| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
The T 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
 Posted: September 26 2010 at 19:35 |
 Epignosis wrote:
The T wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
The T wrote:
Rob, now I see how the Tea Party is so successful.
Anyway, this gave me the idea for a poll. Let's see how many "slaverers" are here. (i'll create it later).
By the way, let's say in this hypothetical world of yours there's just 10 doctors. If they don't come back, a whole lot of people will die since there is an epidemic. Put any large number that could be reasonably taken care by just 10 doctors. If there was a poll to decide whether they have to be forced to take care of these sick people, how would you vote? |
I'll participate in your poll if you explain two things to me:
1. How the Tea Party is so successful (they're not, relatively speaking)
That was just a quick comment out of my ass, like your "Scenario" that you used to draw the conclusion that I'm pro-slavery. Seeing that you would answer NO to the hypothetical scenario in my hypothetical thread, I'd guess I could say "OMG you are in favor of death!!"
and
2. How your position isn't one of slavery. It might be. The doctors would be justly paid. they wouldn't be exploited. They just would be forced, OMG, to do something that they don't want to, for the benefit of much more people.
|
Now, let me do some explaining about why I think this way. you might be thinking "oh this guy who doesn't know sh*t comes here and talks and talks while I have been there, as a teacher, as an unemployed, etc, etc, etc" Whatever. Just as you and Llama used your exemplary examples (pun intended) in all this discussion, let me use mine.
10 years ago my sister had cancer. She's not one of those "bums". She has worked hard her entire damn life, she has been good to everybody, acted in charities and all of that. So she's not one of your "she can't pay because she plays video games" type, she's actually quite frugal. But she was diagnosed with the illness, and not in stage 1, but in stage 2, which required intensive treatment and rest. Yes, rest, that concept that probably can't be understood as necessary to recover from a serious illness. Luckily, it hadn't metastasized.
She underwent all treatments. Weeks of chimotherapy. Then her company, as forced by law of the land, hold her position while she recovered in a place created for the effect, with the best care possible. She was just a student and a worker. She wasn't rich, not even middle class. She was just someone starting to build a career for herself.
And now she's in perfect health. With us, with her family, able to produce and work.
All of this happened because she lived in Germany.
If she had lived here, she would be bankrupt. Speculation on your part. Very reasonable speculation.
Or dead. Speculation on your part. Probably. Though in debt for life. < ="utf-8">
So yes, Mr.Principles, I think a just society is one where people are taken care of health-wise no matter who or what they are. Getting rich? Becoming powerful? That's up to each person's skills and desires... At least health care should be a benefit for everybody.
I'm damn glad that the system worked in a way where she pretty much didn't spend one euro (or mark, I don't remember when the change occurred). Now she's ALIVE and capable of working and, with HER taxes, helping somebody else in the same situation, probably.
So if you ask me if I put "property" below health care, you can bet I do. I don't give a f**k if someone can't buy another gun to hunt deers because he has to pay taxes, if that saves a life. I'm glad I do it. If the dollars that I don't get in my pocket are helping somebody go to the doctor, I'm damn glad about it. I don't think "property" is the ultimate goal of life... Having the government protect it, OK. But the sh*t about "taxes are theft" and all that whining sound more to me like people who just crave their last dollar... Sorry, my view. Might be extremely wrong. Maybe in libertarian paradise things would be better. I'm not so sure.
Where did I say property is the ultimate goal, but more importantly, do you think you get to tell people what their ultimate goal should be? No I don't. But when you hold property in such a high place I guess that's what your goal is. I'm probably wrong.
By the way, I've never had money, and probably never will. I also don't categorically say "taxes are theft," either (so you continually repeating that canard and using loaded terms like "whining" is indeed a straw man, at least for me). That said, taking people's money to give to people who didn't earn it is theft. I don't know what warped definition of theft you have, but that's theft. Ok. I don't know what warped definition of taxes yours is that equates them (not always, as you said) to theft. More than half the entire world seems to agree with my definition of theft, which is, one that DOESN'T INCLUDE TAXES. There's actually just a few (well, much more than a few, sadly) people in the US (and I guess a few in other places) that really think taxes are theft. Just because the government does it, doesn't make it morally right. The government is an entity which is supposed to represent us. So taxes have been created by us. Congress is a body of our representatives. Likewise, forcing someone to work (whether they are compensated or not) is slavery. I agree with that but your scenario, which doesn't prove anything, forced me to vote, according to your conclusion, like a slavery-friendly person. Pure and simple- no way around that. Well, in prisonsthey force people to work...  If you believe the government can take property without permission to give to other people, you believe in organized theft, No, I believe in TAXES. And in solidarity. and if you believe the government can force doctors (against their will) to treat people, then you believe in organized slavery. I don't believe in it. You put a stupid scenario made specially to make a me look like I believe in it. That's what it is, and you probably should have manned up to those definitions rather than try to wriggle out of them. I don't wriggle out of them. I say I voted YES. Under the stupidly extreme circumstances you depicted.
I've given my opinion about health care in the US, and I won't repeat it here except to say this:
The issue is not one of just free market vs government takeover, but I am convinced a free market would lower costs and improve service- PURE SPECULATION. not one person here has shown why this wouldn't happen. There are numerous factors that have created the situation we have now, and ironically enough, the stuff you liberals complain about with regard to health care is largely because of government regulations.
Don't believe me?
Here we go:
1. Medicare. Created under President Johnson, Medicare is nothing more than a government-backed Ponzi scheme. The government spends around $6 on seniors for every $1 spent on children, even though the poverty rate among children is higher. Bernie Madoff got locked up, and yet the US government has 34 trillion dollars sitting off the balance sheet that future generations will have to pay. Unemployment is still very high, and Baby Boomers are getting ready to retire. Still think Medicare is sustainable? The AARP (a senior's lobbying group) thinks the magic solution is to just lower the cost of health care, but that's not how basic economics work: When something is free for some people, demand increases, and so does the price for those who must pay for themselves and pay for the subsidized group. Add to this the fact that people are living longer- about 7 years longer on average than when Medicare was first implemented.
2. Social Security. For much of the same reasons outlined above. 80 million baby boomers starting to retire, and an estimated $10 trillion shortfall.
3. The Housing Market. This is where it really gets interesting. Congress felt it was their duty to have Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (two of the largest government-sponsored lenders) give housing loans to disadvantaged groups- people who couldn't afford houses. This artificially inflated the pool of home buyers, which in turn drives home prices up. In addition, the federal reserve artificially lowered interest rates from 6.5% to 1%, and many more people who couldn't afford houses bought them anyway because it appeared the houses would continue to appreciate. These new homeowners began borrowing against the equity in their houses, and businesses borrowed to take advantage of this amazing demand, and builders built millions of unwanted houses. How did this all get started? Through an act signed into law by the amazing Jimmy Carter, the government forced banks (i.e., got involved in business through government regulation) to give loans they would not have otherwise given. This was the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.
In a nutshell, this was "You better give loans to poor black people or you are a racist bank!"
Now, as we know, the bubble burst as subprime borrowers defaulted on their mortgages and the federal reserve was forced to raise interest rates. Look what happened to those with adjustable rate mortgages  - not so fair all of a sudden, is it?
4. US Debt. America has to borrow money and selling new debt to investors to pay the interest on the national debt. Let that sink in. How can that possibly be a good thing? Remember Bernie Madoff? Madoff's clients tried to sell some of their apparently well-performing assets to offset other losses, and that's when the scam collapsed. How long will it be before that happens to our nation? Perhaps when China and other foreign creditors that want to stimulate their own economies try to spend their US treasury holdings...
How can liberals be upset with Bernie Madoff when they support the exact same thing on a grander scale?
These are just a few of the many, major, massive areas of government meddling that has led to or is leading to disaster, because the programs aren't sustainable. How am I to have any confidence whatsoever in government-run health care?
I can agree with these fails of government-run systems. I think reforms have to occur, specialists, not linked to the government OR insurance companies should work in solutions to the problems. Fix the system, yes, improve it. I don't see utter elimination of social programs is the answer.
After all, when we die, we don't take our "property" to our graves... You don't take your life either.  You entirely missed my point.
( as a side note, according to wikipedia -we can use it now-, "Germany does well in international health outcomes comparisons. In 2004 Germany ranked thirtieth in the world in life expectancy (78 years for men). It had a very lowinfant mortality rate (4.7 per 1,000 live births), and it was tied for eighth place in the number of practicing physicians, at per 1,000 people (3.3). In 2001 total spending on health amounted to 10.8 percent of gross domestic product.[1] " (Germany is a mixed system, but mostly government-funded)..Incredibly, people, doctors, didn't stop being doctors just because the system is not one without taxes...
By the way: http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator.cfm?IndicatorID=37&country=DE#rowDE (amazingly, in number of doctors per habitants, the US doesn't even appear in the top list, even though here they are free and al of that, whereas in countries like Denmark and France there are lots of doctors per habitants... Strange how they haven't stopped being doctors even though their system is universal healthcare or similar...)
That isn't strange. I never said there would be a shortage of doctors. I gave a hypothetical scenario to see if the participants in this debate, who are okay with taking money from people who earned it to give to those who didn't are equally okay with people being forced to work against their will. That's all. You can stop trying to analyze my made up scenario- it's not intended to be analyzed, it's intended to show that you are theoretically okay with slavery.Again, it proves something in extreme circumstances. Under the same scenario it would seem you might be ok with killing your own children (in a similar unlikely scenario where they're dying because doctors left the country and you don't want to force them to cure you). Does this prove anything? Does it prove you are a bad person? No.
I'm not quite sure what your point is with these numbers though. You have said that doctors without the incentive of making sh*t loads of money working in a full free market system would leave the profession. I see a country with a universal health care system with more doctors per capita than insurance-company paradise US. That's all.
Maybe if we educate doctors to fulfill the Hypocrates Oath instead of their pockets as the first priority your scenarios of doctors running away wouldn't necessarily happen... But what can we expect in a society where property is valued as the most important thing? Amazingly, is the most prosperous nation on Earth, not the healthiest of course...
Do you care more about how much a doctor makes or how much health care costs? The second. What if a doctor could charge patients less and make more profit for himself? Excellent. I would like that. Where's the plan? There's a way for that to happen, but a government takeover of health care isn't it.Did any of your representatives (sorry, you're no republican)... did anyone in the opposition ever presented a plan? They just said "NO". That was their entire "health care reform: say no to Obamacare".
By the way it seems Obamacare is not the answer.. a little step in my direction maybe...
To put this "instead of their pockets" into perspective:
More importantly, I'd recommend you read this short article before talking about how much doctors in the US make. Some excerpts:
According to the New England Journal of Medicine,
average cost of medical school plus living expenses is approximately
$225,000 USD if you attend a private school and $140,000 USD if you
attend a public one. While some expenses may be met through grants and
scholarships, many people leave medical school owing in excess of
$100,000 USD, and this amount can increase if additional years of
residency or training are required.Another reason why doctors make so much money or seem to is due to the cost of medical malpractice insurance. Some doctors will pay as much as a third of their salary [...]
[...]the run of the mill doctor is not making a lot,
and has put in a lot of sacrifice to receive the training they need.
They work in high risk profession, which can be emotionally challenging
and difficult, may remain in debt for many years[...]
The #1 cause of bankruptcy in the US is without a doubt medical bills. No question about that. But here's the thing: 78% of people who filed bankruptcy had health insurance. Which further shows that the entire health care system here is CRAP. The entire thing is upside down. Pople in the richest nation on earth are bankrupt to pay medical bills, doctors make less than other professions, yet the insurance companies get bigger and richer... I'm all for changing all of this crap... Where is the plan... Where was the plan when Obamacare was being discussed? All I remember is a NO.
Sorry needed to do some explaining of why i think how I do. It's cool. I'm glad your sister is well.Thanks
|
|
Final question: you're ok with defense spending. How are we going to fund it? You said not all taxes are theft so I guess you would answer "taxes". What is the line that divides "taxes are theft" from "taxes are ok"?
|
|
|
 |
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: September 26 2010 at 19:21 |
The T wrote:
The stupid scenario used to "prove" that I'm for slavery and universal healthcare is slavery has, apparently, served its purpose, though I don't see what we get from it, other than knowing than under EXTREMELY UNLIKELY EXTREME circumstances some people would act in a certain way.
What would you do Rob if in the same hypothetical scenario your children were dying and these doctors had to be forced to cure them by your decision? Would you force them to act, thus becoming a slaverer? Would you act on your mighty high principles, thus killing your own children? Are you a murderer just because in this ridiculous scenario you would say yes or no? Is this a serious way to prove your high moral standing on issues? Are you trying to prove that you libertarians are on high moral ground just because in the most extreme circumstance you would act based on your imperturbable principles?
Anyway, I'm not running away from what I said. Luckily for all of us, this strange scenario will never occur.
|
Why does the scenario of there being too few doctors to treat all the patients seem unlikely to you? There are already too few doctors in most of the world, which is why it sometimes takes months or even a year to get an appointment. There are plenty of retired doctors that we could force to go back into practice to help solve this problem, if that's what you want to do.
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: September 26 2010 at 19:13 |
The stupid scenario used to "prove" that I'm for slavery and universal healthcare is slavery has, apparently, served its purpose, though I don't see what we get from it, other than knowing than under EXTREMELY UNLIKELY EXTREME circumstances some people would act in a certain way.
What would you do Rob if in the same hypothetical scenario your children were dying and these doctors had to be forced to cure them by your decision? Would you force them to act, thus becoming a slaverer? Would you act on your mighty high principles, thus killing your own children? Are you a murderer just because in this ridiculous scenario you would say yes or no? Is this a serious way to prove your high moral standing on issues? Are you trying to prove that you libertarians are on high moral ground just because in the most extreme circumstance you would act based on your imperturbable principles?
Anyway, I'm not running away from what I said. Luckily for all of us, this strange scenario will never occur.
|
|
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: September 26 2010 at 01:17 |
Lozlan wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Lozlan wrote:
Let's turn this entire ludicrous doctor issue on its head. So...if men and women were dying of some ailment that you, as a doctor, were capable of curing, but you declined to help them for some nebulous reason (let's say, you have a tee time that you just can't miss), wouldn't that make you:
A) A Horrible, horrible person, and Absolutely. If the reason is as frivolous as you suggest.
B) Complicit in the deaths of people that you could have saved? Absolutely not. You could sell all your possessions, travel to Africa and pass out food to starving children, thereby saving there lives. You do not do so. Are you complicit in their deaths, since you could have saved them?
|
Whoops, Rob totally preempted me. Sorry, Rob!
|
Because the fish rots from the head. I can't believe I'm saying this, but go watch Dr. Horrible. He's more right than he's wrong.
Seriously though! The problem is with institutions. We must be the change we seek, working from inside the imperfect system in order to make it perfect. I remember when Bush 'won' the presidency: I was fairly outspoken, to the point of using curse words(!). And every conservative I talked to said, "Well, why don't you leave the country then?'
Piffle.
Hunger in Africa will not be assuaged by me selling all my belongings and moving to a small, starving village. It will be assuaged by raising international concern, drawing awareness to the continual destruction wrought by European colonialism, and working on vaccines for AIDS and malaria. Many of the problems confronting Africa are attributable to post-colonial panic; how this is best dealt with I honestly don't know. Whether we should demand that the countries that conquered and exploited them repay them in aid and infrastructure, or whether we should continue focusing on world charity organizations...obviously it's a complicated problem, since no one has solved it yet. Currently I'm a big fan of microcredit, which promotes entrepreneurship in impoverished regions.
|
Forcing doctors to practice medicine if they don't want to will not solve hunger in Africa either. That's not what we're talking about. You said that if someone can save a life and fails to do so, they are a horrible person and a murderer. I simply pointed out that you could save lives, but choose not to. I'll let you draw your own inference from that.
Edited by thellama73 - September 26 2010 at 01:18
|
|
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: September 25 2010 at 19:54 |
Lozlan wrote:
JJLehto wrote:
I actually have no problem with Tort reform.
Yes, random thought and I just like saying tort....
But since we're still going to have a private health plan system, I think it would encourage more to become doctors, and hopefully drive the price down.
Mmmmm this tort is delicious!
|
Save some for me!
|
Oh, there's plenty to go around  That being said, I still support Universal Healthcare. I am convinced it won't happen in the US but still.. It also seems efficient and fair to me. You pay into it, you receive. Oh, and of course you no one can be denied for any reason. I thought the US was supposed to be fair. Seems to the most fair to me, and as we know sometimes fair isn't always pretty...
Edited by JJLehto - September 25 2010 at 19:55
|
|
Lozlan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 09 2009
Location: New Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 536
|
Posted: September 25 2010 at 19:41 |
JJLehto wrote:
I actually have no problem with Tort reform.
Yes, random thought and I just like saying tort....
But since we're still going to have a private health plan system, I think it would encourage more to become doctors, and hopefully drive the price down.
Mmmmm this tort is delicious!
|
Save some for me!
|
Certified Obscure Prog Fart.
The Loose Palace of Exile - My first novel, The Mask of Tamrel, now available on Amazon and Kindle
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: September 25 2010 at 19:27 |
|
I actually have no problem with Tort reform.
Yes, random thought and I just like saying tort....
But since we're still going to have a private health plan system, I think it would encourage more to become doctors, and hopefully drive the price down.
Mmmmm this tort is delicious!
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: September 25 2010 at 17:22 |
|
Right now I have no time. Later I will reply Robert... Your answer was long and thoughtful, thanks, though I disagree with the core issue behind it. I'll reply later when I come back.
|
|
|
|
Lozlan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 09 2009
Location: New Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 536
|
Posted: September 25 2010 at 14:52 |
thellama73 wrote:
Lozlan wrote:
Let's turn this entire ludicrous doctor issue on its head. So...if men and women were dying of some ailment that you, as a doctor, were capable of curing, but you declined to help them for some nebulous reason (let's say, you have a tee time that you just can't miss), wouldn't that make you:
A) A Horrible, horrible person, and Absolutely. If the reason is as frivolous as you suggest.
B) Complicit in the deaths of people that you could have saved? Absolutely not. You could sell all your possessions, travel to Africa and pass out food to starving children, thereby saving there lives. You do not do so. Are you complicit in their deaths, since you could have saved them?
|
Whoops, Rob totally preempted me. Sorry, Rob!
|
Because the fish rots from the head. I can't believe I'm saying this, but go watch Dr. Horrible. He's more right than he's wrong. Seriously though! The problem is with institutions. We must be the change we seek, working from inside the imperfect system in order to make it perfect. I remember when Bush 'won' the presidency: I was fairly outspoken, to the point of using curse words(!). And every conservative I talked to said, "Well, why don't you leave the country then?' Piffle. Hunger in Africa will not be assuaged by me selling all my belongings and moving to a small, starving village. It will be assuaged by raising international concern, drawing awareness to the continual destruction wrought by European colonialism, and working on vaccines for AIDS and malaria. Many of the problems confronting Africa are attributable to post-colonial panic; how this is best dealt with I honestly don't know. Whether we should demand that the countries that conquered and exploited them repay them in aid and infrastructure, or whether we should continue focusing on world charity organizations...obviously it's a complicated problem, since no one has solved it yet. Currently I'm a big fan of microcredit, which promotes entrepreneurship in impoverished regions.
Edited by Lozlan - September 25 2010 at 15:00
|
Certified Obscure Prog Fart.
The Loose Palace of Exile - My first novel, The Mask of Tamrel, now available on Amazon and Kindle
|
|
Lozlan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 09 2009
Location: New Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 536
|
Posted: September 25 2010 at 14:32 |
Epignosis wrote:
Lozlan wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Lozlan wrote:
Let's turn this entire ludicrous doctor issue on its head. So...if men and women were dying of some ailment that you, as a doctor, were capable of curing, but you declined to help them for some nebulous reason (let's say, you have a tee time that you just can't miss), wouldn't that make you:
A) A Horrible, horrible person, and
B) Complicit in the deaths of people that you could have saved?
Honestly, I don't see any difference between your proposed scenario and murder. If a doctor stood by, refusing to do nothing for a dying patient because he had some selfish, random reason not to (again, perhaps he's in his best suit, and doesn't want to get it all bloody), it would be plain murder.
See? That's the wonder of ridiculous, extremely specialized, criminally underthought, ultimately pointless hypothetical scenarios. Be a murderer or a slave. No middle ground. Also, your play of the race card was in extreme poor taste.
And if you are so tired of repeating yourself, I would urge you not to. You're clogging up a good discussion with wild, postulatory garbage.
|
A) Possibly
but
B) No
You have property, yes? If you don't liquidate your assets and spend all your money except the bare minimum you need to live on to help those that are starving or dying of easily treated diseases, then are you
A) A horrible, horrible person, and
B) Complicit in the deaths of people you could have saved?
By your thinking, yes to both. You could save people. You could even build shelters for homeless people or work another job to feed a starving family. Yet you choose not to. What a horrible person you must be! This doctor
may be morally reprehensible (depends on the circumstances), but no more
so than you are for sitting on Prog Archives and not doing everything in your power to save everyone
you can in this world from misfortune. Why don't you go to medical
school and pay a fortune so that you can help people more? Hmm? Look
how selfish you are! 
I can actually give a perfectly good reason why such a doctor would not treat just anybody: Lawsuits. Yes, if he botches something (because he's still human), or even if he doesn't, that poor dying soul might just turn around and sue him. This sort of thing happens.
The doctor who chooses not to act is not a murderer. If you believe that, then you don't know the legal definition of murder, just like you don't know what playing "the race card" is. 
|
Playing the race card, in this instance, refers to your casual appropriation of the struggles of the black slave class. Comparing the struggles of enslaved populations to the horror of being told to do your job in the midst of a crises is utterly disrespectful and patently ludicrous. Much like playing the Hitler card (a current favorite of the neo-cons), your comparison serves to warp rhetorical perspectives, banishing any hope of constructive conversation while simultaneously trivializing institutional racism. As for it being a strawman, let us quote the greatest and most reliable resource of our modern age, Wikipedia: To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a
proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet unequivalent
proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having
actually refuted the original position.(/wikipedia). In this instance, you leapt to an absurd, cartoonish misrepresentation of your own constructed hypothetical scenario. Really a masterful move.
As for it not being murder...I will concur that it would not be legally recognized as such. However, my proposition has every bit as much rhetorical weight as your claims of slavery. Implicit to slavery is the ownership of human beings, in a concrete, socially enforced way. The concept of property is fundamental to slavery, as is the process by which slaves are bred, bought, sold, and punished. Slavery is a social institution, whereas the proposed scenario (a virulent plague strikes down half the population, and the doctors stand idly by, unwilling for some unfathomable reason to save lives) would be an instance of social responsibility outweighing the arrogant, idiotic stance of self-aggrandizement. I severely doubt that the doctors would be whipped, fed to dogs, forced to live on meager rations, bought, or sold. By portraying the doctors as victims, you are demonstrating the classic libertarian inversion of victimization. It's a symptom of the highly overprivileged.
Lawsuits? Okay, maybe you need to clarify your situation somewhat. Is this really the end times? Are people dying in the streets? I really cant' perceive anyone forcing a doctor to do anything unless the circumstances were unbelievably dire. Were that the case, I would be far more concerned with contracting the disease that's killing off the human race than of a lawsuit. That's about the only justification I can see for avoiding your duties. I would also like to point out that any doctor who would willfully deny treatment to the suffering would be in open violation of his or her Hippocratic Oath.
Now, unless I am sore mistaken, we were discussing the vagaries of Universal Health Care. Weren't we?
|
Oh dear.
I'm going to bow out of discussing this further with you. I don't have the strength for dealing with this string of non sequiturs and an utter disregard for the English language. I really don't.
|
Admittedly, I might not have been at my rhetorical height: I just listened to Breathless by Camel for the first time, and the let-down sort of scrambled my neurons. Why is it so much worse than Rain Dances?!? But regardless, I read it over a couple of times, and I think my argument is pretty dang clear. By the by, this is exactly the sort of verbal and ideological morass you create when you actually try to dissect hyperbole. You claimed that we supported slavery, and I thought maybe we could actually *think* about your claim for a few posts. Apparently I was wrong. On the side, I have learned something about myself in the process of this debate. Apparently, under incredibly specific circumstances, I support the enslaving of doctors. This means that I can finally fulfill my deep desire to see Hugh Laurie getting whipped while wearing a loincloth. Although I think I'd actually prefer Robert Sean Leonard. Rowr.
Edited by Lozlan - September 25 2010 at 14:42
|
Certified Obscure Prog Fart.
The Loose Palace of Exile - My first novel, The Mask of Tamrel, now available on Amazon and Kindle
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: September 25 2010 at 13:54 |
Lozlan wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Lozlan wrote:
Let's turn this entire ludicrous doctor issue on its head. So...if men and women were dying of some ailment that you, as a doctor, were capable of curing, but you declined to help them for some nebulous reason (let's say, you have a tee time that you just can't miss), wouldn't that make you:
A) A Horrible, horrible person, and
B) Complicit in the deaths of people that you could have saved?
Honestly, I don't see any difference between your proposed scenario and murder. If a doctor stood by, refusing to do nothing for a dying patient because he had some selfish, random reason not to (again, perhaps he's in his best suit, and doesn't want to get it all bloody), it would be plain murder.
See? That's the wonder of ridiculous, extremely specialized, criminally underthought, ultimately pointless hypothetical scenarios. Be a murderer or a slave. No middle ground. Also, your play of the race card was in extreme poor taste.
And if you are so tired of repeating yourself, I would urge you not to. You're clogging up a good discussion with wild, postulatory garbage.
|
A) Possibly
but
B) No
You have property, yes? If you don't liquidate your assets and spend all your money except the bare minimum you need to live on to help those that are starving or dying of easily treated diseases, then are you
A) A horrible, horrible person, and
B) Complicit in the deaths of people you could have saved?
By your thinking, yes to both. You could save people. You could even build shelters for homeless people or work another job to feed a starving family. Yet you choose not to. What a horrible person you must be! This doctor
may be morally reprehensible (depends on the circumstances), but no more
so than you are for sitting on Prog Archives and not doing everything in your power to save everyone
you can in this world from misfortune. Why don't you go to medical
school and pay a fortune so that you can help people more? Hmm? Look
how selfish you are!
I can actually give a perfectly good reason why such a doctor would not treat just anybody: Lawsuits. Yes, if he botches something (because he's still human), or even if he doesn't, that poor dying soul might just turn around and sue him. This sort of thing happens.
The doctor who chooses not to act is not a murderer. If you believe that, then you don't know the legal definition of murder, just like you don't know what playing "the race card" is.
|
Playing the race card, in this instance, refers to your casual appropriation of the struggles of the black slave class. Comparing the struggles of enslaved populations to the horror of being told to do your job in the midst of a crises is utterly disrespectful and patently ludicrous. Much like playing the Hitler card (a current favorite of the neo-cons), your comparison serves to warp rhetorical perspectives, banishing any hope of constructive conversation while simultaneously trivializing institutional racism. As for it being a strawman, let us quote the greatest and most reliable resource of our modern age, Wikipedia: To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a
proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet unequivalent
proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having
actually refuted the original position.(/wikipedia). In this instance, you leapt to an absurd, cartoonish misrepresentation of your own constructed hypothetical scenario. Really a masterful move.
As for it not being murder...I will concur that it would not be legally recognized as such. However, my proposition has every bit as much rhetorical weight as your claims of slavery. Implicit to slavery is the ownership of human beings, in a concrete, socially enforced way. The concept of property is fundamental to slavery, as is the process by which slaves are bred, bought, sold, and punished. Slavery is a social institution, whereas the proposed scenario (a virulent plague strikes down half the population, and the doctors stand idly by, unwilling for some unfathomable reason to save lives) would be an instance of social responsibility outweighing the arrogant, idiotic stance of self-aggrandizement. I severely doubt that the doctors would be whipped, fed to dogs, forced to live on meager rations, bought, or sold. By portraying the doctors as victims, you are demonstrating the classic libertarian inversion of victimization. It's a symptom of the highly overprivileged.
Lawsuits? Okay, maybe you need to clarify your situation somewhat. Is this really the end times? Are people dying in the streets? I really cant' perceive anyone forcing a doctor to do anything unless the circumstances were unbelievably dire. Were that the case, I would be far more concerned with contracting the disease that's killing off the human race than of a lawsuit. That's about the only justification I can see for avoiding your duties. I would also like to point out that any doctor who would willfully deny treatment to the suffering would be in open violation of his or her Hippocratic Oath.
Now, unless I am sore mistaken, we were discussing the vagaries of Universal Health Care. Weren't we?
|
Oh dear.
I'm going to bow out of discussing this further with you. I don't have the strength for dealing with this string of non sequiturs and an utter disregard for the English language. I really don't.
|
|
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: September 25 2010 at 13:26 |
Lozlan wrote:
You could sell all your possessions, travel to Africa and pass out food to starving children.
|
Just wanted to put in a good word for Doctors Without Borders: http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: September 25 2010 at 12:56 |
Lozlan wrote:
Let's turn this entire ludicrous doctor issue on its head. So...if men and women were dying of some ailment that you, as a doctor, were capable of curing, but you declined to help them for some nebulous reason (let's say, you have a tee time that you just can't miss), wouldn't that make you:
A) A Horrible, horrible person, and Absolutely. If the reason is as frivolous as you suggest.
B) Complicit in the deaths of people that you could have saved? Absolutely not. You could sell all your possessions, travel to Africa and pass out food to starving children, thereby saving there lives. You do not do so. Are you complicit in their deaths, since you could have saved them?
|
Whoops, Rob totally preempted me. Sorry, Rob!
Edited by thellama73 - September 25 2010 at 12:59
|
|
|
|
Lozlan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 09 2009
Location: New Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 536
|
Posted: September 25 2010 at 11:04 |
Epignosis wrote:
Lozlan wrote:
Let's turn this entire ludicrous doctor issue on its head. So...if men and women were dying of some ailment that you, as a doctor, were capable of curing, but you declined to help them for some nebulous reason (let's say, you have a tee time that you just can't miss), wouldn't that make you:
A) A Horrible, horrible person, and
B) Complicit in the deaths of people that you could have saved?
Honestly, I don't see any difference between your proposed scenario and murder. If a doctor stood by, refusing to do nothing for a dying patient because he had some selfish, random reason not to (again, perhaps he's in his best suit, and doesn't want to get it all bloody), it would be plain murder.
See? That's the wonder of ridiculous, extremely specialized, criminally underthought, ultimately pointless hypothetical scenarios. Be a murderer or a slave. No middle ground. Also, your play of the race card was in extreme poor taste.
And if you are so tired of repeating yourself, I would urge you not to. You're clogging up a good discussion with wild, postulatory garbage.
|
A) Possibly
but
B) No
You have property, yes? If you don't liquidate your assets and spend all your money except the bare minimum you need to live on to help those that are starving or dying of easily treated diseases, then are you
A) A horrible, horrible person, and
B) Complicit in the deaths of people you could have saved?
By your thinking, yes to both. You could save people. You could even build shelters for homeless people or work another job to feed a starving family. Yet you choose not to. What a horrible person you must be! This doctor
may be morally reprehensible (depends on the circumstances), but no more
so than you are for sitting on Prog Archives and not doing everything in your power to save everyone
you can in this world from misfortune. Why don't you go to medical
school and pay a fortune so that you can help people more? Hmm? Look
how selfish you are!
I can actually give a perfectly good reason why such a doctor would not treat just anybody: Lawsuits. Yes, if he botches something (because he's still human), or even if he doesn't, that poor dying soul might just turn around and sue him. This sort of thing happens.
The doctor who chooses not to act is not a murderer. If you believe that, then you don't know the legal definition of murder, just like you don't know what playing "the race card" is.
|
Playing the race card, in this instance, refers to your casual appropriation of the struggles of the black slave class. Comparing the struggles of enslaved populations to the horror of being told to do your job in the midst of a crises is utterly disrespectful and patently ludicrous. Much like playing the Hitler card (a current favorite of the neo-cons), your comparison serves to warp rhetorical perspectives, banishing any hope of constructive conversation while simultaneously trivializing institutional racism. As for it being a strawman, let us quote the greatest and most reliable resource of our modern age, Wikipedia: To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a
proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet unequivalent
proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having
actually refuted the original position.(/wikipedia). In this instance, you leapt to an absurd, cartoonish misrepresentation of your own constructed hypothetical scenario. Really a masterful move. As for it not being murder...I will concur that it would not be legally recognized as such. However, my proposition has every bit as much rhetorical weight as your claims of slavery. Implicit to slavery is the ownership of human beings, in a concrete, socially enforced way. The concept of property is fundamental to slavery, as is the process by which slaves are bred, bought, sold, and punished. Slavery is a social institution, whereas the proposed scenario (a virulent plague strikes down half the population, and the doctors stand idly by, unwilling for some unfathomable reason to save lives) would be an instance of social responsibility outweighing the arrogant, idiotic stance of self-aggrandizement. I severely doubt that the doctors would be whipped, fed to dogs, forced to live on meager rations, bought, or sold. By portraying the doctors as victims, you are demonstrating the classic libertarian inversion of victimization. It's a symptom of the highly overprivileged. Lawsuits? Okay, maybe you need to clarify your situation somewhat. Is this really the end times? Are people dying in the streets? I really cant' perceive anyone forcing a doctor to do anything unless the circumstances were unbelievably dire. Were that the case, I would be far more concerned with contracting the disease that's killing off the human race than of a lawsuit. That's about the only justification I can see for avoiding your duties. I would also like to point out that any doctor who would willfully deny treatment to the suffering would be in open violation of his or her Hippocratic Oath. Now, unless I am sore mistaken, we were discussing the vagaries of Universal Health Care. Weren't we?
Edited by Lozlan - September 25 2010 at 11:07
|
Certified Obscure Prog Fart.
The Loose Palace of Exile - My first novel, The Mask of Tamrel, now available on Amazon and Kindle
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: September 25 2010 at 09:18 |
The T wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
The T wrote:
Rob, now I see how the Tea Party is so successful.
Anyway, this gave me the idea for a poll. Let's see how many "slaverers" are here. (i'll create it later).
By the way, let's say in this hypothetical world of yours there's just 10 doctors. If they don't come back, a whole lot of people will die since there is an epidemic. Put any large number that could be reasonably taken care by just 10 doctors. If there was a poll to decide whether they have to be forced to take care of these sick people, how would you vote? |
I'll participate in your poll if you explain two things to me:
1. How the Tea Party is so successful (they're not, relatively speaking)
That was just a quick comment out of my ass, like your "Scenario" that you used to draw the conclusion that I'm pro-slavery. Seeing that you would answer NO to the hypothetical scenario in my hypothetical thread, I'd guess I could say "OMG you are in favor of death!!"
and
2. How your position isn't one of slavery. It might be. The doctors would be justly paid. they wouldn't be exploited. They just would be forced, OMG, to do something that they don't want to, for the benefit of much more people.
|
Now, let me do some explaining about why I think this way. you might be thinking "oh this guy who doesn't know sh*t comes here and talks and talks while I have been there, as a teacher, as an unemployed, etc, etc, etc" Whatever. Just as you and Llama used your exemplary examples (pun intended) in all this discussion, let me use mine.
10 years ago my sister had cancer. She's not one of those "bums". She has worked hard her entire damn life, she has been good to everybody, acted in charities and all of that. So she's not one of your "she can't pay because she plays video games" type, she's actually quite frugal. But she was diagnosed with the illness, and not in stage 1, but in stage 2, which required intensive treatment and rest. Yes, rest, that concept that probably can't be understood as necessary to recover from a serious illness. Luckily, it hadn't metastasized.
She underwent all treatments. Weeks of chimotherapy. Then her company, as forced by law of the land, hold her position while she recovered in a place created for the effect, with the best care possible. She was just a student and a worker. She wasn't rich, not even middle class. She was just someone starting to build a career for herself.
And now she's in perfect health. With us, with her family, able to produce and work.
All of this happened because she lived in Germany.
If she had lived here, she would be bankrupt. Speculation on your part.
Or dead. Speculation on your part.
So yes, Mr.Principles, I think a just society is one where people are taken care of health-wise no matter who or what they are. Getting rich? Becoming powerful? That's up to each person's skills and desires... At least health care should be a benefit for everybody.
I'm damn glad that the system worked in a way where she pretty much didn't spend one euro (or mark, I don't remember when the change occurred). Now she's ALIVE and capable of working and, with HER taxes, helping somebody else in the same situation, probably.
So if you ask me if I put "property" below health care, you can bet I do. I don't give a f**k if someone can't buy another gun to hunt deers because he has to pay taxes, if that saves a life. I'm glad I do it. If the dollars that I don't get in my pocket are helping somebody go to the doctor, I'm damn glad about it. I don't think "property" is the ultimate goal of life... Having the government protect it, OK. But the sh*t about "taxes are theft" and all that whining sound more to me like people who just crave their last dollar... Sorry, my view. Might be extremely wrong. Maybe in libertarian paradise things would be better. I'm not so sure.
Where did I say property is the ultimate goal, but more importantly, do you think you get to tell people what their ultimate goal should be?
By the way, I've never had money, and probably never will. I also don't categorically say "taxes are theft," either (so you continually repeating that canard and using loaded terms like "whining" is indeed a straw man, at least for me). That said, taking people's money to give to people who didn't earn it is theft. I don't know what warped definition of theft you have, but that's theft. Just because the government does it, doesn't make it morally right. Likewise, forcing someone to work (whether they are compensated or not) is slavery. Pure and simple- no way around that. If you believe the government can take property without permission to give to other people, you believe in organized theft, and if you believe the government can force doctors (against their will) to treat people, then you believe in organized slavery. That's what it is, and you probably should have manned up to those definitions rather than try to wriggle out of them.
I've given my opinion about health care in the US, and I won't repeat it here except to say this:
The issue is not one of just free market vs government takeover, but I am convinced a free market would lower costs and improve service- not one person here has shown why this wouldn't happen. There are numerous factors that have created the situation we have now, and ironically enough, the stuff you liberals complain about with regard to health care is largely because of government regulations.
Don't believe me?
Here we go:
1. Medicare. Created under President Johnson, Medicare is nothing more than a government-backed Ponzi scheme. The government spends around $6 on seniors for every $1 spent on children, even though the poverty rate among children is higher. Bernie Madoff got locked up, and yet the US government has 34 trillion dollars sitting off the balance sheet that future generations will have to pay. Unemployment is still very high, and Baby Boomers are getting ready to retire. Still think Medicare is sustainable? The AARP (a senior's lobbying group) thinks the magic solution is to just lower the cost of health care, but that's not how basic economics work: When something is free for some people, demand increases, and so does the price for those who must pay for themselves and pay for the subsidized group. Add to this the fact that people are living longer- about 7 years longer on average than when Medicare was first implemented.
2. Social Security. For much of the same reasons outlined above. 80 million baby boomers starting to retire, and an estimated $10 trillion shortfall.
3. The Housing Market. This is where it really gets interesting. Congress felt it was their duty to have Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (two of the largest government-sponsored lenders) give housing loans to disadvantaged groups- people who couldn't afford houses. This artificially inflated the pool of home buyers, which in turn drives home prices up. In addition, the federal reserve artificially lowered interest rates from 6.5% to 1%, and many more people who couldn't afford houses bought them anyway because it appeared the houses would continue to appreciate. These new homeowners began borrowing against the equity in their houses, and businesses borrowed to take advantage of this amazing demand, and builders built millions of unwanted houses. How did this all get started? Through an act signed into law by the amazing Jimmy Carter, the government forced banks (i.e., got involved in business through government regulation) to give loans they would not have otherwise given. This was the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.
In a nutshell, this was "You better give loans to poor black people or you are a racist bank!"
Now, as we know, the bubble burst as subprime borrowers defaulted on their mortgages and the federal reserve was forced to raise interest rates. Look what happened to those with adjustable rate mortgages - not so fair all of a sudden, is it?
4. US Debt. America has to borrow money and selling new debt to investors to pay the interest on the national debt. Let that sink in. How can that possibly be a good thing? Remember Bernie Madoff? Madoff's clients tried to sell some of their apparently well-performing assets to offset other losses, and that's when the scam collapsed. How long will it be before that happens to our nation? Perhaps when China and other foreign creditors that want to stimulate their own economies try to spend their US treasury holdings...
How can liberals be upset with Bernie Madoff when they support the exact same thing on a grander scale?
These are just a few of the many, major, massive areas of government meddling that has led to or is leading to disaster, because the programs aren't sustainable. How am I to have any confidence whatsoever in government-run health care?
After all, when we die, we don't take our "property" to our graves... You don't take your life either.
( as a side note, according to wikipedia -we can use it now-, "Germany does well in international health outcomes comparisons. In 2004 Germany ranked thirtieth in the world in life expectancy (78 years for men). It had a very lowinfant mortality rate (4.7 per 1,000 live births), and it was tied for eighth place in the number of practicing physicians, at per 1,000 people (3.3). In 2001 total spending on health amounted to 10.8 percent of gross domestic product.[1] " (Germany is a mixed system, but mostly government-funded)..Incredibly, people, doctors, didn't stop being doctors just because the system is not one without taxes...
By the way: http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator.cfm?IndicatorID=37&country=DE#rowDE (amazingly, in number of doctors per habitants, the US doesn't even appear in the top list, even though here they are free and al of that, whereas in countries like Denmark and France there are lots of doctors per habitants... Strange how they haven't stopped being doctors even though their system is universal healthcare or similar...)
That isn't strange. I never said there would be a shortage of doctors. I gave a hypothetical scenario to see if the participants in this debate, who are okay with taking money from people who earned it to give to those who didn't are equally okay with people being forced to work against their will. That's all. You can stop trying to analyze my made up scenario- it's not intended to be analyzed, it's intended to show that you are theoretically okay with slavery.
I'm not quite sure what your point is with these numbers though.
Maybe if we educate doctors to fulfill the Hypocrates Oath instead of their pockets as the first priority your scenarios of doctors running away wouldn't necessarily happen... But what can we expect in a society where property is valued as the most important thing? Amazingly, is the most prosperous nation on Earth, not the healthiest of course...
Do you care more about how much a doctor makes or how much health care costs? What if a doctor could charge patients less and make more profit for himself? There's a way for that to happen, but a government takeover of health care isn't it.
To put this "instead of their pockets" into perspective:
More importantly, I'd recommend you read this short article before talking about how much doctors in the US make. Some excerpts:
According to the New England Journal of Medicine,
average cost of medical school plus living expenses is approximately
$225,000 USD if you attend a private school and $140,000 USD if you
attend a public one. While some expenses may be met through grants and
scholarships, many people leave medical school owing in excess of
$100,000 USD, and this amount can increase if additional years of
residency or training are required.Another reason why doctors make so much money or seem to is due to the cost of medical malpractice insurance. Some doctors will pay as much as a third of their salary [...]
[...]the run of the mill doctor is not making a lot,
and has put in a lot of sacrifice to receive the training they need.
They work in high risk profession, which can be emotionally challenging
and difficult, may remain in debt for many years[...]
The #1 cause of bankruptcy in the US is without a doubt medical bills. No question about that. But here's the thing: 78% of people who filed bankruptcy had health insurance.
Sorry needed to do some explaining of why i think how I do. It's cool. I'm glad your sister is well.
|
|
|
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: September 25 2010 at 08:35 |
crimhead wrote:
Would it include optical and dental as well?
|
That would be the don't let your teeth rot or your eyes lose focus. I believe that costs extra.
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: September 25 2010 at 07:24 |
Lozlan wrote:
Let's turn this entire ludicrous doctor issue on its head. So...if men and women were dying of some ailment that you, as a doctor, were capable of curing, but you declined to help them for some nebulous reason (let's say, you have a tee time that you just can't miss), wouldn't that make you:
A) A Horrible, horrible person, and
B) Complicit in the deaths of people that you could have saved?
Honestly, I don't see any difference between your proposed scenario and murder. If a doctor stood by, refusing to do nothing for a dying patient because he had some selfish, random reason not to (again, perhaps he's in his best suit, and doesn't want to get it all bloody), it would be plain murder.
See? That's the wonder of ridiculous, extremely specialized, criminally underthought, ultimately pointless hypothetical scenarios. Be a murderer or a slave. No middle ground. Also, your play of the race card was in extreme poor taste.
And if you are so tired of repeating yourself, I would urge you not to. You're clogging up a good discussion with wild, postulatory garbage.
|
A) Possibly
but
B) No
You have property, yes? If you don't liquidate your assets and spend all your money except the bare minimum you need to live on to help those that are starving or dying of easily treated diseases, then are you
A) A horrible, horrible person, and
B) Complicit in the deaths of people you could have saved?
By your thinking, yes to both. You could save people. You could even build shelters for homeless people or work another job to feed a starving family. Yet you choose not to. What a horrible person you must be! This doctor
may be morally reprehensible (depends on the circumstances), but no more
so than you are for sitting on Prog Archives and not doing everything in your power to save everyone
you can in this world from misfortune. Why don't you go to medical
school and pay a fortune so that you can help people more? Hmm? Look
how selfish you are!
I can actually give a perfectly good reason why such a doctor would not treat just anybody: Lawsuits. Yes, if he botches something (because he's still human), or even if he doesn't, that poor dying soul might just turn around and sue him. This sort of thing happens.
The doctor who chooses not to act is not a murderer. If you believe that, then you don't know the legal definition of murder, just like you don't know what playing "the race card" is.
|
|
|
|
micky
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
|
Posted: September 24 2010 at 22:19 |
Slartibartfast wrote:
I kinda like America's health care plan: don't get sick.
|
exactly... and don't get treated either. though easy for me to say.. don't plan on getting pregnant.. and havent' been shot at in years and don't plan on it happening as I get older haha... anything else. Let nature and the body cure it.. or not cure it. 50-50 proposition... about the same odds you get paying out your ass (even with insurance in our system) for doctors and a system that don't give a f**k about you... only your money.
|
|
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|
Lozlan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 09 2009
Location: New Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 536
|
Posted: September 24 2010 at 21:38 |
|
Let's turn this entire ludicrous doctor issue on its head. So...if men and women were dying of some ailment that you, as a doctor, were capable of curing, but you declined to help them for some nebulous reason (let's say, you have a tee time that you just can't miss), wouldn't that make you:
A) A Horrible, horrible person, and
B) Complicit in the deaths of people that you could have saved?
Honestly, I don't see any difference between your proposed scenario and murder. If a doctor stood by, refusing to do nothing for a dying patient because he had some selfish, random reason not to (again, perhaps he's in his best suit, and doesn't want to get it all bloody), it would be plain murder.
See? That's the wonder of ridiculous, extremely specialized, criminally underthought, ultimately pointless hypothetical scenarios. Be a murderer or a slave. No middle ground. Also, your play of the race card was in extreme poor taste.
And if you are so tired of repeating yourself, I would urge you not to. You're clogging up a good discussion with wild, postulatory garbage.
Edited by Lozlan - September 24 2010 at 21:40
|
Certified Obscure Prog Fart.
The Loose Palace of Exile - My first novel, The Mask of Tamrel, now available on Amazon and Kindle
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: September 24 2010 at 21:02 |
Sure Rob, I'm interested to see how you destroy what i said. I'm not the best debater ever. I know what I believe though, on this issue at least I'm totally sure.
I don't see taxes as communism, I don't see taxes as theft. Believe me, I dislike communism, slavery, I value my property, and everybody else's. I just don't think taxes and universal healthcare are anywhere close to theft or a violation of rights.
Edited by The T - September 24 2010 at 21:02
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Do you support universal healthcare?
