want proof of how FuckedUP Health care in the US is?

[guerilla]

Grad students don't have that kind of debt in Europe due to public funding of Education papajohn.

Public funding just means no one sees who pays for it, and payment and provision are divorced from one another, necessarily rendering most exchanges irrational.

However, where in the hypocratic oath does it say doctors should be concerned principally about money?

Everyone in a rational society has to be concerned with their own self-interest. I want a doctor who is motivated by profit, because he will do whatever I need him to do, in order to make a buck. The Mother Theresa's of the world, while nice stories, don't improve the universal lot of man, the way that a Thomas Edison or Bill Gates does.

In order to understand why a volunteer society does not work, one has to understand marginal utility.

However, things like education, healthcare...for goodness sakes, if other wealthy, civilized western countries can provide those basic things for the people who can't afford it, why can't the USA?

The answer isn't to provide it. The answer is, how can we help them pay for it themselves? How can we lower prices so the poor can have access to it without a handout? How can we empower people to get more out of the marketplace without stealing from others?

Liberals like you always see the poor as someone you need to mother over. You never seek to empower them, you always try to baby and nurture them. I suspect you have never been poor, and have no idea how emasculating it is to be treated by some arrogant socialist as their pet.

All this bullshit talk about economic theory from people who don't have
any credentials at best and is not supported by any data at worst.

You don't need empiricism to prove the a priori. By definition, the a priori is empirically true. Hence, no amount of incomplete, biased or tainted data can improve on a priori deduction.

 

[guerilla]

This is the Hippocratic Oath that doctors take. SOMEONE PLEASE POINT OUT WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT BEING PRIMARILY MOTIVATED BY MONEY??

Who cares?

Not all health care practitioners take that oath. It's completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Profit is not the issue. A lack of supply to meet demand and drive down prices is the issue.

As a business person, you are incredibly poor at understanding markets. That goes for most of the pro-socialism posters in this thread. How you folks make money competing on the internet is beyond me.

 

[papajohn56]

Grad students don't have that kind of debt in Europe due to public funding of Education papajohn

Uh. Grad school is NOT medical school. A Medical doctorate is a Professional degree, just like a Juris Doctor for Law. Graduate school is for Academic degrees or Engineering degrees, and for those, typically we get paid for them.

I am a grad student. I am getting a Ph.D in physics, and I am doing it for free. Free tuition, all fees paid, and I get $20,000 per year as a stipend.

In Europe, Medical students tuition are dependent on the country. In England, most of their fees are paid, but they still pay around $2000-$4000 per year in other fees that the Government does not cover. Similar in many other countries in europe. Not only that, but due to this, Universities are under government pressure to accept more medical students, leading to a lower caliber of student entering in. You might see some 2.5 or 2.0 GPA med school students. I sure don't want them performing my bypass.

 

[papajohn56]

It already works that way in the USA. You aren't going to get turned down at a hospital.

Bingo. Go to the emergency room and see if you get turned away. You won't

 

[riddarhusetgal]

You don't need empiricism to prove the a priori. By definition, the a priori is empirically true. Hence, no amount of incomplete, biased or tainted data can improve on a priori deduction.

...Yawn. We've gone over this enough times that someone who rides the short bus could understand it. Your "please-drive-a-mack-truck-through-the holes-in-my-logic" school of thought has not passed the scientific method. That's why you can't find one school with any credibility in the top 10 that teaches it.

You need a visual? Here it is:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMn2R5txO28"]YouTube - A Critique of the Austrian School of Economics[/ame]

Epic logical fail. I'm going to paint my nails now and check my adsense stats - God Natt.

 

[fvaldes]

@guerrilla
if you consider a "handout" helping a sick young girl that has no insurance for whatever reason and needs surgery to save her eyesight you can count me in to offer it. Id be the first to offer a % of my salary to help people in need that really have no option. id be proud to give a "handout".

and no, we don't have to be Mother Theresa to help fellow human beings, we simply have to care.

 

[papajohn56]

yeah ... but you are going to be treated as dirt and go home to a $80,000 bill for your broken pinky.

Thanks for the completely wrong exaggeration bro

 

[fvaldes]

Thanks for the completely wrong exaggeration bro

thanks for making my point even stronger. I didn't make that up. It really happened to a family member. Sounds too crazy to be true ah?

 

[guerilla]

...Yawn. We've gone over this enough times that someone who rides the short bus could understand it. Your "please-drive-a-mack-truck-through-the holes-in-my-logic" school of thought has not passed the scientific method. That's why you can't find one school with any credibility in the top 10 that teaches it.

You need a visual? Here it is:
YouTube - A Critique of the Austrian School of Economics

That entire video is a strawman.

He makes assertions without fact. He doesn't understand a priori vs. a posteriori.

And neither do you.

If you want to attack (and are capable of attacking) my epistemological conclusions, do it head on. Don't rely on historical materialism and rhetorical fallacies.

 

[riddarhusetgal]

Uh. Grad school is NOT medical school. A Medical doctorate is a Professional degree, just like a Juris Doctor for Law. Graduate school is for Academic degrees or Engineering degrees, and for those, typically we get paid for them.

I am a grad student. I am getting a Ph.D in physics, and I am doing it for free. Free tuition, all fees paid, and I get $20,000 per year as a stipend.

In Europe, Medical students tuition are dependent on the country. In England, most of their fees are paid, but they still pay around $2000-$4000 per year in other fees that the Government does not cover. Similar in many other countries in europe. Not only that, but due to this, Universities are under government pressure to accept more medical students, leading to a lower caliber of student entering in. You might see some 2.5 or 2.0 GPA med school students. I sure don't want them performing my bypass.

Good that you are a graduate student - been there and done that twice and on both sides of the pond all at tier ones. The term graduate school is used colloquially to refer to attendence of a university that offers post bachelor degrees (although there are a hand full of liberal arts schools that offer grad degrees).


This is the definition of a graduate school:
An institution of higher learning, usually a division of a university, that grants master's degrees or doctorates or both.

graduate school: Definition from Answers.com
Definition of M.D.

M.D.: Abbreviation for the Latin title Medicinae Doctor, Doctor of Medicine. Sometimes written today as MD (without the period after each letter).



I don't know where you are getting your stats. It's at odds with my personal experience at tier one's or the data I have read.

I prefer to make decisions based on stats and logic not like some people here. If you have some pier reviewed data to support your premises please show it..

 

[guerilla]

@guerrilla
if you consider a "handout" helping a sick young girl that has no insurance for whatever reason and needs surgery to save her eyesight you can count me in to offer it. Id be the first to offer a % of my salary to help people in need that really have no option. id be proud to give a "handout".

But the question is, why do we have to have handouts? Why can't everyone use their own hand up?

It's the difference between treating a disease and treating a symptom. A handout is treating a sympton, addressing why there is a market imbalance is treating the disease. As long as you keep treating symptoms, and ignore the disease, the patient can go on living without getting any healthier.

And people wonder why poverty has not been eradicated. That is because the thrust has not been to address what impoverishes people, it has been to give them handouts and then show mock astonishment that when the handouts are removed, they are too domesticated to provide for themselves and need to go right back onto handouts.

and no, we don't have to be Mother Theresa to help fellow human beings, we simply have to care.

People always assume I don't care because I am a market fundamentalist. That is wrong. And I'm not going to detail my personal contributions to prove it.

I'm going to point out the natural consequences of what I support.

More healthcare at lower prices.

That should satisfy the goals of the egalitarians who might question my credibility as a compassionate being.

Now I have explained in a manner we should all be able to understand, that when supply increases, prices fall. So it seems somewhat obvious to me, that there is not an unlimited amount of competition in medicine, and that such competition could solve the imbalances.

So why has healthcare not grown to keep pace with demand?

Find the answer to that, and you will solve the healthcare "crisis".

 

[riddarhusetgal]

That entire video is a strawman.

He makes assertions without fact. He doesn't understand a priori vs. a posteriori.

And neither do you.

.....And neither do any of the world's leading economists at the world's top universities.


Oh wait, I forgot!!!

The University of Alabama teaches the Austrian school!!

As soon as I get a visa and tetanus shots perhaps I'll fly down there to visit you to catch a lecture.

If you try hard enough perhaps they'll award you an honorary degree.

Dr. Guerilla....Has a nice ring to it doesn't it?
Hehehe you are so witty my friend....

 

[fvaldes]

But the question is, why do we have to have handouts? Why can't everyone use their own hand up?

It's the difference between treating a disease and treating a symptom. A handout is treating a sympton, addressing why there is a market imbalance is treating the disease. As long as you keep treating symptoms, and ignore the disease, the patient can go on living without getting any healthier.

And people wonder why poverty has not been eradicated. That is because the thrust has not been to address what impoverishes people, it has been to give them handouts and then show mock astonishment that when the handouts are removed, they are too domesticated to provide for themselves and need to go right back onto handouts.


People always assume I don't care because I am a market fundamentalist. That is wrong. And I'm not going to detail my personal contributions to prove it.

I'm going to point out the natural consequences of what I support.

More healthcare at lower prices.

That should satisfy the goals of the egalitarians who might question my credibility as a compassionate being.

Now I have explained in a manner we should all be able to understand, that when supply increases, prices fall. So it seems somewhat obvious to me, that there is not an unlimited amount of competition in medicine, and that such competition could solve the imbalances.

So why has healthcare not grown to keep pace with demand?

Find the answer to that, and you will solve the healthcare "crisis".

you really havent lived much have you?

think of this scenario....

a middle aged teacher gets laid off... later on loses her insurance and can't continue to go to her chemo appointments weekly since each session is.... ready for this...$15000weekly!

do you think on a teacher salary she saved 60k to spend on for the next 6 months?


there MUST be an option for people that truly need it. Period.

 

[LogicFlux]

Because health care is a positive right, and free speech is a negative right.

A positive right confers an obligation on someone else to provide for you. Positive rights are the hallmark of a collectivist society (socialism)

A negative right indicates that no one should interfere with you. Negative rights are necessary for a constitutional or "free" society.

As long as people without insurance cause the government to incur costs, that argument really isn't valid. Because when people aren't covered, they also cause "others to provide for them". People who can't afford to pay their medical bills tax the system, whether we like it or not. One of the ways to reduce this burden on governments of different levels would be to refuse to treat those, even in emergency rooms, unless they have proof they can pay.
Public health care could maybe also take burdens off of our business, GM for example. I don't know if the current bills will take any burden off of businesses though, I haven't read them and probably won't until I've given up all hope of ever getting laid again.

Enormous difference. Not all so-called rights are in fact rights. People assume because they want something or it is necessary for survival, it must be a right. In that case, education is a right. Food is a right. Housing is a right. Perhaps sex is a right. Clean water, clean air. Vitamins and minerals. The list becomes endless.

I'm not sure I really believe in the concept of rights at all. I agree that it's probably erroneous to believe that we have a right to those things you mentioned. But why do we have any rights? Why should I not have the right to take from you if I'm bigger or stronger? Or why should I not have the right piss on the lawn of city hall? I know the negative/positive right postulate, if you will, tidies up the argument. But isn't any conversation or argument on rights necessarily arbitrary, since rights are a function of what we believe to be right, moral, ethical, etc. ?

And if so, isn't any sort of reasoning or logical structure such as your 'positive/negative right ' one necessarily arbitrary and subjective, at least partially(I would say mostly)?

Here's the noun part of right taken from dicitonary.com:

–noun 18. a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: You have a right to say what you please.
19. Sometimes, rights. that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.: women's rights; Freedom of speech is a right of all Americans.
20. adherence or obedience to moral and legal principles and authority. 21. that which is morally, legally, or ethically proper: to know right from wrong.
22. a moral, ethical, or legal principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics.
... more down here even

My conclusion is that there is not a fundamental thing such as a right in the universe outside of the human experience(as far as I know). A lot of people think that what could rightly be called a right, is somehow a fundamental property of the universe. As though these "rights" already exist somehow, just waiting to be described and articulated in some formal way by using a complex logical argument.

In fact our Declaration of Independence even, pretty much seems to ascribe certain "unalienable" rights to supernatural forces.

But what really usually constitutes a right is more often than not a consensus by a group of people on what are the best values to embrace or reject at any given time in history in any given culture/society. There really is nothing more deep or mystical about them. And they are defined rather subjectively(even if it's a sort of collective subjectivity).

So my point is, talking in terms of rights is not something I'm comfortable with, as programming has taught me that usually the right way to solve a problem or to decide a course of action is not through adherence to any particular set of principles or philosophies, but simply thinking of it more in terms of a flow chart. From State1, Action1 will lead to State2, Action1a will lead to State2a, etc. Then decide which course will best meet our goals and live up to the expectations of our values.

Trying to read/write anymore will kill my buzz. :frenchman:

 

[guerilla]

.....And neither do any of the world's leading economists at the world's top universities.


Oh wait, I forgot!!!

The University of Alabama teaches the Austrian school!!

Again, you show off your ignorance for the crowd.

Hayek won the Nobel Prize in 74 I believe. Mises taught at Vienna. Hayek taught in London and was a rival of Keynes.

Salerno is at NYU. GMU has a PhD Austrian program. Block is at Loyola NOLA, and DiLorenzo is at Loyola Baltimore. Reisman at Pepperdine, Klein at Mizzou, Hulsmann is in Angers and Jose Huerta de Soto is in Madrid at URJC.

And that is off the top of my head.

As soon as I get a visa and tetanus shots perhaps I'll fly down there to visit you to catch a lecture.

If you try hard enough perhaps they'll award you an honorary degree.

Dr. Guerilla....Has a nice ring to it doesn't it?
Hehehe you are so witty my friend....

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. It doesn't help you make a point, and in facts lowers the quality of your responses by highlighing how you choose pettiness over veracity in debate.

Whether or not I have a formal education in economics, does not invalidate my argument. People such as you, without the capacity to reason, have to rely on the expert judgements of others, without trying to inform yourself first. It's the same whether you try to talk about politics and philosophy, or web automation and economics.

I'll be up for another hour, if you want to further prove the extent of your ignorance. Obviously, you have nothing to worthwhile contribute to the discussion on healthcare.

 

[fvaldes]

yay .. a late night battle of the nerds...
seriously guys...chill it...nobody needs to prove anything here.

 

[guerilla]

you really havent lived much have you?

Think about this statement.

a middle aged teacher gets laid off... later on loses her insurance and can't continue to go to her chemo appointments weekly since each session is.... ready for this...$15000weekly!

do you think on a teacher salary she saved 60k to spend on for the next 6 months?

there MUST be an option for people that truly need it. Period.

Why can't the option be to make chemo affordable instead of rationing it? Why can't everyone have cheap chemo, instead of only some people getting free chemo?

I don't think she should have to pay a ton of money for health care. I think health care profits should come down.

Before you claim I haven't lived much, I might offer that you haven't done much thinking. You're just reacting. That's the Michael Moore paradigm. He does a good job of scaring people and driving them to solutions when they react.

It's the hegelian dialectic. Problem (thesis) -> reaction -> solution (anti-thesis). It's great for herding the masses. Make them scared, then tell them how to feel safe. Whether it is terrorists or healthcare, swine flu or jews, you can always motivate people by making them irrationally afraid or concerned, and then offering them a solution without debate.

People with independent minds don't react and overreact. They think. They get to the root of problems and solve the underlying issue with expensive chemo, not continue to overpay for it by taking money from someone else.

 

[AngryMac]

ik i didnt read the whole thread... my teeth are terrible, do i go to the dentist? noooooo, because i cant pay for them. thats one of the drivers i have to get good at Marketing. Anywho if you cant pay for it you shouldnt get health care. I know its a sad story if you cant pay for it, but i cant pay for my shit. does anyone feel bad for me or anyone else? No!, just deal with it stop looking for a hand out take care of your shit. /end angirness

 

[fvaldes]

Think about this statement.


Why can't the option be to make chemo affordable instead of rationing it? Why can't everyone have cheap chemo, instead of only some people getting free chemo?

I don't think she should have to pay a ton of money for health care. I think health care profits should come down.

Before you claim I haven't lived much, I might offer that you haven't done much thinking. You're just reacting. That's the Michael Moore paradigm. He does a good job of scaring people and driving them to solutions when they react.

It's the hegelian dialectic. Problem (thesis) -> reaction -> solution (anti-thesis). It's great for herding the masses. Make them scared, then tell them how to feel safe. Whether it is terrorists or healthcare, swine flu or jews, you can always motivate people by making them irrationally afraid or concerned, and then offering them a solution without debate.

People with independent minds don't react and overreact. They think. They get to the root of problems and solve the underlying issue with expensive chemo, not continue to overpay for it by taking money from someone else.

well, for a thinker you do not do much of it...


going back to my poor teacher above.. she is BROKE man....BROKE.
are you really going to make chemo a $5 experience? what is the difference between that and zero???

if that woman will be saved by free chemo SO BE IT if she can't afford it.


and although much of the movie Sicko is FACT the cuban part was a total joke. He was played like a violin by the cubans... i should know ,.... I am cuban and lived there.

 

[fvaldes]

ik i didnt read the whole thread... my teeth are terrible, do i go to the dentist? noooooo, because i cant pay for them. thats one of the drivers i have to get good at Marketing. Anywho if you cant pay for it you shouldnt get health care. I know its a sad story if you cant pay for it, but i cant pay for my shit. does anyone feel bad for me or anyone else? No!, just deal with it stop looking for a hand out take care of your shit. /end angirness

yep.. it truly is that simple

the old ... fuck you since i know youll fuck me later