Why Private Health Care doesn't work

#326
#326
If only to take us away from concerns of how we all make a living does anybody know how tort is handled under a single payer system?
 
#327
#327
hndog609 said:
If only to take us away from concerns of how we all make a living does anybody know how tort is handled under a single payer system?
Click to expand...

Look to medicare - I don't believe docs are shielded at all if they see medicare (or medicaid) patients.
 
#328
#328
volinbham said:
Look to medicare - I don't believe docs are shielded at all if they see medicare (or medicaid) patients.
Click to expand...

So if it went single payer what would insurance look like for the Docs? I'm wondering since I've long thought one of the real problems with health care costs as it stands currently is insurance/tort related.
 
#329
#329
hndog609 said:
So if it went single payer what would insurance look like for the Docs? I'm wondering since I've long thought one of the real problems with health care costs as it stands currently is insurance/tort related.
Click to expand...

I think there is considerable debate about that issue. If it was full on national HC system where HC workers were govt workers (God forbid) then it would probably change quite a bit since individuals would have to in effect sue the Feds.

If it's single payer only (national insurance) but HC workers are still independent than I don't see how the two are necessarily related.
 
#330
#330
droski said:
the question is when does it become greedy? is it greedy i want the best educaton for my children and therefore i might take a job that makes more money than one i am in love with? bill gates has given tens of billions to charity. is he greedy? who decides? who is the victim? the middle class? horse****
Click to expand...

Operating from my particular "concrete" and time proven value set (judeo-christian orthodox) then I would say that it becomes greed at the point where other moral absolutes are ignored or dispensed with altogether. Must you lie, cheat, steal, undermine others? Were ethics, morals, or even rules violated to satisfy ambition?

Another caveat to that is the question of motive. Is your motive to attain something just so you can "consume it on your own lusts"? Is it just craven lust and material desire or are you doing it because it is the right thing to strive for excellence? Are you doing it with only yourself in mind or so that you can benefit others as well?

Just a quick example- It would not be "greedy" for you to work hard or take a higher paying job to educate your child. It would be greedy to somehow sabotage someone else's attempting to get their child the same benefit. It would be greedy to lie about your qualifications to get the job that enabled you child to get the benefit. It would even be greedy if your real and primary motive was so that your child could somehow benefit with their education.

To put it in the post-modern verbage that many find more tasteful and less restrictive... Did you do it "fairly"?
 
Last edited:
#332
#332
utgibbs said:
Indeed.

But it has been promoted as a virtue ad nauseum over the last 40 years.
Click to expand...

Far, far, far more by Progressives in various manifestations than the "rule of law" right. It is the right, not the statists, that advocates that everyone should play by the same rules. Progressives have excused numerous violations/confiscations of legitimate rights because one of their constituent groups wanted something they had not earned.

Labor union laws provide very good examples. Wealth transfers provide another. Nationalized healthcare is a classic example.

Before you go ballistic... I did not say Republican vs Dem. I am talking strictly about the conservative-libertarian idealism that many branded "conservative" or libertarian or Tea Party or even "Christian Right" in many respects hold sacred. Play by the rules. Enforce the rules. If they need to be changed, do it by consensus not by fiat or tricks.

My rule of thumb concerning politics: ALL concentrations of power and wealth in the hands of a few people present a direct threat to the rights and freedoms of the people.

Big gov't, big business, big labor, big media, big political parties, big academia, big religion... have ALL stolen freedom and oppressed populations. Most convince many of the oppressed that it is for their own good.
 
#334
#334
droski said:
someone watched the new wall street movie.
Click to expand...

Yep, someone just read the communist manifesto after they watched the new Wall Street movie.

I have debated this issue with many people. Even the most hardcore leftest has not spewed this ridiculous drivle during my debates. I hate doing this, I really do but this UTGIBBS guy is a simple buffoon.
This debate is pointless, he doesn't even know what a fact is.
 
#335
#335
I'm guessing Gibbs never posted the top 5 list I asked for or showed where Greenspan said greed is a virtue.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#336
#336
kptvol said:
I'm guessing Gibbs never posted the top 5 list I asked for or showed where Greenspan said greed is a virtue.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

No Top 5 list. The greed as a virtue thing I guess had to be interpreted? I think he said something along those lines.

You, sir, need an interpreter. I hear Gibbs is available. GSM.
 
#337
#337
fl0at said:
No Top 5 list. The greed as a virtue thing I guess had to be interpreted? I think he said something along those lines.

You, sir, need an interpreter. I hear Gibbs is available. GSM.
Click to expand...

I'll check behind the woodshed.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#338
#338
fl0at said:
No Top 5 list. The greed as a virtue thing I guess had to be interpreted? I think he said something along those lines.

You, sir, need an interpreter. I hear Gibbs is available. GSM.
Click to expand...

It only had to be interpretted for those who couldn't read the title of the article. I did try to provide some historical context for the historically challenged, but Greed as Virtue appears in the freakin' title!

I missed KPT's Top 5 list request, but I'm sure it was an entertaining red herring.

You can't run; you can't hide. The real world wins EVERY TIME. :)
 
#341
#341
utgibbs said:
:thumbsup:

You're learning.
Click to expand...

Not really I figured out a long time ago that when you've been totally squashed due to a ridiculous position that turns every other person in the discussion against you you'll simply declare victory, refuse to continue arguing, and claim detracting points are actually supporting points without even a hint of an explanation.
 
#342
#342
utgibbs said:
but Greed as Virtue appears in the freakin' title!
Click to expand...

The only problem I see with this is that the title is a reflection of the opinion of the author, not the characters involved.

You are a writer, I presume? You have had to come up with catchy attention grabbing titles before, correct? The opinion of the author, in the title, does not necessarily reflect the true nature of the article.

You are also well read, and as such, I assume you've come across books with title's that do state directly, or indirectly, anything stated by characters in the prose.
 
#343
#343
kptvol said:
Not really I figured out a long time ago that when you've been totally squashed due to a ridiculous position that turns every other person in the discussion against you you'll simply declare victory, refuse to continue arguing, and claim detracting points are actually supporting points without even a hint of an explanation.
Click to expand...

I gave an authoritative explanation on how volinbham proved me right as rain with his own post. The quote he focused on EXACTLY expressed my whole premise that greed, lately and uniquely, had been elevated to virtue by the dominant culture.

What is ridiculous has been the attempts to deny what is clearly received wisdom of the last forty years. There are 1,000,000 articles I could have chosen, but Greenspan's mea culpa was delicious.

More history for you, since the "article" only had Greed as Virtue in its title: The Ayn Rand Institute: The Virtue of Selfishness

:eek:lol:
 
#345
#345
fl0at said:
Selfishness and greed are not the same thing. Furthermore, did you read the insert: "The Virtue of Selfishness is a collection of essays presenting Ayn Rand’s radical moral code of rational selfishness" ?

What do you garner from the bold term?
Click to expand...

Quibbling.

The article starts with Greenspan's seat at the circle of Ayn Rand. He is an acolyte; a true-believer (until his mea culpa).

What you and the rest of the cadre are missing, is the article is written from the perspective that Greed as Virtue is established wisdom and well-known. Either the cadre is missing critical reading comprehension skills, or critical historical background. I'm sorry the article has proven so challenging.

I will be the first to say that Ayn Rand's novels are terrific - but they are novels. Fiction, in other words. She indeed has a radical philosophy, one shared by Greenspan et al, until his mea culpa described in said article.
 
#346
#346
utgibbs said:
Quibbling.

The article starts with Greenspan's seat at the circle of Ayn Rand. He is an acolyte; a true-believer (until his mea culpa).

What you and the rest of the cadre are missing, is the article is written from the perspective that Greed as Virtue is established wisdom and well-known.
Click to expand...

If it were established wisdom and "well-known," and were in fact not arguing minor points on definition, the view as a virtue would not be radical, would it not? It would be, as it were, standard viewpoint.

Like I said, what do you garner from the bold term?
 
#347
#347
utgibbs said:
It only had to be interpretted for those who couldn't read the title of the article. I did try to provide some historical context for the historically challenged, but Greed as Virtue appears in the freakin' title!
Click to expand...

An opinion writer puts words in his title and that makes it accepted wisdom? Hmmm.

Also, Greeny's own words contradict the author's claim that he (Greeny) viewed greed as good.

There's an article in yesterday's Washington Times titled "Liberals' Distaste for the Constitution". It says right there in the title that liberals don't like the Constitution. This is accepted wisdom.

Now, we need to understand liberals hate the Constitution.
 
#348
#348
volinbham said:
An opinion writer puts words in his title and that makes it accepted wisdom? Hmmm.

Also, Greeny's own words contradict the author's claim that he (Greeny) viewed greed as good.

There's an article in yesterday's Washington Times titled "Liberals' Distaste for the Constitution". It says right there in the title that liberals don't like the Constitution. This is accepted wisdom.

Now, we need to understand liberals hate the Constitution.
Click to expand...

It's painfully obvious to everyone that gibbs is confusing what greenspan and the writer stated. My guess is he too knows it's bunk but has too much invested in his beliefs to allow the house of cards to fall around him.
 
#349
#349
KB5252 said:
It's painfully obvious to everyone that gibbs is confusing what greenspan and the writer stated. My guess is he too knows it's bunk but has too much invested in his beliefs to allow the house of cards to fall around him.
Click to expand...

Right.

I'm confusing what the acolyte of Ayn Rand believed.
I'm confusing what it says in his 50 years of writing.
I'm confusing: "It is that the avenues to express greed had grown so enormously...."
I'm confusing: "Greed as virtue."

Riiiiiight.

People! That greed was made virtuous has been conventional wisdom for a long time:

YouTube - Gordon Gekko "Greed is Good" Speech

Gordon Gekko, folks. Game, Set, and Match.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top