Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Anonymous, Jan 17, 2011.
I did. As far as I know, people don't need an insurance to get corn, toilet paper or plastic surgery, which you used in comparison to health care.
actually, yes, there is insurance in all those activities. The farmer has insurance, the truck drivers have insurance, the toilet paper maker has insurance, certainly the plastic surgeon has insurance. But because the government doesn't have its heavy hands all over the scales, then we don't have to notice it.
What I said is that medicine is subject to supply and demand. No economist would dispute that. Medicine is a service supplied by people, therefore it follows the same incentives and disincentives. That fact is hard for many people to take. It means medical care has to be rationed like all other goods and services. This fact is why I advocate for free markets. This is the only known way to eliminate the bias of a government that can't help but to pick favorites and exclude enemies.
The purpose of prices is to find the value of things. When the government distorts the prices, all that can happen is a few get richer and the rest lose. That is exactly what you don't want to happen, but the structure is set up that way. To make it more equitable, let the market decide what prices are. that is the most democratic method possible.
The supply of doctors is tightly controlled. There is a quota on how many new doctors can be trained.
It's not a free market.
In a free market, anyone who could afford to would attend medical school, and all who passed the exams would be allowed to practice. This is not the case.
You proved my point. The market is tightly regulated, driving prices up.
It's not the government regulating the availability of doctors, it's the doctors doing it.
Most of the cost of healthcare comes from the outrageous salaries that doctors make, thanks to them artificially
keeping the supply down. If the government does not step in to get rid of this protectionism, it will continue indefinitely.
It's not the government healthcare law that's the problem, it's the government not stepping into control doctor's salaries by increasing the number
of doctors trained: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-02-doctor-shortage_x.htm
the doctors couldn't do it in a free market. No profession would have the power to regulate themselves. It's absurd. But it isn't a free market that makes it happen, it's government regulations. Anytime an industry wants regulation it is to prevent the free market from operating. Business men are not necessarily free market oriented.
You are simply giving evidence to prove my point. Restrictions on entry into any field mean a monopoly profit to the practitioners, be they construction workers, auto workers or doctors. Make no mistake, the AMA is a trade union for doctors, as the Teamsters is for truckers.
Are you suggesting letting anyone who wants to can simply call themselves a doctor and practice medicine?
thread actually ended here though...
Free market is a mean, not an end. It just doesn't work on its own in many cases, and to think that it's the ultimate solution is to turn it into a dogma, and when it is turned into a dogma, there is an automatic refusal to consider alternatives, unfortunately. Free market is not democracy, because free markets do not prevent concentration of power. It's just an good mechanism to set price for limited resources, nothing more. It has its flaws, thus it cannot be an end in itself, and the only solution to all resources allocations issues.
Now, falling ill is not like craving corn, one doesn't choose to fall ill. There will be always bias in the health care sector, unless as a society, we accept that people can be left to die of their illness without treatment because they can't afford it.
It comes back to rights, now doesn't it? Just what are rights. If as someone stated earlier, that rights are what we grant each other, then we have no rights, only permissions. But if rights are ours by virtue of our nature, then those rights apply to all and cannot be taken away.
Just about any "right" you could think of as being universal very easily can be taken away, so by your definition the only right we have is the right to think for the time that we are alive. Your "right to life" can be revoked at any time by a huge fucking boulder or a crazy dude with an axe pick, it doesn't matter if the guy gets thrown in jail after the fact, you've lost your life already. If living is a right that we only have as long as we are participating in a society that respects that as an individual right, then anything more complex than that like free speech or property must also stem from a societal contract.
Personally, I enjoy living in a society where I can expect not to get murdered, and not to get black bagged the minute I say something unpopular. I would go so far as to say that I would like for every human being to live in a society that accepts these as basic rights and works to defend them, but I'm not going to say that there's some magical law of the universe that guarantees these things.
If you think an accident shows we don't have rights, then I suggest studying up on the concept of natural rights before we discuss this any further.
This was posted on anonnews.org It gave rise to some discussion. Might interest you as well, since it's Orwell related.
The style isn't very analytic, so it might require a re-read. What I got from it is that the author questions Anonymous' motives...
A Manifest in Double-Think;
-A reaction to the Anonymous Nomad-
“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself -- that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed.”1
In anticipation of Operation 1984 we will present a view of the Anonymous derived from Orwell's personality splitt: O'Brian and Winston.
At once we must recognize the current tendencies that are emitted from the ranks of the Anonymous as Winston's desperate hope that if it is granted that freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four, all else follows. Truisms are true, hold on to that!2 – it is this thought that elsewhere has been characterized as a will to selftyranny - a voluntary subjugation to a liberal addiction.3 That is, differently put, if we grant credibility to the claim that slogan information is free is indeed a truism, we, as the Anonymous, are holding two contradictory beliefs in [...] mind simultaneously, and accept[...] both of them.4 – we practice double-think.
“Bold claims”, you say!?
“Show us this contradiction,” you demand!?
“How can you speak of truisms, dear Anonymous, when you cannot hold on to a truth?”, is what we will answer in return.
Who then are you, Anonymous, really? Are we the naïve, ever so innocent and, ultimately, socially dysfunctional persona of Winston? Bend on finding truth and liberating our fellow citizens – doing the truly right thing for our global community.
So many high and mighty voices sound through the every sifting mask that the Anonymous sure does sound like Winston. “We cannot hold on to a truth? We are fighting for a truth!”
Is the Anonymous essentially not unlike O'Brian? Preoccupied with its own survival first and foremost. Cunning like a fox - cleverly acting in such a way as to deceive our audiences into thinking that the truth we fight for is a truth we hold dear. So experienced in deceiving that we manage to deceive the Anonymous itself into believing our lies.
O'Brian, a persona that has all the qualities that intellectuals in our actual world possess. Critical thinking. Rhetorics. Knowledge. Yet, in no way do his actions chime with what we expect our intellectuals to do. If they would, O'Brian would not live to tell the tale. – torture for torture's sake – art for art's sake – freedom for the sake of freedom. Such empty phrases.
Big Brother threatens to take away our possibility to practive lulz for the sake of lulz. Is this not the sole answer to the 'why?' of the Anonymous? What freedom? What cosmopolitan utopia in virtual reality? These are not the reasons why we started our fight. In our perspective Assange wasn't assisted – MasterCard, Visa, PayPall, and friends, were trolled.
Just a small excuse was needed to convince those watching that what we did, we did for some cause. We claimed to fight for freedom, yet we hampered others in their freedom. An eye for an eye? Maybe. But won't the whole world go blind after a while?
Regardless of the original intentions, a curious thing now has happened. O'Brian, the Anonymous, made, through this first act of deception, a first contact with Winston, some more recent Anonymous. And this Winston thought to see a kindred spirit: [Winston] felt deeply drawn to him. t was because of a secretly held belief, or perhaps not even a belief, merely a hope that O'Brian's political orthodoxy was not perfect. Something in his face suggested it irresistibly. And again, maybe it was not even unorthodoxy that was written in his face, but simply intelligence. But at any rate he had the appearance of being a person that you could talk to if somehow you could cheat the telescreen and get him alone.5
And so Winston joined O'Brian. Both now speak through this mask, named the Anonymous. But, how long will it take before either one is aken to room 101? Which one of these two personalities is the true nomad? Which one is the true bureaucrat? These are questions we need answered.
11984, ch. 3
21984, ch. 7
3Manifesto of the Anonymous Nomad.
41984, ch. 3
51984, ch. 1
I loves Erik Arthur Blair.
He tell´s some truths about the war in spain.
When the men (and women) be humans,not angels...
The most dangerous weapon known to man is FAITH, the only capable of supressing human rights during milleniums...
Sometimes,the state works all right.
The state are the people.
(But they do not know )(They called at this"communism")
( I forget the espíritu santo,excuse me)
¿The better of all of us will be?
I liek his brother Tony.
He tells some truths about the war in irak
Tony Blair the ex prime minister of england?
Is the brother of George Orwell?
Erik Arthur Blair is the real name of orwell.
Weapons of massdestruction?
The president of spaniards and bush said the same...
And portugal president too.
Do not appears.
But catholic tony insists.
Definitively is not the brother of George.
"Wars are not made to win..."
Said george. (Erik Arthur)
Sure is stupid in here.
You know what worries me?
How often I agree with herro the past year.
Are you sure ?
ohh yes it is
we need a sup forum for this
How is murder an accident?
Murder is not an accident.
An agent does.
A person ,an animal ,etc.
Concept of natural rights?
What are those natural rights?
What a lovely comment.
¿You are not stupid?
Thanks for aportation...
Clans of Lycaons (Wild african dog) have public health.
They feeds and defends wounded members.
Work to help others.
I don´t know.
I wanna knows what are antinatural rights...
I wish I could get more into those types
I only sparknoted Brave World and read bits and pieces of 1984
Any Vonnegut novels you can recommend for me to check out?
Player piano: Why we are doomed to automate everything.
Galapagos: funniest apocalypse ever.
Slapstick: the significance of social networking. Also an easy read, goes down like ice cream.
thanks I'll check them out...
now that I remember, did Vonnegut write the one story that had Ice-9 in it?
Oh, add that to the list.
EDIT: heck, read um all. there are only like 12 all together. He's a lazy bastard.
that's what it was!
I thought the title looked familiar
right now I'm just trying to get through Dracula...The only Orwell book I read in entirety was Animal Farm
The allusion between the animals and the rise of Communist Russia is quite striking in my opinion
Dude. Read We by Yevgeny Zamyatin. Anthem by Ayn Rand, Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, and 1984 by George Orwell were all deeply influenced by that work. Even if you don't speak Communist Russian, there are other language translations available. The English translation I read was quite good. I found We had a humanity to it the later works missed somewhat.
Books are for losers.
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!