Sick Medical Care

Post Reply New Topic

The classical Hippocratic Oath:



I don't see any section in there about working for less than market price out of some sense of altruism or common good. It's all well and good if a doctor does charity work of his own free will, but he should not be forced into it, especially by the government. Even if there were such a section, the oath is not legally binding, this continued talk of mass murder and manslaughter is simply overblown hyperbole. Not to mention, there's a whole bunch of stuff in there that contradicts modern medicine and morals, it's fairly unenforceable.



I think you need to lay off the fat man, he really seems to have gotten under your skin. Take a look at MooreWatch, it's a whole website devoted to debunking Michael Moore and the tripe he pedals as the truth. Check out some of their stories and links, many, many verifiable lies he has told are chronicled there.



These are not yes or no questions, and they are incredibly loaded. As far as I can tell, you can't out argue AG, so you are trying to force him to answer some questions that you think will make him look bad. Answer yes and he repudiates his own argument, answer no and he looks callous. I think he's clever enough to avoid your little trap here, but really, if you have to resort to things like this, you might reconsider your position...



There is nothing wrong with wanting a better world, there is nothing wrong with striving towards one. AG and I happen to think that your idea of a better world is a bad one.



I love it when someone makes my argument for me right in their post.

The police solve crime, they don't prevent it. Their presence may provide a deterrent, but on the whole they don't do much "protecting", more like "avenging". I'd rather be alive than avenged, I might feel differently if I lived in some second rate country in Europe, but i don't.



There is no conflict, I own guns and you don't. I don't know where Europeans get these crazy ideas about gun ownership, it's not like I walk down the street with a slung rifle, no one knows that I'm armed. No one goes around intimidating the gunless, unless you count the police.



Here we go with the language again, my ideas are "sociopathic" (sic) and "extremely selfish", because you say they are. I still don't get where this faith in government you seem to have comes from, most of the atrocities in history NOT committed by religion were committed by governments. Private companies may gouge you on the price, but they seldom kill you.



I wasn't stating anything to do with Irish politics, I was commenting on the fact that despite your vaunted gun control the country still experiences gun violence. The logical conclusion is that the criminals, militants, terrorists, etc still have easy access to weaponry, it's only the private citizen who has been left defenseless. I don't claim to know much about Irish politics, I suggest you make a similar disclaimer about US ones...

I am so glad some of you are not in positions of power your scarring the beep out of me.

By the billions of dollars spent annually to sway our opinions? Because politicians and businesses just love to throw away money, right?



I'm really having a hard time making sense of this mess above, but I'll take a crack at it.

If the government caused a catastrophic accident that hurt people, they would pay for it. No one is talking about holding harmless entities that cause medical problems, we are talking about whether people are entitled to medical care at the expense of others. All that people like AG and myself are saying is that we shouldn't be forced to pay other people's medical bills, it's a fairly simple point.

I'll be adding no more of my precious ideas to this pointless dialogue. I think it's obvious who the extremists are. Anyone reading is free to form their own opinions whatever they may be. Thanks to those who have remained civil.

For Dox47's information Ireland's healthcare service is better than the US equivalent. We don't have 9 trillion dollars worth of debt. Ireland has the fifth highest GDP (nominal) per capita. The US is at eleventh. Second-rate? I think not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

Of course manipulation costs money it takes money away from a company but if in the long run it makes your profits go up and it negates the first negative and results in a positive well worth it. Look at Sony they were able to beat Nintendo's N64 and Gamecube yet they lost millions and millions they caught the publics eye and bam a wild fire started they negated their losses and made a huge profit. Same applies to everything else losses are not bad if you can negate them and make money back which insurance companies and U.S. politicians do all the time.

Dude 80% of he world's wealth lies in pockets of 1% of the population that is horrid, since of course you don't get their honestly. Also if you have not noticed I love drama its a good way to convey an opinion.

Moving on dude if everyone gets covered and pays less for health care in the long run why fight it??? Its a good thing it should be desired no not desired needed.

Likewise. Then again, how do you know I'm not in a position of power?

Your not in some tropical location doing naughty things with the tax money you know things I can't bring up here. Also your not cheating on your wife.

Oh and your not evil you have to be evil to be in office 90% of the time.

Precious? Ideas? I've yet to see anything of the sort!



So you won't be including yourself on the "civil list", then? I would agree though, the identities of the extremists are obvious to anyone with half a brain.




Wow, I must have really hit a nerve there, I think someone's a little insecure about his homeland. I be would too if even the British called my country third world and only payed it any attention when something important was blown up. Throw around all the numbers you want, we all know that when things need to get done at the international level, it's not the red phone in Dublin that rings at 3am, is it?. How many technological breakthroughs have come out or Irish labs lately? Any wonder drugs patented by Irish pharmacists?

I'm perfectly happy with Ireland sticking to what it's good at, good whiskey and good stout. A shot of Connemara Whiskey and a pint of Guinness is all I need from the land of Ire. There is no shame in sticking to what you know, or in this case, staying away from what you don't.

Well done on making yourself look like a xenophobe. Bravo!

I bet you're very proud of yourself.

I'm half Irish, so if anything I should look like I'm half self loathing, or something to that affect. Also, the suffix "phobe" means fear, and fear is the last thing I have towards any other country, especially Ireland.

Don't think it has escaped me either that this is a most convenient exit for you after AG mopped the floor with your arguments all day, and I came along to bat cleanup. "Oh no!, someone made fun of my little country, I can't continue the debate!" What you really can't continue is this rhetorical beat down that you and the OP are taking here, it's getting embarrassing for you, and I gave you the perfect "out" so that you can leave as the martyr, brutalized by the insensitive American. Take the out, it's what I put it there for. You can thank me later, I know your kind loves to be the victim.

I laugh at the ignorant idea that people can be "beaten" in a debate. Does such an adversarial attitude help you in society? Is everyone there to be beaten by your superior strength or intellect? I laugh at your victory as it is the only response to such comical japery. I laugh at the idea that people and their ideas have a "worth". I laugh at the sadness of a mind mired in confusion, anger and hate. It is hilariously amusing. Thank you for amusing me with your crude diatribes. AG knows how to debate, you however do not.



The "market" can not be trusted to take care of the weak, the sick or the poor. The care of such people is a central tenet in Christianity. There is not interpretation to be made. Charity to one's fellow man is a good thing.

The "market" will not give the downtrodden their right to free speech, freedom to worship or any other freedom.

The "market" is concerned only with wealth, the welfare of the participants is irrelevant. Only an extremist would argue that the "market" can solve our problems.

Does there need to be rules or can people not take what they please? Without laws people would take what they wanted.

Is the "market" your god? The solution to all your problems? Which of course are caused by your incompetent and greedy government.

I laugh once more at the absurd.

I am irrelevant. Who I am is not important. These ideas are not just mine, they are shared by many or we would have a completely free market. Has there ever been such a thing outside of theory?

It is altruistic, but I wouldn't consider it to necessarily be moral. Note the use of the term "want", if I want something then I don't have to appeal to anything higher than my own value scheme.

No, it is true. Arguments are matters where two sides argue that they are right, and where both sides try to prove their rightness, sometimes they meet in the middle but some are outright right.

An adversarial attitude is helpful, it helps you build up your personal skills. Competition leads to improvement.

Ok? Laugh at the idea that things have worth, better than a world where everything is without worth.



Ok???? But, if we argue that there is a separation between church and state, then shouldn't the Christian care of the sick be left to the Christian church? Not only that, but this depends on how we view the market. I consider charities to be a part of the market, as they advertise, they work with other market based organizations, they hire individuals, and they fulfill a human desire.


Sure it will. Markets are often better at giving things than other institutions. Research by Gary Becker shows that markets have promoted greater racial equality, there are arguments that markets allow for better religious faith, and heck, there is no reason to think that markets will not provide those 2 things you mention either, as both simply rely on just letting people do as they please, and markets really are geared towards letting people do what they want.


Do you not think that wealth is reflective of the welfare of the participants? How is wealth created? By pleasing another individual such that they sacrifice their money. Where does this individual get that money? By sacrificing some labor to get that money. If there is a freedom to buy and to sell, then markets will promote welfare. To be honest, it is a rather orthodox position held by economists that markets are very good at promoting welfare, I mean, the first fundamental principle of welfare economics is that a state of perfect competition is economically efficient(economic efficiency is based upon reaching the desires of the participants, not just maximizing GDP)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamenta ... al_theorem

Frankly, it is not that much of an extremist position for economists to say that markets are pretty darn good at what they do, the issue for economists is figuring out where markets end up being less than optimal, and sometimes even where governments end up being less than optimal.


There are always rules.


Sure, why not?


Right, and of course, if you stand upon the majority, I would gladly point out to you, that the majority of people are fools, as has anarcho-capitalist economist Bryan Caplan. However, for the most part, a *completely* free market is theoretical, there are freer economies and less free economies. There are countries that have had semi-private governments though.

In a completely free market, how will there be rules? This is a contradiction in terms. Who decides on these rules and who enforces them?

Are the present economic problems in the US the result of government incompetence or is the market in error? Why are so many borrowing money they cannot afford? Why isn't the market stopping such reckless behaviour?

There are countless examples of businesses being left to their own devices and behaving with a terrible disregard for human life. Enron for example. Where will the rules come from to prevent this happening again if there is no government to impose those rules on these self-interested parties?

My goal here is not to cause harm. I want to systematically examine each and everyone of your ideas for any logical inconsistency so perhaps we can both learn a little more about our positions.

The goal of all civilized societies should be the maximization of individual liberty. Not only that, but markets have traditionally promoted greater good for the less wealthy. Private industry mostly sells to the common man, if you have not noticed. The wealthy do not eat at Wendy's rarely will go to a local grocery store, do not buy the cheaper products in these grocery stores, do not need mass produced items at all, etc. I mean, the entire industrial revolution was based upon the idea of selling mass produced items to the people who can buy them. Yes, many say "oh, the poor were forced to work hard for the wealth of the rich", but they never recognize that the rich never would buy something mass produced, which means that a lot of non-rich people in the middle were benefiting... and well, ultimately all of society ended up benefiting as economic growth increased, more middle class jobs were created, and ultimately wages rose and hours declined. Now, I know you probably claim regulation did all of that, however, the issue is that regulation is only likely to create the order that is forced upon people. The issue is that wages are regularly higher than the bare minimum that they have to be, and there are greater liberties than must be regulated, so I think most instead claim that improved welfare is a sign of growth, especially given that most claim the existence of labor markets, and backwards bending labor supply curves. In fact, I believe some argue that the changes in labor conditions often began before the regulation, and the regulation then just mandated these changes so as to take credit for them.