Universal Healthcare & Canada -- Canadiens as to please explain
- Thread starter elsol
- Start date
Liar
now with 17% more class
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Posts
- 43,715
I dance a fine dance around the issue? Amusing little man.amicus said:
I still see that you are conveniently ignoring my earlier post. Which is based on economical principles so basic that a ten year old would grasp it.
What I waid was:
* A deregulated health care market will sell most health care at a certain supply-and-demand generated price. (A)
* Cheaper health care, costing (B), is still possible if the free doctors' margins are cut. So to a point there is a sustainable health care market for the less wealthy.
* But only to that point. Those who can't afford (B), are fucked.
* And like it ro not, we are all dependant on those people. They do the shitty jobs that has to be done, or else society will deteriorate. They won't do them, or will do them less, if they can't get health care.
Who sweeps your street, Guido?
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
elsol said:
Sure I can, why not? I like to name-drop now and then, just to impress the gallery. There was this lady in the bible who could not conceive a child by her husband, so she sent her husband to the servant girl and got a son thataway. Then, lo and behold, she had a son, by her husband and tossed the first son out the door.
And another one too...where the wife of the brother, slept with the stepfather to bear a child to keep the line of sucession going.
Lottsa fine female lore in biblical times that support my contention that women have no ethics and no morality and will do anything to achieve their goals.
You really think I am wrong about this?
amicus...
LadyJeanne
deluded
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2004
- Posts
- 5,885
amicus said:
Yes, I do think you're wrong. Ya think those women acted alone? Who did they act with? Or are men so stupid as to fall for these feminine wiles? Is that why you fear women? You know you are susceptible and hate your weakness?
And let me remind you, Bible stories were written by men who were a product of their unenlightened times. Clearly, they feared women as well.
Last edited:
elsol
I'm still sleeepy!
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2005
- Posts
- 3,964
amicus said:
It's like me saying 'Well... X is true because the moon is made of green cheese.'
It's basic formal logic of a nonsensical argument. X might be true but so what the entire statement is idiotic.
You're a man, dammit... don't let these women pull you down into their emotionalism.
Logic, reason, consistency.
Sincerely,
ElSol
Liar
now with 17% more class
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Posts
- 43,715
And to answer the rest of your question:amicus said:
I haven't been debating this. I was talking about the need for public healthcare, not the need for forbidding private healthcare. I think that (restrictions of private healthcare) is principally wrong.
What I advocate is that a vital public (<bogeyman alert>most probably tax funded</bogey man alert>) healthcare - or any other form that provides sufficient service affordabe by all - is paramount to the vitality of a society as a whole.
Last edited:
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
minsue said:ElSol, I think I love you.
What is that? A Bondage avatar? Chuckles...make my day!
ElSol....We all know that those less fortunate in society have a more difficult life.
My contention is that in all things, a free market place will do the best job of supplying goods and services to ALL.
And yes, a poorly equiped health clinic, perhaps even run on donated time by medical people is not as good as top of the line care.
There has always been a 'Pro Bono' ethic amongst professional people, they freely donate their time and skills to the poor.
But my poor little lower class socialists don't want to have to accept charity, they want the government to step in and force the doctors and lawyers to contribute.
There really is no valid argument for socialism in any guise, it just doesn't work as so many hoped it would.
If you truly have concern about the lowest class of people in a society, support and advocate a free market system that will bring jobs and wealth to all levels. That is the most compassionate thing you can do and it does not require forcing anyone to do anything against their will.
amicus...
rgraham666
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2004
- Posts
- 43,712
Since when has The Truth (Add cool reverb effect to get the right emotional tone) been logical, reasonable or consistent?
That's what our 'friend' is pushing.
I love his pushing of Rand. She was such a submissive. And she fully accepted the Marxist analysis of how a capitalist system should work. She just thought it was a good thing, rather than a bad thing like your standard Marxist.
That's what our 'friend' is pushing.
I love his pushing of Rand. She was such a submissive. And she fully accepted the Marxist analysis of how a capitalist system should work. She just thought it was a good thing, rather than a bad thing like your standard Marxist.
Liar
now with 17% more class
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Posts
- 43,715
If you find one, let me know, and I'll advocate it. All I've seen described so far creates victims in the margins.amicus said:
At the same time, all socialistic systems I've seen is holding back those not in the margin.
I fear that the best we can do is an intermediate of those two.
I guess that makes me an anti-human commie basterd to you. But really, do I care?
elsol
I'm still sleeepy!
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2005
- Posts
- 3,964
rgraham666 said:
By definition truth must be logical, reasonable, and consistent, especially 'THE TRUTH'.
If it's not logical, reasonable, and consistent than it's either NOT 'THE TRUTH' or we don't understand why it's 'THE TRUTH'.
Case in point... all of Ami's statements about women... while he pushes Randism.
If women are weak, emotional... yadda...yadda...yadda... then so was Ayn Rand.
Therefore all her theories came from weakness, emotionalism... etc.
That's why I put forth Nietche...
Much more reasonalbe, logical, and consistent to use his ideas if you're going to decry the weaker sex.
Sincerely,
ElSol
rgraham666
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2004
- Posts
- 43,712
I'm no longer concerned with the truth. I'll never know it.
The good is more important to me.
And Nietzsche only ever said one wise thing in my opinon.
The good is more important to me.
And Nietzsche only ever said one wise thing in my opinon.
TheEarl
Occasional visitor
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2002
- Posts
- 9,808
elsol said:
See amicus - even the people who are arguing your viewpoint still use the simple, basic, economic theory that you wholeheartedly reject.
For those interested, those are the kind of graphs that I used to cause amicus to accuse me of 'lusting for empire' when he lost our last argument (Ami - before you moan about 'lost' being subjective; you stopped arguing the point and started insulting me, cause you had no response). I used them to show that the free market will never provide for everyone who needs medical care, only those who can afford it and that it is entirely possible to provide exactly the same service at higher volume if the right subsidies are applied. That flash shows the down sides which are that it does take a lot of money and runs the risk of inflation.
Where'd you find it ElSol?
The Earl
elsol
I'm still sleeepy!
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2005
- Posts
- 3,964
TheEarl said:
I was looking to find documents on the pure economics of 'Universal Healthcare'.
I read a couple of interesting articles about the things that must 'necessarily' happen for universal healthcare to work... i.e. government taking over the entire medical industry to control costs, etc.
In a google search of 'Economics of Universal Healthcare' that's the top pick.
Sincerely,
ElSol
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
The Earl mentioned a google search...so I did one:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15524
http://www.aapsonline.org/brochures/smoot.htm
Government Controlled Medicine: The Destruction of the Physician-Patient Relationship: Part II
Richard G. Parker, MD
The moral basis of the physician-patient relationship is that value is traded for value, with the standard being the physician’s and patient’s best self-interest. Replacing the physician’s and patient’s self-interest with the use or threat of government force destroys the moral foundation of the physician-patient relationship and ultimately destroys medicine. The only one who derives any short term benefit from this situation is whoever is applying the use of force.
One of the most tragic effects of state controlled health care is the phenomena of “brain drain.” No young bright individual, no dedicated physician who has spent years mercilessly studying and mastering his art wishes to be a slave to the government. For a competent individual, the prospect of sacrificing his talents and hard earned skill to a bureaucrat who’s only qualification to rule him is a gun placed in his hand by politicians is a moral outrage. Such an individual will never enter the field but will choose a career where more freedom exists, or, if the state begins controlling medicine after he has already started a medical career, such an individual will continue to work in the medical field until early retirement is possible or has acquired sufficient skills for another field where more freedom exists. Ultimately the medical field is left to individuals who are less and less competent and less concerned with what happens to their patients.
http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/Government_Controlled_Medicine2.html
MYTH: “A RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE”
People who believe in socialized medicine have come to believe many myths. One is that socialized medicine gives you a right to health care. If you ask the head of Parkland Hospital and his counterpart in Toronto or London what the difference is in these systems, I think all three would say that in Toronto and London people have a “right” to health care, whereas in Dallas they do not. That is just not true. If you’re a citizen of Canada, you don’t really have a right to any particular health care service. You don’t have a right to heart surgery. You don’t even have a right to a place in the waiting line. If you’re the hundredth person waiting for heart surgery, you’re not entitled to the hundredth surgery. Other people can and do get in ahead of you. From time to time, even Americans go to Canada and jump the queue, because Americans can do something that Canadians cannot - Americans can pay for care. Canadian hospitals love to admit American patients, because that means cash into their budgets. The British government says that, at any one time, there are about a million people waiting to get into hospitals. According to the Fraser Institute, almost 900,000 Canadian patients are on the waiting list at any point in time. And, according to the New Zealand government, 90,000 people are on the waiting lists there. Those people constitute only about 1 to 2 percent of the population in those countries, but keep in mind that only about 15 percent of the population actually enters a hospital each year. Many of the people waiting are waiting in pain. Many are risking their lives by waiting. And there is no market mechanism in these countries to get care first to people who need it first.
http://www.health--savings--accounts.com/article-8-john.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Just in case you thought I was the only one with criticism of the concept of socialized medicine...
amicus...
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15524
http://www.aapsonline.org/brochures/smoot.htm
Government Controlled Medicine: The Destruction of the Physician-Patient Relationship: Part II
Richard G. Parker, MD
The moral basis of the physician-patient relationship is that value is traded for value, with the standard being the physician’s and patient’s best self-interest. Replacing the physician’s and patient’s self-interest with the use or threat of government force destroys the moral foundation of the physician-patient relationship and ultimately destroys medicine. The only one who derives any short term benefit from this situation is whoever is applying the use of force.
One of the most tragic effects of state controlled health care is the phenomena of “brain drain.” No young bright individual, no dedicated physician who has spent years mercilessly studying and mastering his art wishes to be a slave to the government. For a competent individual, the prospect of sacrificing his talents and hard earned skill to a bureaucrat who’s only qualification to rule him is a gun placed in his hand by politicians is a moral outrage. Such an individual will never enter the field but will choose a career where more freedom exists, or, if the state begins controlling medicine after he has already started a medical career, such an individual will continue to work in the medical field until early retirement is possible or has acquired sufficient skills for another field where more freedom exists. Ultimately the medical field is left to individuals who are less and less competent and less concerned with what happens to their patients.
http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/Government_Controlled_Medicine2.html
MYTH: “A RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE”
People who believe in socialized medicine have come to believe many myths. One is that socialized medicine gives you a right to health care. If you ask the head of Parkland Hospital and his counterpart in Toronto or London what the difference is in these systems, I think all three would say that in Toronto and London people have a “right” to health care, whereas in Dallas they do not. That is just not true. If you’re a citizen of Canada, you don’t really have a right to any particular health care service. You don’t have a right to heart surgery. You don’t even have a right to a place in the waiting line. If you’re the hundredth person waiting for heart surgery, you’re not entitled to the hundredth surgery. Other people can and do get in ahead of you. From time to time, even Americans go to Canada and jump the queue, because Americans can do something that Canadians cannot - Americans can pay for care. Canadian hospitals love to admit American patients, because that means cash into their budgets. The British government says that, at any one time, there are about a million people waiting to get into hospitals. According to the Fraser Institute, almost 900,000 Canadian patients are on the waiting list at any point in time. And, according to the New Zealand government, 90,000 people are on the waiting lists there. Those people constitute only about 1 to 2 percent of the population in those countries, but keep in mind that only about 15 percent of the population actually enters a hospital each year. Many of the people waiting are waiting in pain. Many are risking their lives by waiting. And there is no market mechanism in these countries to get care first to people who need it first.
http://www.health--savings--accounts.com/article-8-john.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Just in case you thought I was the only one with criticism of the concept of socialized medicine...
amicus...
TheEarl
Occasional visitor
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2002
- Posts
- 9,808
amicus said:
Amazing. You referenced my post, but don't appear to actually have read it. If you had, you would've noticed that ElSol was the one who had googled and had in fact found a very well argued and thought out flash animation criticising public health provision, which was what I was praising in my post.
If your answers showed a tenth of the understanding of the subject that that link did, then you might stand a chance of not looking so ridiculous every time you argue. Your case is not without merit; however you are completely incapable of debating it.
The Earl
PS. I now predict an amicus post asking why I'm always making personl attacks on him and that "my innate hatred of mankind would make you say that, wouldn't it?"
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
ElSol, Earl...
"...In a google search of 'Economics of Universal Healthcare' that's the top pick.
Sincerely,
ElSol..."
Actually that is why I went googling in the first place, to find, 'Economics of Universal Healthcare' but I found nothing under that title and went looking elsewhere.
amicus...
"...In a google search of 'Economics of Universal Healthcare' that's the top pick.
Sincerely,
ElSol..."
Actually that is why I went googling in the first place, to find, 'Economics of Universal Healthcare' but I found nothing under that title and went looking elsewhere.
amicus...
LadyJeanne
deluded
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2004
- Posts
- 5,885
TheEarl said:
Why do you hate freedom?
