 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Philosophy Forum » Ain't Britain's NHS grand?... |
|
Page 9 of 13 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| tg... |
 Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 11:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 26, 4:46 pm, chazwin <chazwy... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 26, 12:09 pm, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 26, 7:31 am, 1Z <peterdjo... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On 26 Oct, 02:08, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
Actually i was just thinking. Since most British people live and work
in the UK for all their lives, they HAVE to pay into the national
insurance as soon as they start working. I wonder how much that add's
up to over a lifetime? For me, that would have been quite a large sum
of money, especially, since i've never really be ill with anything
(touch wood).
Some people will pay in more than they take out,
some will take out more than they pay in. Exactly the
same is true of private insurance.
Insurance is a cost-spreading mechanism.
And 'private' insurance in the US receives a large government subsidy.
So even ignoring the issue of uncompensated care, many of us have been
paying to support others that aren't in our own insurance plan.
-tg
I didn't know that. Any idea how much it costs the tax payer in
corporate tax breaks?
[/quote]
Lost revenue is USD188.5 billion for the federal government alone in
2004.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/hlthaff.w4.106v1.pdf
Apparently most people are under the delusion that large employers and
insurance companies would prefer lower health care costs, when exactly
the opposite is true. It works well for each group to have rapidly
rising costs.
-tg |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Fred Weiss... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 2:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 26, 8:09 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 26, 7:31 am, 1Z <peterdjo... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Some people will pay in more than they take out,
some will take out more than they pay in. Exactly the
same is true of private insurance. Insurance is a cost-spreading mechanism.
[/quote]
In part. But it is primarily an actuarial mechanism basing premiums
against risk, given the various factors you present to the insurer.
That is why in a rational insurance system those who present less risk
would pay *less*. For example, that's exactly how the premiums for car
insurance are determined with higher risk drivers paying higher
premiums.
Curiously, there age works in reverse. In car insurance the young
typically pay higher premiums. In health insurance they would - or
should - typically pay less. However in our current thoroughly
government distorted, highly regulated system, the young and the
healthy are given very little incentive to take out health insurance.
They in fact represent a fairly high percent of the so-called
"uninsured" for that reason.
Now in the system proposed -as e.g.in Massachusetts - everyone is
*forced* to take out a policy. It is so thoroughly perverse however
that some people actually think it is to their advantage to pay the
fines rather than the premiums.
Here is how this monstrosity is actually working:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125304790936413347.html
People are simply not being told how this will work. They will soon
find out - after it is too late.
(That is even apart from the other far more devastating consequences
of socialized medicine).
[quote]And 'private' insurance in the US receives a large government subsidy.
[/quote]
Tiggy doesn't know the difference between a tax credit and a subsidy.
(What else is new?)
Allowing you to keep *your own money* for a specified expenditure is
*not* a subsidy. It is your own effing money which the gov't in its
infinite wisdom and omnipotent power deigns to let you keep. Gee,
thanks.
Tax credits, e.g. medical savings accounts, are in fact a major step
in the right direction to solving the health care mess which *the
gov't itself has caused*. The true progressive solution is therefore
*more* free market vs. the profoundly reactionary solution of tired,
old discredited socialist solutions.
Fred Weiss |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| 1Z... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 27 Oct, 00:47, Fred Weiss <fredwe... at (no spam) papertig.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 26, 8:09 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 26, 7:31 am, 1Z <peterdjo... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Some people will pay in more than they take out,
some will take out more than they pay in. Exactly the
same is true of private insurance. Insurance is a cost-spreading mechanism.
In part. But it is primarily an actuarial mechanism basing premiums
against risk, given the various factors you present to the insurer.
That is why in a rational insurance system those who present less risk
would pay *less*. For example, that's exactly how the premiums for car
insurance are determined with higher risk drivers paying higher
premiums.
[/quote]
Which can have the effect of pricing some high risks out
of the market compeltely. Which is a death-sentence when you are
talking
about health
[quote]Curiously, there age works in reverse. In car insurance the young
typically pay higher premiums. In health insurance they would - or
should - typically pay less. However in our current thoroughly
government distorted, highly regulated system, the young and the
healthy are given very little incentive to take out health insurance.
They in fact represent a fairly high percent of the so-called
"uninsured" for that reason.
[/quote]
It's not regulated enough. THe young need to be brought into
the system as soon as possible to offset the costs of the old.
[quote]Now in the system proposed -as e.g.in Massachusetts - everyone is
*forced* to take out a policy. It is so thoroughly perverse however
that some people actually think it is to their advantage to pay the
fines rather than the premiums.
Here is how this monstrosity is actually working:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125304790936413347.html
[/quote]
"I can't use up all of my savings just to buy mandatory insurance,"
He has somehting better to spend them on than preserving his life?
[quote]People are simply not being told how this will work. They will soon
find out - after it is too late.
(That is even apart from the other far more devastating consequences
of socialized medicine).
And 'private' insurance in the US receives a large government subsidy.
Tiggy doesn't know the difference between a tax credit and a subsidy.
(What else is new?)
Allowing you to keep *your own money*
[/quote]
There is no such thing as wealth-creation ex nihilo.
Companies owe the state for the services it provides.
[quote]for a specified expenditure is
*not* a subsidy. It is your own effing money which the gov't in its
infinite wisdom and omnipotent power deigns to let you keep. Gee,
thanks.
[/quote]
No it isn't.
[quote]Tax credits, e.g. medical savings accounts, are in fact a major step
in the right direction to solving the health care mess which *the
gov't itself has caused*.
[/quote]
People paying into the system, even in the form of
medical savings acounts, when they are young and healthy
is a step in the right direction too.
[quote]The true progressive solution is therefore
*more* free market vs. the profoundly reactionary solution of tired,
old discredited socialist solutions.
Fred Weiss[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Fred Weiss... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 27, 10:30 am, 1Z <peterdjo... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On 27 Oct, 00:47, Fred Weiss <fredwe... at (no spam) papertig.com> wrote:
...the effect of pricing some high risks out
of the market compeltely. Which is a death-sentence when you are
talking about health
[/quote]
It could be but it doesn't constitute a claim (by right) against
anyone else.
In an advanced, prosperous, industrial society such instances will be
minimized by charity and pro bono physician services.
However, we also know that large numbers of people suffer - even die -
from the inadequacies of socialized medicine. I might add that such
inadequacies are *inherent* to socialized system which *must* impose
rationing or merely accelerate their system's impending (if not
actual) bankruptcy. Or raise taxes to prohibitive levels undercutting
their phoney claims of being "less costly".
In addition it is far, far better to leave medicine free from gov't
interference to allow the maximum degree of innovation and discovery
which vastly increases the liklihood of finding *cures* for those
"high risk" conditions. Since socialism is a prescription for
mediocrity and stagnation, it will end up in that way killing far more
people and/or increasing their suffering than any supposed negligence
or cruelty of the free market.
In short, socialism is no panacea for addressing your concerns:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6216559/One-in-six-NHS-patients-misdiagnosed.html
and
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6127514/Sentenced-to-death-on-the-NHS.html
and last but not least:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6092658/Cruel-and-neglectful-care-of-one-million-NHS-patients-exposed.html
[quote]...It's not regulated enough. THe young need to be brought into
the system as soon as possible to offset the costs of the old.
[/quote]
When in doubt and as the solution to all problems, we can always count
on socialists to insist that we put a gun to people's heads. For
"their own good" of course.
[quote]...There is no such thing as wealth-creation ex nihilo.
Companies owe the state for the services it provides.
[/quote]
You have that backwards of course. Who pays for the gov't? Tax
revenues aren't created ex nihilo either. Where do they come from?
They are extracted from us, by force - for which you argue we should
be eternally grateful and therefore bow down in obedience to our
masters.
I am afraid, my friend, that you have the mentality of a medieval
serf.
Fred Weiss |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| 1Z... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 27 Oct, 15:12, Fred Weiss <fredwe... at (no spam) papertig.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 27, 10:30 am, 1Z <peterdjo... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On 27 Oct, 00:47, Fred Weiss <fredwe... at (no spam) papertig.com> wrote:
...the effect of pricing some high risks out
of the market compeltely. Which is a death-sentence when you are
talking about health
It could be but it doesn't constitute a claim (by right) against
anyone else.
[/quote]
Yes it does, because putting liberty ahead of life is nonsense,
because removing someone's life is removing their liberty.
Requiring someone to make affordable mandatory payments is
slight encroachment on their liberty. Allowing someone
to die unnecessarily is a much greater encroachment on theirs,
because the dead have zero freedom. (It could even
be the same someone).
[quote]In an advanced, prosperous, industrial society such instances will be
minimized by charity and pro bono physician services.
[/quote]
They will be minimised by systems of universal health care,
as practiced in some but not all of the dvanced, prosperous,
industrial societies
in the world.
!8,000 per year people die unnecessarily in the US, that is not
minimisation.
When you say "miinimized", you mean "minimized within the limitations
of the liberty-before-life theory".
[quote]However, we also know that large numbers of people suffer - even die -
from the inadequacies of socialized medicine. I might add that such
inadequacies are *inherent* to socialized system which *must* impose
rationing or merely accelerate their system's impending (if not
actual) bankruptcy. Or raise taxes to prohibitive levels undercutting
their phoney claims of being "less costly".
[/quote]
Nonsense multiple times over. People can buy out of socialised
systems.
Socialised systems help people who would not get help in private
systems.
Costs can spiral in private systems. The US system is becoming more
ugerntly
unaffodabel than European systems.
[quote]In addition it is far, far better to leave medicine free from gov't
interference
[/quote]
More nonsense. Governments can fund without interfering clinicaly,
Alternatively, cheap insurance schemes come with numerous
strign attacehd.
[quote]to allow the maximum degree of innovation and discovery
which vastly increases the liklihood of finding *cures* for those
"high risk" conditions.
[/quote]
And delivering them to those that can afford them...this is of
course more nonsense. Most fudnamental researchis goevenemnt funded
anyway in all countries.
[quote]Since socialism is a prescription for
mediocrity and stagnation, it will end up in that way killing far more
people and/or increasing their suffering than any supposed negligence
or cruelty of the free market.
[/quote]
Universal healh care is not public health cae is not socialism.
This has been pointed out to youover and over, you are
completely locked into simplistict black-and-white thinking.
[quote]In short, socialism is no panacea for addressing your concerns:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6216559/One-in-six-NHS-p...
and
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6127514/Sentenced-to-dea...
and last but not least:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6092658/Cruel-and-neglec...
...It's not regulated enough. THe young need to be brought into
the system as soon as possible to offset the costs of the old.
When in doubt and as the solution to all problems,
[/quote]
straw man. i didn;t say "all problems"
[quote]we can always count
on socialists to insist that we put a gun to people's heads. For
"their own good" of course.
[/quote]
[quote]...There is no such thing as wealth-creation ex nihilo.
Companies owe the state for the services it provides.
You have that backwards of course. Who pays for the gov't? Tax
revenues aren't created ex nihilo either. Where do they come from?
[/quote]
The come form companies who couldn'tmake them without
infrastucture, security, an educated work force.....
[quote]They are extracted from us, by force - for which you argue we should
be eternally grateful and therefore bow down in obedience to our
masters.
I am afraid, my friend, that you have the mentality of a medieval
serf.
Fred Weiss
[/quote]
You're a randroid and no friend of mine. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Fred Weiss... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 27, 11:39 am, 1Z <peterdjo... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On 27 Oct, 15:12, Fred Weiss <fredwe... at (no spam) papertig.com> wrote:
On Oct 27, 10:30 am, 1Z <peterdjo... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On 27 Oct, 00:47, Fred Weiss <fredwe... at (no spam) papertig.com> wrote:
...the effect of pricing some high risks out
of the market compeltely. Which is a death-sentence when you are
talking about health
It could be but it doesn't constitute a claim (by right) against
anyone else.
Yes it does, because putting liberty ahead of life is nonsense,
because removing someone's life is removing their liberty.
[/quote]
If we have learned anything from history it is that removing liberty
is far more threatening to life than anything which claims to replace
it for "our own good".
[quote]!8,000 per year people die unnecessarily in the US,...
[/quote]
Please, depending on how you define "unnecessarily" that number could
be far higher.
That in itself doesn't justify the gov't controlling every aspect of
our lives.
You continually forget that gov't doesn't actually produce anything.
It is liberty which unleashes our efforts and creativity and produces
the abundance we rely on to improve our lives. It is in fact that very
production - which you want to regulate and strangle - which at the
same time you are counting on to fund your schemes.
[quote]Companies owe the state for the services it provides.
You have that backwards of course. Who pays for the gov't? Tax
revenues aren't created ex nihilo either. Where do they come from?
The come form companies who couldn'tmake them without
infrastucture, security, an educated work force.....
[/quote]
Which the companies pay for. The fact that they pay for it hardly
justifies the additional controls and looting which you advocate.
Apparently you don't realize the extent to which you sound like the
spokesman for a "protection racket".
[quote]I am afraid, my friend, that you have the mentality of a medieval
serf.
You're a randroid and no friend of mine.
[/quote]
Have I gotten you into a tizzy, poor Izzy?
Fred Weiss |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Fred Weiss... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 27, 12:56 pm, John Stafford <n... at (no spam) droffats.ten> wrote:
[quote]In article
e7c197a4-e43e-4c0e-99dd-243c556b9... at (no spam) m25g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
Fred Weiss <fredwe... at (no spam) papertig.com> wrote:
In an advanced, prosperous, industrial society such instances will be
minimized by charity and pro bono physician services.
The USA is not an industrial society.
[/quote]
Really? Than what enables us to generate a $13trillion gdp? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| 1Z... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 27 Oct, 17:06, Fred Weiss <fredwe... at (no spam) papertig.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 27, 11:39 am, 1Z <peterdjo... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On 27 Oct, 15:12, Fred Weiss <fredwe... at (no spam) papertig.com> wrote:
On Oct 27, 10:30 am, 1Z <peterdjo... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On 27 Oct, 00:47, Fred Weiss <fredwe... at (no spam) papertig.com> wrote:
...the effect of pricing some high risks out
of the market compeltely. Which is a death-sentence when you are
talking about health
It could be but it doesn't constitute a claim (by right) against
anyone else.
Yes it does, because putting liberty ahead of life is nonsense,
because removing someone's life is removing their liberty.
If we have learned anything from history it is that removing liberty
is far more threatening to life than anything which claims to replace
it for "our own good".
[/quote]
100% unconditional liberty for everybody is an impossibility,
so there is no issue of removing it: there is instead an issue
of balancing one right against another
[quote]!8,000 per year people die unnecessarily in the US,...
Please, depending on how you define "unnecessarily" that number could
be far higher.
That in itself doesn't justify the gov't controlling every aspect of
our lives.
[/quote]
"Evey aspect" is your straw-man interpolation.
It *does* justify the lesser inffingement of liberty
that is mandatory insurance, since dying of a treatable
disease is a much greater infringement.
[quote]You continually forget that gov't doesn't actually produce anything.
It is liberty which unleashes our efforts and creativity and produces
the abundance we rely on to improve our lives. It is in fact that very
production - which you want to regulate and strangle - which at the
same time you are counting on to fund your schemes.
[/quote]
Yadda yadda. You continualy forget that I am not a socialist
and I do not want government to control everything.
[quote]Companies owe the state for the services it provides.
You have that backwards of course. Who pays for the gov't? Tax
revenues aren't created ex nihilo either. Where do they come from?
The come form companies who couldn'tmake them without
infrastucture, security, an educated work force.....
Which the companies pay for.
[/quote]
Which the companies pay the government to provide.
[quote]The fact that they pay for it hardly
justifies the additional controls and looting which you advocate.
[/quote]
Not "controls".
I am only proposing one additional measure which
works successfully in many countries.
[quote]Apparently you don't realize the extent to which you sound like the
spokesman for a "protection racket".
[/quote]
Apparently, you have stopped listening to what
I am saying and are just spouting a pre-recorded
randroid rant about "socialism" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Fred Weiss... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 27, 1:19 pm, 1Z <peterdjo... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On 27 Oct, 17:06, Fred Weiss <fredwe... at (no spam) papertig.com> wrote:
If we have learned anything from history it is that removing liberty
is far more threatening to life than anything which claims to replace
it for "our own good".
100% unconditional liberty for everybody is an impossibility,
so there is no issue of removing it: there is instead an issue
of balancing one right against another.
[/quote]
Actually, no, there is no such issue. It is in fact that supposed
"balancing" of rights which leads to their destruction.
Rights - properly defined - are not in conflict with each other.
My guess is - because you are usually so dizzy, Izzy - that you have a
distorted/strawman notion of "100% unconditional liberty" as something
equivalent to "doing whatever you want", which no one is advocating
(and is not a right anyway).
[quote]...Yadda yadda. You continualy forget that I am not a socialist
and I do not want government to control everything.
[/quote]
Yeah, we know, there just doesn't seem to be any limit to how far you
are willing to go to impose controls. Nor, conveniently, do you ever
define where the limits are. But somehow they just keep growing, like
a contagious disease.
It would never occur to you that it is those very controls which
create the problems which you think require even more controls. Hence
the current "thinking" in regard to our healthcare and financial
"crisis".
[quote]...Apparently, you have stopped listening to what
I am saying and are just spouting a pre-recorded
randroid rant about "socialism"
[/quote]
Now, Izzy, that's unfair. You know I hang on your every word and
regard each and every one of your pronouncements like a rare treat
which I take great pleasure in...batting outa the park.
Fred Weiss |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| 1Z... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 27 Oct, 17:32, Fred Weiss <fredwe... at (no spam) papertig.com> wrote:
[quote]My guess is - because you are usually so dizzy, Izzy - that you have a
distorted/strawman notion of "100% unconditional liberty" as something
equivalent to "doing whatever you want",
[/quote]
Any English speaker would.
[quote]which no one is advocating
(and is not a right anyway).
...Yadda yadda. You continualy forget that I am not a socialist
and I do not want government to control everything.
Yeah, we know, there just doesn't seem to be any limit to how far you
are willing to go to impose controls.
[/quote]
I think I've mentioned two (2) issues in all these
years. The rest is in your imagination.
<>Nor, conveniently, do you ever
[quote]define where the limits are. But somehow they just keep growing, like
a contagious disease.
It would never occur to you that it is those very controls which
create the problems which you think require even more controls.
[/quote]
Well, there is a certain lack of evidence.
[quote]Hence
the current "thinking" in regard to our healthcare and financial
"crisis".
[/quote]
I've lived through some experiments in deregulation
and the results weren't fantastically impressive. But,
hety, why look at evidence when you have a dogma?
[quote]...Apparently, you have stopped listening to what
I am saying and are just spouting a pre-recorded
randroid rant about "socialism"
Now, Izzy, that's unfair. You know I hang on your every word
[/quote]
....to the extent tha tyou *still* haven't figured otu I'm not
a socialist..
[quote]and
regard each and every one of your pronouncements like a rare treat
which I take great pleasure in...batting outa the park.
Fred Weiss[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Stafford... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article
<e7c197a4-e43e-4c0e-99dd-243c556b9bba at (no spam) m25g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
Fred Weiss <fredweiss at (no spam) papertig.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 27, 10:30 am, 1Z <peterdjo... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On 27 Oct, 00:47, Fred Weiss <fredwe... at (no spam) papertig.com> wrote:
...the effect of pricing some high risks out
of the market compeltely. Which is a death-sentence when you are
talking about health
It could be but it doesn't constitute a claim (by right) against
anyone else.
In an advanced, prosperous, industrial society such instances will be
minimized by charity and pro bono physician services.
[/quote]
The USA is not an industrial society. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Fred Weiss... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 27, 2:59 pm, 1Z <peterdjo... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On 27 Oct, 17:32, Fred Weiss <fredwe... at (no spam) papertig.com> wrote:
...Yadda yadda. You continualy forget that I am not a socialist
and I do not want government to control everything.
Yeah, we know, there just doesn't seem to be any limit to how far you
are willing to go to impose controls.
I think I've mentioned two (2) issues in all these
years. The rest is in your imagination.
[/quote]
Can you give us a few examples of proposed economic controls which you
*opposed*? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| 1Z... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 28 Oct, 05:25, Fred Weiss <fredwe... at (no spam) papertig.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 27, 2:59 pm, 1Z <peterdjo... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On 27 Oct, 17:32, Fred Weiss <fredwe... at (no spam) papertig.com> wrote:
...Yadda yadda. You continualy forget that I am not a socialist
and I do not want government to control everything.
Yeah, we know, there just doesn't seem to be any limit to how far you
are willing to go to impose controls.
I think I've mentioned two (2) issues in all these
years. The rest is in your imagination.
Can you give us a few examples of proposed economic controls which you
*opposed*?
[/quote]
I don't believe the state should take wholesale control of the means
of production. I approve of some specific privatisations, such
as those of telecoms. Note that there haven't been many regulatory
proposals
put forward in the past couple of decades because of the prevalence
of free-market thinking even among previously leftish politcal parties. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| john whine... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 3:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 27, 10:12 am, Fred Weiss <fredwe... at (no spam) papertig.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 27, 10:30 am, 1Z <peterdjo... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On 27 Oct, 00:47, Fred Weiss <fredwe... at (no spam) papertig.com> wrote:
...the effect of pricing some high risks out
of the market compeltely. Which is a death-sentence when you are
talking about health
It could be but it doesn't constitute a claim (by right) against
anyone else.
In an advanced, prosperous, industrial society such instances will be
minimized by charity and pro bono physician services.
However, we also know that large numbers of people suffer - even die -
from the inadequacies of socialized medicine. I might add that such
inadequacies are *inherent* to socialized system which *must* impose
rationing or merely accelerate their system's impending (if not
actual) bankruptcy. Or raise taxes to prohibitive levels undercutting
their phoney claims of being "less costly".
In addition it is far, far better to leave medicine free from gov't
interference to allow the maximum degree of innovation and discovery
which vastly increases the liklihood of finding *cures* for those
"high risk" conditions. Since socialism is a prescription for
mediocrity and stagnation, it will end up in that way killing far more
people and/or increasing their suffering than any supposed negligence
or cruelty of the free market.
In short, socialism is no panacea for addressing your concerns:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6216559/One-in-six-NHS-p...
and
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6127514/Sentenced-to-dea...
and last but not least:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6092658/Cruel-and-neglec...
...It's not regulated enough. THe young need to be brought into
the system as soon as possible to offset the costs of the old.
When in doubt and as the solution to all problems, we can always count
on socialists to insist that we put a gun to people's heads. For
"their own good" of course.
...There is no such thing as wealth-creation ex nihilo.
Companies owe the state for the services it provides.
You have that backwards of course. Who pays for the gov't? Tax
revenues aren't created ex nihilo either. Where do they come from?
They are extracted from us, by force - for which you argue we should
be eternally grateful and therefore bow down in obedience to our
masters.
I am afraid, my friend, that you have the mentality of a medieval
serf.
Fred Weiss
[/quote]
you, my friend, are what they call a "house nigger" for the right
money. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| john whine... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 3:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 27, 12:06 pm, Fred Weiss <fredwe... at (no spam) papertig.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 27, 11:39 am, 1Z <peterdjo... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On 27 Oct, 15:12, Fred Weiss <fredwe... at (no spam) papertig.com> wrote:
On Oct 27, 10:30 am, 1Z <peterdjo... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On 27 Oct, 00:47, Fred Weiss <fredwe... at (no spam) papertig.com> wrote:
...the effect of pricing some high risks out
of the market compeltely. Which is a death-sentence when you are
talking about health
It could be but it doesn't constitute a claim (by right) against
anyone else.
Yes it does, because putting liberty ahead of life is nonsense,
because removing someone's life is removing their liberty.
If we have learned anything from history it is that removing liberty
is far more threatening to life than anything which claims to replace
it for "our own good".
!8,000 per year people die unnecessarily in the US,...
Please, depending on how you define "unnecessarily" that number could
be far higher.
That in itself doesn't justify the gov't controlling every aspect of
our lives.
You continually forget that gov't doesn't actually produce anything.
It is liberty which unleashes our efforts and creativity and produces
the abundance we rely on to improve our lives. It is in fact that very
production - which you want to regulate and strangle - which at the
same time you are counting on to fund your schemes.
Companies owe the state for the services it provides.
You have that backwards of course. Who pays for the gov't? Tax
revenues aren't created ex nihilo either. Where do they come from?
The come form companies who couldn'tmake them without
infrastucture, security, an educated work force.....
Which the companies pay for. The fact that they pay for it hardly
justifies the additional controls and looting which you advocate.
Apparently you don't realize the extent to which you sound like the
spokesman for a "protection racket".
I am afraid, my friend, that you have the mentality of a medieval
serf.
You're a randroid and no friend of mine.
Have I gotten you into a tizzy, poor Izzy?
Fred Weiss
[/quote]
let's hear it for somalia, puto.
got yer ak yet?
hahahahahahaa
hahahahahahah
hahahahahahah
hahahahahahah |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Dec 14, 2009 10:09 pm
|
|