Do you support universal healthcare?

^ I would vote no. No one has the right to force them to work against their will.
Why is that scenario so unlikely? It is already the case that we have too few doctors, and it seems very probable that there will be even fewer in the future. The options are either force them to work (slavery,) let people stand in long, long lines for medical care, or give people an incentive to practice medicine (the most obvious being, allow the price of healthcare to adjust freely.)

I kinda like America's health care plan: don't get sick. 

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.

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? 2. How your position isn't one of slavery.

I truly love how you've sidestepped the issue entirely by introducing an absurd strawman.  Bravo.

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. 

Edited by The T - September 24 2010 at 21:02

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.

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.

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

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/

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