nobody was in any way limiting my rights to self care. I showed through a narrative the the limitations are so pervasive they're obvious but overlooked.
Oh look, descent into madness.
Where is the madness? Is it madness to apply my own knowledge to better my own situation or is it only madness if I want to help my neighbors who might otherwise do without basic needs?
Getting arrested by the mean police for any of the above activities doesn't mean that you magically have a right to force someone to give you cheap health care.
How do you figure? From a standpoint of ethics, if you take something from someone, you owe them something of at least equal value in return. If you force the transaction upon them, you owe them even more in return. They take from me the ability to take care of my own problems and they distort the market so that prices are driven up until illness and bankruptcy walk hand in hand. Thus, they owe me in return cheap health care.
Or do you believe it's just fine to take from others without compensation as long as it supports your agenda? If so, you should applaud me if I decide to take free healthcare for myself.
You claimed that nobody was in any way limiting my rights to self care.
Nope. I didn't make that claim. Do you see where your error lies now?
Your rights are only being curtailed in your imagination.
Perhaps you'll remember typing that now?
Now, back on topic. Do you or do you not find it acceptable to take from others without providing compensation of equal or greater value?
Obviously, He should have made more He.
Perhaps you'll remember typing that now?
i understood your claim to mean that you wanted cheap health care not that you wanted to direct treat yourself. I, of course, oppose most of the federal government intervention in this area (including drug laws, regulations against medicine practiced without a license, etc). But just because the federal government oppresses us in one way doesn't give us the "right" to have it oppress us in more ways than it currently does.
Such arguments lead to destructive cycles of government overreach. A typical example is the creation of a public good (for example, the subsidy portion of subsidized health insurance), followed by regulation and government intrusion into our lives in order to enforce that public good (for example, regulation penalizing health insurance that is too good, ie, "Cadillac plans", making sure we don't engage in behavior that increases our health insurance subsidy, etc).
The current health care system in the US is a very broad example. State and federal governments have passed many laws and regulations which have made health care very expensive compared to what people get in other countries. Rather than fix this law, you propose we slide into the socialist health care schemes that these other countries use rather than prune the thicket that is causing the problem in the first place.
But that just results in making the problem worse. For example, Obamacare didn't implement one of the existing national health care systems. Instead, if Obamacare should survive to maturity, it will increase the drain on health care costs and overall government spending.
Even the Congressional Budget Office, the blatant propaganda tool of Congress, admits now that the cuts in Medicare weren't enough to cover the subsidies for health insurance. Medicare expenses rise for most state governments. And it's obvious that the rule changes for insurance drive up the rate of cost increase for insurance (which in turn probably means much higher insurance subsidies than expected by the CBO).
What didn't happen was any attempt to deal with the real problem, high health care costs. So what happens in ten years when the US sees perpetual massive deficits, interest payments larger as a fraction of GDP than current military spending, and far more expensive health care costs, even with subsidies? I guess someone will "fix" it again and make the problem worse. But they won't implement one of the existing national health care plans (assuming those even look attractive in ten years).
In hindsight, I don't understand your thoughts at all. You warn of the dangers of the free market despite knowing that the problems of US health care have nothing to do with free markets. You even scare ignorant Europeans with bogus scare stories. Now you're trying to rationalize national health care because the federal government through various regulations won't let you self-treat. What the hell?
Sounds to me like you've been infected with a parasitic meme. Better get that checked out.
It's very simple really. I personally believe that fully 100% socialized medicine is the correct course of action. I'm guessing that when legislators are on the hook for the costs they'll somehow find a way to get around to fixing the high price. We're supposed to be a somewhat cohesive society, not a bunch of jackles.
If that isn't going to be the case, the polar opposite is the next most morally justifiable. Get completely out of it. That seems fairly unlikely since it would mean giving up the sacred cow drug laws.
I can respect either of those positions as ethical. The middle of the road is completely indefensible. If I am to face laws that drive up prices and prevent me from both self help and freedom to contract with someone of my choice to take care of my health, then I am at least owed an alternative of equal value in return. That would be nationalized health care.
I agree that Obamacare is NOT a good answer at all. It's more like legally mandating participation in the broken system so it doesn't have to fix itself than anything else.
Considering that medical costs are the number one reason for bankruptcy in the U.S. it's not such a big scare story. Fully 1/3 of Americans can NOT afford health insurance. That's seriously messed up.
Its at .01ppm or about 10000x less than commercial U ore. It is 100x easier to make it here. Even today without fusion.
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!