Boil it down

[The Terrible Sweal]

Have your say.

[kimmy]

I guess this is what they call a "push poll", huh?

If you "boil it down" like this, I think you're making a drastic oversimplication.

If a system that allows the rich to spend their filthy lucre on privatized healthcare also happens to improve the quality of care for everybody, then I'll be perfectly comfortable knowing that the rich receive better care than my parents, just as I'm comfortable with the knowledge that the rich have better cars, homes, educations, etc.

If a system that makes everybody equal just serves to make everybody equally miserable, then knowing that rich people have as long to wait as my parents will be cold comfort.

I think your attempt to "boil it down" sucks, to be completely honest. Now get your ass back to the "Supreme Court" thread and respond to the message where I argue that healthcare isn't a zero-sum game. Pretty please.

-k

{voting for rich people getting better healthcare, just to piss people off.}

[The Terrible Sweal]

I guess this is what they call a "push poll", huh?

All polling is push polling. I'm just honest enough to be obvious about it.

If a system that allows the rich to spend their filthy lucre on privatized healthcare also happens to improve the quality of care for everybody, then I'll be perfectly comfortable ...

And if cutting a hole in my belly and tying my intestines to a bus was a safe way to lose wieght, it might become a popular activity. So what?

The fact it there is no reasonable pospect that two-tier healthcare will improve the public system.

... I'm comfortable with the knowledge that the rich have better ... educations ...

!!!€

Why on Earth do you find that comforting!?!?

I think your attempt to "boil it down" sucks, to be completely honest.

Truth can be soooooo upsetting!

[kimmy]

And if cutting a hole in my belly and tying my intestines to a bus was a safe way to lose wieght, it might become a popular activity.  So what? 

The fact it there is no reasonable pospect that two-tier healthcare will improve the public system.

I disagree. I'll again direct you to the other thread for my explanation of why I believe otherwise.

... I'm comfortable with the knowledge that the rich have better ... educations ...

!!!€

Why on Earth do you find that comforting!?!?

I didn't say I find it comforting, meat-head. I said I'm comfortable with it. Why? Because while it's not particularly fair that money gives people a head start in life, I can't see how you could level the playing field without ridiculous and quite likely illegal restrictions on personal liberty. I'm comfortable with it because the alternative makes me uncomfortable. (ostensibly the same reason you support the Liberals, isn't it?)

I think your attempt to "boil it down" sucks, to be completely honest.

Truth can be soooooo upsetting!

I don't think it sucks because it's "truth." I think it sucks because it's a distortion of the truth, based on a flawed assumption.

-k

[bigdude]

Your poll is absurd.

We have restrictions placed on us in many different areas of our lives and there is no reason to expect that health care should be exempted.

[Argus]

Have your say.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is hardly surprising, coming from you. It evokes the typical resentment of the rich that so many on the Left feel. Why not ask if people want their kids to have big houses like the rich, and food that's just as good as the rich, and houses that are just as fancy as the rich?

So you don't like Capitalism. So what. No other system works anywhere near as well. It is the hope of improvement in ones fortunes which is possible under Capitalism which inspires hard work and entrepeneurship from so many - which in turn enriches us all and makes the economy grow. Without that possibility of personal enrichment what you have is a stagnant economy because no one is going to put out the effort and take the risks with no chance of a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

[The Terrible Sweal]

... while it's not particularly fair that money gives people a head start in life, I can't see how you could level the playing field without ridiculous and quite likely illegal restrictions on personal liberty.

Illegal is only what the law says it is. Make a law that levels the playing field and then that's what's legal. I dn't know what you consider "ridiculous", so I can't respond to that part.

I don't think it sucks because it's "truth." I think it sucks because it's a distortion of the truth, based on a flawed assumption.

I beg to differ. I think tpyou think it is "based on a flawed assumption" (hohoho) because you feel it sucks.

[Canuck E Stan]

Our Canadian Health Care system is perfect only for healthy Canadians.

[Hugo]

The Terrible Sweal is making a running joke out of his claims to being a classical liberal. The only thing he seems right of is Karl Marx. True classical liberals are either guffawing at him or turning purple with rage that he would sully their title so.

In any event, the whole "the rich get better stuff and that's unfair" notion is coming at it from the wrong perspective. Instead of approaching from the unwashed proletarian position, try looking at it from the rich man's viewpoint.

You work hard all your life and make lots of money. Less than 20% of American millionaires inherited more than 10% of their money, over 50% inherited nothing, and less than 25% received a gift from a relative of more than $10,000. In 1892, the figures were almost identical.

Then the government comes along and tells you that you do not have the right to give your money to your children when you die. It tells you that you do not have the right to give it to a doctor in exchange for medical services. It tells you that you do not have the right to try and help your children do well in life by sending them to a good school. It tells you that you do not have the right to bank it in a foreign country. It tells you instead that the poor have a claim on the money you made for yourself, and what's more, it's going to expropriate it from you and give it to them. If you refuse, then it's up to five years hard time - and between all of the money and double the money they originally asked for. Basically, it means you have no property rights.

Since we live in a society with a great deal of class mobility (anybody who doubts this should look at societies like monarchical Europe or the Soviet Union, where your lot in life is completely dependent on who your parents were, and to which your own abilities are irrelevant), this is not a good situation for any of us. The system punishes success and teaches us to do as little as possible - do any more, and it will be taken from you. Since "the rich" is an arbitrary distinction (the overwhelming majority of Canadians are stinking rich from the perspective of the average Cuban or North Korean), this means that the state is basically denying property rights to a group it is arbitrarily defining. Poor people will be deceived if they think the same won't be applied to them. In fact, it already has. Poor people actually pay a greater tax burden than the rich, after all that.

Make a law that levels the playing field

How are you going to level the playing field - by discriminating against some people and granting them fewer property rights than others? Mind you, I'm sure a Holocaust-apologist like yourself has no problem with this. This isn't the Rule of Law, Sweal, the Rule of Law is supposed to discriminate against nobody, be blind to personal attributes, and be equally applicable to all. Your laws are highly discriminatory, judge on personal attributes, and make gross exceptions for large groups of people. It's the Rule of Arbitrary Fiat, or the Rule of Tyranny. Maybe you should rename yourself "The Tyrannical Sweal."

[The Terrible Sweal]

This is hardly surprising, coming from you. It evokes the typical resentment of the rich that so many on the Left feel.

Evokes it in your fevered imagination perhaps. The idea that wanting equality with people equates with resenting them is something so ridiculous only a persn without an argumentative leg to stand on would propagate it.

Why not ask if people want their kids to have big houses like the rich, and food that's just as good as the rich, and houses that are just as fancy as the rich?

Because the answers it would bring from certain pathetic forelock-tuggers would be even more embarrassing than what we see on this poll ... people who love their ideologies more than their children!

So you don't like Capitalism.

I don't like Capitalysticism. I prefer free and fair markets.

[ScottBrison]

I guess this is what they call a "push poll", huh?

If you "boil it down" like this, I think you're making a drastic oversimplication.

If a system that allows the rich to spend their filthy lucre on privatized healthcare also happens to improve the quality of care for everybody, then I'll be perfectly comfortable knowing that the rich receive better care than my parents, just as I'm comfortable with the knowledge that the rich have better cars, homes, educations, etc.

If a system that makes everybody equal just serves to make everybody equally miserable, then knowing that rich people have as long to wait as my parents will be cold comfort.

I think your attempt to "boil it down" sucks, to be completely honest. Now get your ass back to the "Supreme Court" thread and respond to the message where I argue that healthcare isn't a zero-sum game. Pretty please.

-k

{voting for rich people getting better healthcare, just to piss people off.}

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You'd have to ask SCE Robbins they're the experts at push polling.

[kimmy]

How about we "boil it down" like this...

"Suppose there are two systems of healthcare. One delivers everybody (rich or poor) a standard of care that could be rated at about a 5 on a scale of 1-10. The second delivers everybody a standard of care at about a 7, but for people willing to spend money, they could get faster service, giving a standard of care that's maybe 8 out of 10.

Which do you want?

(1) Everybody gets "5/10" healthcare regardless.

(2) Everybody gets "7/10", but can get "8/10" if they're willing and able to spend more."

or

"Suppose your child is sick and needs immediate medical care or he will die. You have $60,000 that you've been saving up for a ridiculous SUV, but you could spend the money on an operation to save your child instead.

What do you do?

(1) Spend it on the SUV. Saving your child's life is unfair, because a poor kid wouldn't have the same opportunity to be saved.

(2) Save your child's life."

Suppose we "boil it down" like *that*. Answer those, then tell me who loves their ideology more than their children.

-k

[The Terrible Sweal]

How about we "boil it down" like this ... Which do you want?

(1) Everybody gets "5/10" healthcare regardless.

(2) Everybody gets "7/10", but can get "8/10" if they're willing and able to spend more."

Your Scenario Two is wildly speculative.

The real situattion is more like everybody gets 7/10 now, but people who can afford (in special situations) to pay for 9/10 want that privilege even though it means the base level for everyone will shrink to 4/10.

... What do you do?

(1) Spend it on the SUV. Saving your child's life is unfair, because a poor kid wouldn't have the same opportunity to be saved.

(2) Save your child's life."

You would think that most people would say number 2, but if they are willing to spend the 60,000 on that, why are they not willing to pay 7% tax on the SUV along with everyone else to save their child through a public system? Do they want to make sure only their child lives??

[August1991]

How about we "boil it down" like this ... Which do you want?

(1) Everybody gets "5/10" healthcare regardless.

(2) Everybody gets "7/10", but can get "8/10" if they're willing and able to spend more."

Your Scenario Two is wildly speculative.

The real situattion is more like everybody gets 7/10 now, but people who can afford (in special situations) to pay for 9/10 want that privilege even though it means the base level for everyone will shrink to 4/10.

TS, once again, you insist on seeing this in zero-sum terms. It is not.

Kimmy has created a "poll" that accurately portrays the true choice. It is not wildly speculative at all. It is precisely what classical liberals surmised and what experience has shown over the past several centuries.

... What do you do?

(1) Spend it on the SUV. Saving your child's life is unfair, because a poor kid wouldn't have the same opportunity to be saved.

(2) Save your child's life."

You would think that most people would say number 2, but if they are willing to spend the 60,000 on that, why are they not willing to pay 7% tax on the SUV along with everyone else to save their child through a public system? Do they want to make sure only their child lives??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...if they are willing to spend the 60,000 on that, why are they not willing to pay 7% tax on the SUV along with everyone else to save their child through a public system...

Wow, TS, you tell me why they are not willing to pay the tax. You are supposedly the one who believes in classical liberal thought. While you're at it, you can also explain why doctors, nurses and hospital janitors are not willing to work for free.

TS, your reasoning here is perversely Soviet, or maybe it's just plain sophomoric. Even Belinda.ca seems to have understood this point. The issue is not how to cut the pie fairly. The issue is how to bake a bigger pie.

[Guest eureka]

How about simply adequality fundung the oublic ystem and fixing the problems. That way everybidy would have 8/10 or better. There is no reason that 9/10 could not be achieved for all.

Since perfection would not be possible to achieve, 10/10 wiould be a dream only and only a dream for the filthy rich in any system.

[Argus]

This is hardly surprising, coming from you. It evokes the typical resentment of the rich that so many on the Left feel.

Evokes it in your fevered imagination perhaps. The idea that wanting equality with people equates with resenting them is something so ridiculous only a persn without an argumentative leg to stand on would propagate it.

I don't think I'm unique in identifying your resentment and your rather outdated fervour for class struggle and punishing the rich.

Why not ask if people want their kids to have big houses like the rich, and food that's just as good as the rich, and houses that are just as fancy as the rich?

Because the answers it would bring from certain pathetic forelock-tuggers would be even more embarrassing than what we see on this poll ... people who love their ideologies more than their children!

Forelock-tuggers? Are you British, by any chance? That's such a typical Brit Marxist accusation. In any event, the problem with your politics has long been known. You want to punish those who are driven to succeed, and reward those with no drive. You want to take money from those who worked hard and took risks to make it, and give it to those who are lazy, stupid or just don't care. Needless to say, this results in a system where no one risks and no one tries - ie, the Soviet Union.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I don't think I'm unique in identifying your resentment and your rather outdated fervour for class struggle and punishing the rich.

Indeed, as a tory itis probably essential that you club together with persons who share your proclivities. How else to sustain resistance to reality?

Anyway, I have no desire to punish 'the rich' as a group. I hope very soon to be rich myself! But I despise inequity, and I despise the squandering of wealth and opportunity inherent in systems of entrenched privilege. To bring this distinction alive or you: I cheer for Bill Gates, I piss on Thor Eaton.

Forelock-tuggers? Are you British, by any chance?

No, ekchoolee, simply erudite.

You want to take money from those who worked hard and took risks to make it,

Nope. Contrary to conservatives, 100% the opposite.

I want to ensure that what our society rewards and promotes is intelligence, competence, purposeful action, drive, and integrity.

[kimmy]

How about we "boil it down" like this ... Which do you want?

(1) Everybody gets "5/10" healthcare regardless.

(2) Everybody gets "7/10", but can get "8/10" if they're willing and able to spend more."

Your Scenario Two is wildly speculative.

The real situattion is more like everybody gets 7/10 now, but people who can afford (in special situations) to pay for 9/10 want that privilege even though it means the base level for everyone will shrink to 4/10.

Why? The Supreme Court rejected that argument, pointing to other western democacies that have achieved shorter waiting times with mixed systems.

... What do you do?

(1) Spend it on the SUV. Saving your child's life is unfair, because a poor kid wouldn't have the same opportunity to be saved.

(2) Save your child's life."

You would think that most people would say number 2, but if they are willing to spend the 60,000 on that, why are they not willing to pay 7% tax on the SUV along with everyone else to save their child through a public system? Do they want to make sure only their child lives??

Ok, so say that you've paid your taxes with a smile, you voted for the Saviors of Healthcare Party ™ and done everything you possibly could to strengthen the public system... but your child is still sick and too far back on a waiting list. Now what do you do?

-k

[The Terrible Sweal]

The real situattion is more like everybody gets 7/10 now, but people who can afford (in special situations) to pay for 9/10 want that privilege even though it means the base level for everyone will shrink to 4/10.

Why? The Supreme Court rejected that argument, pointing to other western democacies that have achieved shorter waiting times with mixed systems.

I think there are a lot of problems with (a) the court purporting to conclude that their keyhole view of evidence would allow them to make sweeping policy conclusions of this kind, and ( b ) the correctness of their analysis of the evidence before them, and ( c) whether the evidence is credible and sustains the claims made for it at all.

In short, I don't believe it, irrespective of what the court found.

... What do you do?

(1) Spend it on the SUV. Saving your child's life is unfair, because a poor kid wouldn't have the same opportunity to be saved.

(2) Save your child's life."

You would think that most people would say number 2, but if they are willing to spend the 60,000 on that, why are they not willing to pay 7% tax on the SUV along with everyone else to save their child through a public system? Do they want to make sure only their child lives??

Ok, so say that you've paid your taxes with a smile, you voted for the Saviors of Healthcare Party and done everything you possibly could to strengthen the public system... but your child is still sick and too far back on a waiting list. Now what do you do?

I don't think your question is germane to the point we are discussing. The situation you've implied in it inappropriately crosses up individual civic choices with personal needs. If these parents AND the rest of their society had attended as well to health care as you suggest, they would not be faced with the misfortune you describe. Therefore, to make sense, your question imports the pre-existence of every policy error I argue against and your example-parents had individually struggled against. So I say: "here's how healthcare should be" and you then ask me what should happen if none of what I say should happen happens. What can I say?

It's a very effective rhetorical manouevre (perhaps you yourself are convince by it), but unravelled, it doesn't serve as a critique in reason.

What do I think 'should' happen to that poor family in that situation? The public system should act forthwith to serve them, and the state should pay for it with sufficient taxes.

[kimmy]

Why? The Supreme Court rejected that argument, pointing to other western democacies that have achieved shorter waiting times with mixed systems.

I think there are a lot of problems with (a) the court purporting to conclude that their keyhole view of evidence would allow them to make sweeping policy conclusions of this kind, and ( b ) the correctness of their analysis of the evidence before them, and ( c) whether the evidence is credible and sustains the claims made for it at all.

In short, I don't believe it, irrespective of what the court found.

I'm not sure why it would matter what you believe. The relevant part is that the court says that based on the example of other countries, the claim that preventing private operations in healthcare is necessary to protect the public good is not sufficiently well-supported to justify suppressing an individual's rights. Our legislators can get to work and figure out some policy consistent with both the public good and individual rights. Or, I guess, they can use the not-withstanding clause...

Ok, so say that you've paid your taxes with a smile, you voted for the Saviors of Healthcare Party ™ and done everything you possibly could to strengthen the public system...  but your child is still sick and too far back on a waiting list. Now what do you do?

I don't think your question is germane to the point we are discussing. The situation you've implied in it inappropriately crosses up individual civic choices with personal needs. If these parents AND the rest of their society had attended as well to health care as you suggest, they would not be faced with the misfortune you describe.

I think you're wrong. We all pay our 7% on our SUVs (and bicycle tires...) And (whether we like it or not) the Saviors of Healthcare Party ™ have been in power for 12 consecutive years. We pay taxes (enough taxes to build a hefty annual budget surplus) and a plurality of us have elected the party which claims to attend to our healthsystem in the way you depict, and to what result? Waiting lists that the court feels are inconsistent with the right to life and personal security.

Therefore, to make sense, your question imports the pre-existence  of every policy error I argue against and your example-parents had  individually struggled against.  So I say: "here's how healthcare should be" and you then ask me what should happen if none of what I say should happen happens.  What can I say?

Earlier you described my theory that allowing private capital investment into the health system would "bake a bigger pie" (as Belinda.ca would say) as "wildly speculative."

In turn, I describe your vision of "here's how healthcare should be" as utter fantasy. Surely you don't believe that paying just our taxes and voting Liberal will create such a system.

It's a very effective rhetorical manouevre (perhaps you yourself are convince by it), but unravelled, it doesn't serve as a critique in reason.

What do I think 'should' happen to that poor family in that situation? The public system should act forthwith to serve them, and the state should pay for it with sufficient taxes.

So, exceptions and cue-jumping in cases that tug at our heartstrings sufficiently to create public outcry?

-k

[The Terrible Sweal]

I'm not sure why it would matter what you believe.

Well, I am arguing MY position, so to that extent it matters to this discussion. But also, I gave some indications of the reasons for my belief, so an interlocutor is able to make some level of assessment of the merit of my belief.

The relevant part is that the court says that based on the example of other countries, the claim that preventing private operations in healthcare is necessary to protect the public good is not sufficiently well-supported to justify suppressing an individual's rights.

The court can only say that, based on the evidence before them in that case, it is not sufficiently well-supported. I am saying two things in reply: First, the narrowness imported by the 'based on the evidence before them in the case' leaves me perfectly able to argue logically that their evidence is an insufficient survey. Second, their conclusion does not preclude the possible fact that I am right and they are wrong about the content and meaning of the evidence before them.

Ok, so say that you've paid your taxes with a smile, you voted for the Saviors of Healthcare Party and done everything you possibly could to strengthen the public system...  but your child is still sick and too far back on a waiting list. Now what do you do?

I don't think your question is germane to the point we are discussing. The situation you've implied in it inappropriately crosses up individual civic choices with personal needs. If these parents AND the rest of their society had attended as well to health care as you suggest, they would not be faced with the misfortune you describe.

I think you're wrong. We all pay our 7% on our SUVs (and bicycle tires...) And (whether we like it or not) the Saviors of Healthcare Party have been in power for 12 consecutive years. We pay taxes (enough taxes to build a hefty annual budget surplus) and a plurality of us have elected the party which claims to attend to our healthsystem in the way you depict, and to what result? Waiting lists that the court feels are inconsistent with the right to life and personal security.

We can conclude one of two things from this. That our kind of public healthcare has been done poorly, or that our kind of public healthcare cannot be done. If the former, then the managers have been the problem and I have no need to answer for them. If you argue the later, then I would invite you to explain why.

Surely you don't believe that paying just our taxes and voting Liberal will create such a system.

Well, that seemed to work pretty well for a large number of years. But anyway, no, I don't think it has to do with the name of the political party who governs. Whoever has charge of the reins needs to apply sufficient resources in an intelligent fashion.

It's a very effective rhetorical manouevre (perhaps you yourself are convince by it), but unravelled, it doesn't serve as a critique in reason.

What do I think 'should' happen to that poor family in that situation? The public system should act forthwith to serve them, and the state should pay for it with sufficient taxes.

So, exceptions and cue-jumping in cases that tug at our heartstrings sufficiently to create public outcry?

Nope, no cues, no exceptions. If we follow my way a family in that situation would be an anomaly because waiting lists would not be allowed to pose such dangers. The policy for anyone in that situation (should it somehow develop) would be that the system reacts to fix it forthwith.

[Big Blue Machine]

You're distorting the question here.

[cybercoma]

Boohoo! The rich have better things than me because I'm trailer park trash.

Cry me a freakin' river, filthy hippie.

Here's a novel idea, try taking on some responsibility in making yourself rich...then you'll have those things.

Oh I'm sorry, you'd actually have to be a productive member of society, instead of sitting back and begging those who do something for this country to pay your way into sweet static unproductivity.

I don't mean you personally Sweal...I just mean people in general with your absolutely ridiculous viewpoint of stealing from the rich to give to the worthlessly lazy.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Come on, CC, surely you can do better than a kneejerk ad hominem rant. Or, maybe not.

[kimmy]

The court can only say that, based on the evidence before them in that case, it is not sufficiently well-supported.  I am saying two things in reply: First, the narrowness imported by the 'based on the evidence before them in the case' leaves me perfectly able to argue logically that their evidence is an insufficient survey.  Second, their conclusion does not preclude the possible fact that I am right and they are wrong about the content and meaning of the evidence before them.

In our country we tend to place a high value on peoples' personal freedoms. Our constitution reflects this. If people wish to engage in commerce with each other, they have the right to do so, unless there's some compelling reason why they shouldn't be allowed to. If I want to go out and purchase an MRI machine, I should be allowed to, unless there's a compelling reason to the contrary. If I want to sell MRI services, I should be allowed to, unless there's a compelling reason why I shouldn't be allowed to. What I'm getting at is that it seems to me that the onus should be on opponents of private care to demonstrate this compelling reason for restricting my ability to engage in commerce. Not the reverse.

I think you're wrong. We all pay our 7% on our SUVs (and bicycle tires...)  And (whether we like it or not) the Saviors of Healthcare Party ™ have been in power for 12 consecutive years.  We pay taxes (enough taxes to build a hefty annual budget surplus) and a plurality of us have elected the party which claims to attend to our healthsystem in the way you depict, and to what result?  Waiting lists that the court feels are inconsistent with the right to life and personal security.

We can conclude one of two things from this. That our kind of public healthcare has been done poorly, or that our kind of public healthcare cannot be done. If the former, then the managers have been the problem and I have no need to answer for them. If you argue the later, then I would invite you to explain why.

My answer to reason two is partly to do with your answer to reason one. Of course the managers have been the problem, or at least part of the problem. Who, if not the Saviors of Healthcare Party ™, do you propose will bring about the utopia you envision? I believe you've said you support the Liberals only because you don't like the alternatives... well, in your view, if the Liberals are the best we've got and they've brought the healthcare system where it is over the past 12 years, what hope do you have that your vision is ever going to become reality? Are you expecting them to work some miracle next time they're elected to office? I don't see why you would. Even they've said they're happy with what they've done. In response to last week's ruling, they said "hey, it's fixed already! Last September's health accord! Fixed for a generation!™"

Or, how about precident? Are there nations where "our kind of healthcare" is done better than in Canada? As this has been debated, there have been examples raised of countries where mixed-delivery systems are providing excellent care, but I haven't heard any mention of countries where "Canada-style" healthcare is being done better than in Canada.

But fundamentally, there's just the logic of it. I don't understand why people seem to think that preventing capital from being invested in the system, and restricting the number of places where medical professionals can work will somehow make the system stronger. It seems an oxymoron to me.

Surely you don't believe that paying just our taxes and voting Liberal will create such a system.

Well, that seemed to work pretty well for a large number of years. But anyway, no, I don't think it has to do with the name of the political party who governs. Whoever has charge of the reins needs to apply sufficient resources in an intelligent fashion.

Are you sure it's worked well for a number of years, or is it just that our standards were not very high for a long time? I honestly don't know the answer to that.

So, exceptions and cue-jumping in cases that tug at our heartstrings sufficiently to create public outcry?

Nope, no cues, no exceptions. If we follow my way a family in that situation would be an anomaly because waiting lists would not be allowed to pose such dangers. The policy for anyone in that situation (should it somehow develop) would be that the system reacts to fix it forthwith.

Well, of course if anything goes wrong in Sweal-World it'd be an anomaly that could be fixed "forthwith". But what about a real healthcare system? Like, say, the one we're stuck with?

-k