Latest Diablo 3 News
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

How Do Universal Health Care Advocates Justify...

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by TakeMyCrabs, May 1, 2008.

  1. Tanooki

    Tanooki Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Messages:
    2,117
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Re: How Do Universal Health Care Advocates Justify...

    I'm guessing your math is a tad fuzzy. If $100 is taken from you, and the taker charges $10, you'll be getting $90 worth of benefits - IF you qualify.
     
  2. Module88

    Module88 Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2003
    Messages:
    5,722
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    466
    Re: How Do Universal Health Care Advocates Justify...

    As always, no rebuttal, no answers to any of my questions, and constant talk about how my ideas are loony/stupid/ignorant/wrong. I predict excuses next on how I'm so wrong but you can't be bothered to type a long response, or my questions are so stupid they aren't worth answering, or any one of the numerous excuses I've seen from many people when confronted with an argument they can't adequately address or questions they can't answer with a straight face.

    In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you already pulled the excuse card on Moo, Saro, or Killer if you've argued with them here.



     
  3. Widan

    Widan Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2006
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Re: How Do Universal Health Care Advocates Justify...

    Aren't all laws simply telling people what's best for them? Do you believe in any laws?
     
  4. Module88

    Module88 Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2003
    Messages:
    5,722
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    466
    Re: How Do Universal Health Care Advocates Justify...

    I'm not sure who you're asking, but I'll give my take on it anyway.

    No, not all laws tell people what is best for them. Laws against murder, theft, and other infringement upon the rights of another are not there to protect the welfare of the criminal. They are there because you do not have a right to murder someone, or steal their property, so on. Law is a necessary and vital component of a libertarian system.



     
  5. Widan

    Widan Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2006
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Re: How Do Universal Health Care Advocates Justify...

    They are in place to protect the welfare of society. Having these laws is basically saying that society is better off as a whole if murder, theft, etc. are illegal. Which I agree with, but the government is speaking for every member of the society without knowing what is best for each individual only the whole. Some people I'm sure would be better off if murder or theft was legal, but they don't get to make that decision, the government decides for them.

    Are you talking natural rights or Constitutional rights?



     
  6. SaroDarksbane

    SaroDarksbane Diabloii.Net Site Pal

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    Messages:
    8,563
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    467
    Re: How Do Universal Health Care Advocates Justify...

    Why does returning to one mean returning to the other? Was Chicago rebuilt by slaves?
    No system existed . . . until it did.

    If "We've never done it before" was an excuse not to do something, we'd still be in the stone age.
    Why? This one looks like a good place to start.
    A rapist forces himself on others.
    You and I force people not to be rapists through the rule of law.

    Are we no better than rapists?

    You see, that's essentially your argument: That a thief is no better than a person who prevents thievery, since they both use force to achieve their goals.



     
  7. WildBerry

    WildBerry Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Messages:
    6,328
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Re: How Do Universal Health Care Advocates Justify...

    No, but it serves to point out that at least in Europe the concept of slavery has been so tied with ethnicity that has defined the terminology of the very word for longer than a thousand years (first entry in English appeared in the 1200s, yes, but Italian and Spanish equivalents antedated it).

    And what does the Bible say about it? That you can't enslave your own people, but the neighbouring peoples are free game? That doesn't sound at all ethnically defined slavery, now does it?

    Why should it be so? The broader definition of "fit" allows variety in population's gene pool, which makes it easier to adapt as a species should change in habitat ensue.

    We got to walk from the guy we didn't like and pay for another opinion. How is that less of a choice than fully privatised health care? Seems we actually have one option more.

    So only rich people should be able to lead a life with, say, proper health care, in the sparser areas. That is an expected outcome of your train of thought - and consistent, since you would put these things to the field of personal responsibility. I, however, would rather like to see the farther reaches of my country populated.

    When demand is low and there are no more people to be catered (less so if we went through the closing down of national health-care et al., for fewer could afford to live here, as per your wishes; they would be better off, though, so I would assume it would balance out), where would the incentive be? Remember, he IS working in the private clinic and being just the same prick. When you have need for one cynegologist clinic (in addition to the one in the single national hospital in the area) in the area of two countys (roughly 60.000 square miles and roughly 600.000 people altogether), where is the competition going to come from? As much as you would make the migration sound like a solution, few people can afford to leave their jobs and homes for one prick of a doctor.

    Ah, so they only measure health care quality partily, but you apparently had no qualms about them measuring health of a citizen. Then there is no disagreement.

    I, however, see no reason to assume adverse effects from the better health care system, nor even that it would not compound on the effects of nutrition (for some reason, I also think of a Japanese man smoking like a chimney that I know of, but we're headed into realm anecdotal).

    Not that you have to try everything yourself to assess it, but as I haven't seen him spend time in your hospitals, I wouldn't take it from him, honestly, should he say that and offer no further comparison - even personal opinions have to lie on some ground to have validity outside one's own head.

    Then again, Johnny addressed the speed of the treatment issue. As far as he could tell, his needs had been addressed without a delay - as we remember from him falling from the scaffolds thing. Of course, he has had no heart transplants or gallstones removed, so whether there are surgery queues he has not told us. However, based on what he has said, it is presumptuous to say that he would accept delays - it actually sounds as if he is taking that trait of health care into account when assessing it, and scrutinises it.

    Admittedly, AJ doesn't always take your point of view into consideration in full. You, however, neatly go verify his comment about the one-eyedness: his opinion is that not all people necessarily have to be forced into chipping in to taxes nor do all have general disagreement on the use the money. While it is not necessarily morally sound either (in fact; not necessarily any better - I foresee comparison between genocides of popular demand and taxation of popular demand, and I would like to pre-emptively ask you to consider before you seriously compare the two), doing what the mob is demanding you to do does not necessarily make you a thug.

    But, uh, if nobody would bring that kind of suit, what does it matter if the system associated would in that respect become inefficient? It could be slow and costly if anyone came in, but didn't you just say nobody would do it anyway?

    Yes, it would probably make the protection of justice for a single person worse off. But I am unsure whether better quality thereof was Killer's Aim in this point at all.



     
    Last edited: May 8, 2008
  8. KillerAim

    KillerAim Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,358
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    121
    Re: How Do Universal Health Care Advocates Justify...

    AeroJonesy:
    Outside of that answer just proving what a greedy bastard libertarian thinker you are, it's not your concern about whether or not you benefit from your forced donation. Society has decided it does. Live with it.

    Let's talk about 'force'.

    You are saying that Society should help out the those in need. Guess what? I agree. But you go further. You say that Society should force people to help out the those in need whether or not they want to. I am saying that everyone that wants to help out should be able to help and everyone that doesn't want to help should be able to not help. If your viewpoint is the standard, then I will be forced to do what you say even if I disagree with it. If my viewpoint becomes the standard, you can still do what you want even if I beieve you should do something else.

    How in the hell is me saying that you have the right to do what you want, no matter how I feel about it, considered an act of force to you?

    Now let's talk about 'elitism'.

    You are either saying that you know better than others what actions to take or you are saying that you are morally superior to other people who are too greedy to do the right thing. I am saying that other people's opinions are as valid as mine and just as they have no right to force their opinions on me, I have no right to force my opinions on them.

    Since elitism can be defined as a belief in superiority that gives a member of a group the right to special treatment or the right to rule others, whose attitude smacks of elitism; yours or mine?

    And it's your duty to protect those people from their own actions, right?

    Double sigh. The Market is made up of countless upon countless mutually agreed upon transactions. The Government is based on forced transactions. In a Market, even if there is only one person who doesn't believe that he needs to know if a certain drug is safe of effective before he purchases it, he can buy an untested drug without fear of penalty. With the Government controlled FDA, I cannot either buy or sell a drug even if I am certain that the drug is safe unless I go through the specific steps set up by the FDA. And let me tell you something, the Market will react to any situation quicker than the Government 99.99999% of the time (to borrow Dondrei's percentage).

    I don't have to make any assumption; the facts and logic bear it out. From here.
    That means that Brits have had access to valuable drugs years, if not decades, before Americans could buy them. That also means that there are thousands of people that have suffered needlessly for no perceived benefit.

    Still an assumption, you say? Read the following:
    - - -

    That an assumption on your part. Loser pay tort laws work in Europe and cases supported by hard science rather than speculation could and would still be brought to trial.

    Do you or do you not agree that companies have settled cases that they could have won because the cost of defending themselves would have been greater than the cost of settlement? And again, assuming that a loser-pay tort system and a high level of scientific proof for class-actions suits would lead to inefficiencies in the Court System and higher costs is nothing more than a guess on your part.

    The cases I documented ended up with the losers having to pay over 5 billion for decisions based on opinions that proved to be totally unsupported by science. Loser-pay tort law and higher level of scientific proofs in class-actions suits would also diminish the workload on an already overloaded Court System. You're going to have to show me a hell of a lot of support before I will even consider believing your WAG.
    And I see that you have done nothing to refute what he's said except to make some personal attacks.

    God! You make me wish I was a lawyer. I could have made a killing if your responses in this thread are the standard for the legal arguments that I would have faced in the Courts or across a Boardroom table.
     
  9. PFSS

    PFSS Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Messages:
    1,468
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Re: How Do Universal Health Care Advocates Justify...

    Those poor suckers in the EU, with their inefficient and expensive socialised medicine. Serves them right to have to pay more and wait longer for new drugs.

    Oh wait....


     
  10. KillerAim

    KillerAim Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,358
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    121
    Re: How Do Universal Health Care Advocates Justify...

    PFSS:

    No one is arguing that the Health Care System in the United States is a totally Free Market System (it's actually a mix of a private system, a third party pay system, and socialized medicine). This is especially the case when it comes to approving drugs for sale. The FDA is a total monopoly. No drug can be sold in this Country until they give their approval. It IS socialism at its worst.

    You're not comparing a Free Market practice to Socialism; you're comparing very poor Socialism to Socialism.
     
  11. Nazdakka

    Nazdakka Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,470
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Re: How Do Universal Health Care Advocates Justify...

    Come on, you must know that's a combination strawman-red herring. I'm making a point about social mobility, and suddenly I want to take away kids from parents I don't like?

    I think that a likely consequence of a Libertarian policy is that people born poor to poor parents will stay poor, and people born to rich parents will stay rich. That's unacceptable to me - I see this potentially resulting in a society ruled by inherited wealth, with severe impediments placed in the way of those born to less wealthy parents.



     
  12. Bortaz

    Bortaz Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    11,312
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: How Do Universal Health Care Advocates Justify...

    Government intervention isn't what facilitates a poor kid in overcoming his poverty. In fact, I'd say the mentality that everything has to be handed to them /they don't stand a chance is the worst roadblock of all. If you're born poor, and are waiting for government to make you rich, you're wasting your time and your potential.


    I heard a quote today, that went something like: America is a place ... THE place, where your success is only limited by your willingness to succeed.



     
  13. bagar

    bagar Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2003
    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    11
    Re: How Do Universal Health Care Advocates Justify...

    At KillerAim:

    The examples of drugs not admitted by FDA are just that... Examples. There are other drugs that have been approved earlier i USA than in most Europe. The misfortune from not allowing these particular drugs sooner are actually highly debatable as well.

    The point i want to make though, is that you need a controlling organ when it comes to allowing different drug therapies! There are several reasons.

    As a patient with an illness you have to know whether the drug you are using may actually help you or not. Your own health are not something you want to put at risk when choosing your therapy, which would be likely the result with an unrestricted market.

    You cant expect ordinary people to fully understand the different pharmacological effects of different substances or evaluate lots of different scientific studies to see whether for example bisoprolol or metoprolol will help reduce your blood preasure the most.

    You have also the risk of unknown long-term side effects which there are several examples of in the medical history. In an unrestricted field noone would know or have control until a potential catastrophy has happended.

    It would also be very hard for a doctor to always choose the right therapy when you havent got any "seal of approval" from some other party than the pharmacephtical company. Believe it or not even doctors cant keep up to date with all available studies and it is often hard to evaluate the significance, as most new medicines aren't major breakthroughs, but ones hat may indicate a slightly better long term outcome in populations in large studies. These studies are often very difficult to interpret onto an individual, in a socioeconomic context as it is.
     
  14. PlagueBearer

    PlagueBearer Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Messages:
    627
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Re: How Do Universal Health Care Advocates Justify...

    The problem here is that you seem to think we have some kind of right to live forever, as if somehow if it is possible at any cost to treat a given ailment every single person should get it. Sometimes the cost to keep someone alive is just not worth it.



     
  15. Dondrei

    Dondrei Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    36,859
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    469
    Re: How Do Universal Health Care Advocates Justify...

    But doesn't that naturally create a "black market" for food stamps? Currency is what people will accept, no matter what the government says...

    I don't know about your suggestion for health care. Over here people have to pay a proportion of their bill so there is some impetus to save (not that it matters, prices are pretty uniform), but if you give them a $500 "health care stamp" either one of two things will occur:

    1) The stamp really is only good for health care, in which case they don't really have a motive to save since they have $500 which they can't spend on anything else anyway.

    2) The stamp becomes a de facto currency, in which case it's no different from just giving them the money.

    That's true, but you have to weigh it up against the legitimate cases too. While I agree that some action needs to be taken, I think what you proposed would be pushing the pendulum too far in the other direction.

    Yeah, but it's not a reasonable standard of evidence for torts. In criminal cases we're talking about people being sent to prison, the "beyond a reasonable doubt" stuff is very "a hundred guilty men go free". I don't think people are so amenable to "a hundred negligent practitioners go unpunished".

    And how much money you have.



     
  16. Bortaz

    Bortaz Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    11,312
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: How Do Universal Health Care Advocates Justify...

    So, your definition of success is how much money you have. I see.
     
  17. IntellectSucks

    IntellectSucks Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    233
    Re: How Do Universal Health Care Advocates Justify...

    I'm a little confused about this libertarian debate. Social services aside, what is the libertarian stance on the governments role in society and the governments ability to collect taxes?
     
  18. Tanooki

    Tanooki Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Messages:
    2,117
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Re: How Do Universal Health Care Advocates Justify...

    I think the IRS should be required to stand outside of your place of business and forcibly collect their money on payday. This would wake (especially liberals) up and make them want to take action to keep their money.

    Automatic withholding makes it fair more painless and easier for the average person to swallow.
     
  19. IntellectSucks

    IntellectSucks Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    233
    Re: How Do Universal Health Care Advocates Justify...

    And you wonder why people invent names like "losertarians" and say you have no compassion whatsoever? I asked a legitimate question to try and understand your point of view and you respond with this rubbish?


     
  20. WildBerry

    WildBerry Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Messages:
    6,328
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Re: How Do Universal Health Care Advocates Justify...

    The number 2 has issues with any sort of personal binding, such as I.D. requirement or other ear-marking. Such a market cannot sustain itself without a strong support from heavy forgery.

    Not saying it cannot happen, just that it needs some favourable circumstances.

    But yes, without further caveats I would also assume that the number 1) would realise itself, ergo that there would be an awful lot of bandages and ibuprofen/paracetamol bought with 500$ stamps.



     

Share This Page