The Doctor Meets the Bioethicist

[orion]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
more profitable.

[/quote]

Not the issue here.

Do you believe fire, education, emergency medical services, and law enforcement/protection should all be run by private, for-profit companies?

If yes, why? If no, why not?[/quote]

I do not believe that they should be run by the state, the most inefficient organisations known to men.

If someone finds a way to make a buck out of it, awesome, in fact I hope someone does.

If not, we would have to organize it ourselves and I will be buggered if we cannot do it cheaper and faster than the average bureaucrat.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
more profitable.

[/quote]

Not the issue here.

Do you believe fire, education, emergency medical services, and law enforcement/protection should all be run by private, for-profit companies?

If yes, why? If no, why not?[/quote]

In your argument, only patients have rights, not care givers. If you don’t realize this there is no hope for debate here, just chasing your own tail.

Government is force, at least as it is currently contrived. And in most instances. The idea of the free market is voluntary interactions.

So true private business, yes I would choose that over government run any day. Prior to 1930s medical service was readily available and affordable. The GOVERNMENT was the entity that decided it should cost more and be more reclusive.

What do you do for a living? anything, what is your station in life.

See I know both Story420 and I have actually been involved in the healthcare industry, I still am not sure about him. Government has done to medicine and health what it does to every other industry it gets it’s hands on, ruined it. Forced huge costs, decreases in services, slowed innovation.

The private sector is better because it forces innovation, to do things better, and more efficiently.

The government and individuals such as yourself who think they have the right to force others to do as they say without a choice int he matter (sounds like enslavement to me) slow this progress. You think you can just take people money, time, life from them and force them to devote it to others. This creates contempt and complacency at best.

[/quote]

Strawmen.

[apbt55]

charity is not charity when the resource is first stolen, and redistributed by someone who had no effort in creating the resource.

America was not built on collectivism, it was built on the voluntary interactions of individuals, who were able to do so because their rights were preserved by the government.

for everyone that believes we should be some forced collectivist society. I am sure the majority of productive tax payers that you wish to leach off of, would be happy to pay a one time tax that provides a one way trip for you all to the socialist utopia of your dreams, which ever one it may be.

[apbt55]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Strawmen.[/quote]

Tinman, deedeedee

WTF? , I will no longer put effort into discourse with you.

I think I have said that before, I need to remind myself. Fight the urge, he doesn’t understand rationale thought or logical arguments.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
more profitable.

[/quote]

Not the issue here.

Do you believe fire, education, emergency medical services, and law enforcement/protection should all be run by private, for-profit companies?

If yes, why? If no, why not?[/quote]

This is your problem, lumping in emergency medical services with general healthcare “someone is sick denying them medicine.” Your other examples are all things anyone would gladly forfeit taxes for and benefit the entire community (if your house is on fire it behooves me as your neighbor if it is put out or not" not so much if you have a self imposed disease like heart disease (assuming it was induced by lifestyle choices) and can’t afford your astronomical bills. In an emergency where people have had an accident and need immediate care then yes I am happy to have my taxes go towars covering some of those costs for the greater good and in case I ever need those services as well. Your type 2 diabetes you brought on yourself cause you eat shit food? Yeah sorry, you pay for it and if you can’t then tough titty.[/quote]

What if I get cancer? How about fibromyalgia? TB? Malaria? Hepatitis a/b/c?

Its the insurance companies and private hospitals (each looking to make as much a profit as possible) that make the bills astronomical.

Your “tough titty” remark is juvenile and makes me hope one of your loved ones ends up in a situation of being unable to afford necessary medical attention - to see how your “pay up or tough titty” attitude changes.

[storey420]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
more profitable.

[/quote]

Not the issue here.

Do you believe fire, education, emergency medical services, and law enforcement/protection should all be run by private, for-profit companies?

If yes, why? If no, why not?[/quote]

In your argument, only patients have rights, not care givers. If you don’t realize this there is no hope for debate here, just chasing your own tail.

Government is force, at least as it is currently contrived. And in most instances. The idea of the free market is voluntary interactions.

So true private business, yes I would choose that over government run any day. Prior to 1930s medical service was readily available and affordable. The GOVERNMENT was the entity that decided it should cost more and be more reclusive.

What do you do for a living? anything, what is your station in life.

See I know both Story420 and I have actually been involved in the healthcare industry, I still am not sure about him. Government has done to medicine and health what it does to every other industry it gets it’s hands on, ruined it. Forced huge costs, decreases in services, slowed innovation.

The private sector is better because it forces innovation, to do things better, and more efficiently.

The government and individuals such as yourself who think they have the right to force others to do as they say without a choice int he matter (sounds like enslavement to me) slow this progress. You think you can just take people money, time, life from them and force them to devote it to others. This creates contempt and complacency at best.

[/quote]

Strawmen.[/quote]

Please explain how his comment or mine are strawmen. Oh and here’s the definition for you in case you were thinking of another fallacy argument that you could avoid this counterpoint with.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of “reasoning” has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

[orion]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
more profitable.

[/quote]

Not the issue here.

Do you believe fire, education, emergency medical services, and law enforcement/protection should all be run by private, for-profit companies?

If yes, why? If no, why not?[/quote]

This is your problem, lumping in emergency medical services with general healthcare “someone is sick denying them medicine.” Your other examples are all things anyone would gladly forfeit taxes for and benefit the entire community (if your house is on fire it behooves me as your neighbor if it is put out or not" not so much if you have a self imposed disease like heart disease (assuming it was induced by lifestyle choices) and can’t afford your astronomical bills. In an emergency where people have had an accident and need immediate care then yes I am happy to have my taxes go towars covering some of those costs for the greater good and in case I ever need those services as well. Your type 2 diabetes you brought on yourself cause you eat shit food? Yeah sorry, you pay for it and if you can’t then tough titty.[/quote]

What if I get cancer? How about fibromyalgia? TB? Malaria? Hepatitis a/b/c?

Its the insurance companies and private hospitals (each looking to make as much a profit as possible) that make the bills astronomical.

Your “tough titty” remark is juvenile and makes me hope one of your loved ones ends up in a situation of being unable to afford necessary medical attention - to see how your “pay up or tough titty” attitude changes.[/quote]

Really?

And here I thought Dell and Apple were in it for the money too, and yet their products become better and cheaper by the hour.

I wonder what is missing in teh health care sector that seems to work so well in other sectors of the economy?

I wonder what happens in those sectors of health care that are not heavily regulated by the state?

If only someone had made a youtube clip about a side by side comparison of human and veterinary clinics in Canada…

I hope I dont spoil anything when I say that if Fido needs an MRI, he gets it 6 months before the average Canadian.

Cheaper too, but I guess that is because they make extra special MRIs for humans that just can do that much more.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Strawmen.[/quote]

Tinman, deedeedee

WTF? , I will no longer put effort into discourse with you.

I think I have said that before, I need to remind myself. Fight the urge, he doesn’t understand rationale thought or logical arguments.[/quote]

Lets look at what you wrote, hm?

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

In your argument, only patients have rights, not care givers. If you don’t realize this there is no hope for debate here, just chasing your own tail.

[/quote]

This is a strawman because it is an incorrect observation about my argument. My argument is that it is unethical to deny sick people medical treatment based on an inability to give money.

Government is force, at least as it is currently contrived. And in most instances. The idea of the free market is voluntary interactions.

So true private business, yes I would choose that over government run any day. Prior to 1930s medical service was readily available and affordable. The GOVERNMENT was the entity that decided it should cost more and be more reclusive.

What do you do for a living? anything, what is your station in life.

This seems to be a set up for an ad hominem attack. I’m a massage therapist, and a package handler at Fedex.

See I know both Story420 and I have actually been involved in the healthcare industry, I still am not sure about him. Government has done to medicine and health what it does to every other industry it gets it’s hands on, ruined it. Forced huge costs, decreases in services, slowed innovation.

The private sector is better because it forces innovation, to do things better, and more efficiently.

The government and individuals such as yourself who think they have the right to force others to do as they say without a choice int he matter (sounds like enslavement to me) slow this progress.

This is a strawman because I do not think I have the right to “force others to do as I say without a choice in the matter”. Its a ridiculous strawman and deserves no reply.

You think you can just take people money, time, life from them and force them to devote it to others. This creates contempt and complacency at best.

And more. I dont think I can just take peoples time, money, and/or life from them. Another useless personal attack.

I’ll make the point again, for you:

There are certain services which are unethical to withhold based on an inability to pay money. Among these are firefighting, law enforcement, education, and emergency medical services. Nonemergency medical services are also unethical to withold based on an inability to pay money.

[storey420]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
more profitable.

[/quote]

Not the issue here.

Do you believe fire, education, emergency medical services, and law enforcement/protection should all be run by private, for-profit companies?

If yes, why? If no, why not?[/quote]

This is your problem, lumping in emergency medical services with general healthcare “someone is sick denying them medicine.” Your other examples are all things anyone would gladly forfeit taxes for and benefit the entire community (if your house is on fire it behooves me as your neighbor if it is put out or not" not so much if you have a self imposed disease like heart disease (assuming it was induced by lifestyle choices) and can’t afford your astronomical bills. In an emergency where people have had an accident and need immediate care then yes I am happy to have my taxes go towars covering some of those costs for the greater good and in case I ever need those services as well. Your type 2 diabetes you brought on yourself cause you eat shit food? Yeah sorry, you pay for it and if you can’t then tough titty.[/quote]

What if I get cancer? How about fibromyalgia? TB? Malaria? Hepatitis a/b/c?

Its the insurance companies and private hospitals (each looking to make as much a profit as possible) that make the bills astronomical.

Your “tough titty” remark is juvenile and makes me hope one of your loved ones ends up in a situation of being unable to afford necessary medical attention - to see how your “pay up or tough titty” attitude changes.[/quote]

It is also the nature of the beast and big pharma’s role that makes these bills astronomical as well as a general disregard for an initial naturopathic role in medicine to foster a preventative approach. We don’t have healthcare, we have disease management and this is what you get.

My “tough titty” remark is the opposite of juvenile, it is tough love after hearing case after case after case of people complaining about healthcare costs and yet taking no personal responsibility and changing their lifestyles. See the difference is that if a relative came down with one of those I would be able to give them my money ON MY TERMS. I have already donated twice this year to friends for this type of thing. I don’t expect it handed to me so I work hard and save my money in an HSA for those kinds of things and take a preventative approach and honestly I wouldn’t recommend the conventional treatments for half the things you listed anyway. Fibromyalgia? Are you kidding me? The doctor tells you that you have that because HE/SHE DOESN"T REALLY KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON WITH YOU and they have no frame of reference for how to actually deal with conditions like this. As I stated before, acute care (ya broke something) one of thebest countries in the world, you have a chronic condition - the current conventional approach is ignorant and wasteful, yeah no thanks don’t care if everyone gets access to it

[apbt55]

[quote]storey420 wrote:

Please explain how his comment or mine are strawmen. Oh and here’s the definition for you in case you were thinking of another fallacy argument that you could avoid this counterpoint with.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of “reasoning” has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person. [/quote]

I find it funny, I bet that many of these people who think tax payers are evil for wanting to keep their money, time and life don’t realize they donate more time, money and life then the ones crying about it. And if they allowed to keep more of that, because they are driven and successful with a desire to help, those resources would be multiplied in their ability to help as compared to the output from the same resource used by the government.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

If a teenager (without medical insurance and whose family is poor) is doing a “backyard wrestling” stunt, jumping off a roof onto another teenager on a table, and breaks his leg, should he get emergency medical treatment for it?

Yes? But it was his fault, it should be “tough titty” unless he can pay for it, right?

[storey420]

Here you said it again “There are certain services which are unethical to withhold based on an inability to pay money. Among these are firefighting, law enforcement, education, and emergency medical services. Nonemergency medical services are also unethical to withold based on an inability to pay money.”

AGREED, for emergency medical services. Not agreed for chronic illness care and have given the reasons why.

[apbt55]

To say it is unethical means you are forcing your viewpoint on them. You are saying others have to provide something because you (not specifically you but anyone who feels this way) say so.

So yes you are taking away the caregivers rights, and forcing by use of the government.

now if someone wants to donate their time or money that is a different story, but the means being presented is not voluntary it is force of one persons ideology on another.

this is what you aren’t getting, as those of us who believe in the freemarket side. It is voluntary interactions. We are not forcing our viewpoint on you. You are free to use whatever resources you want to achieve your goal. That is all we are saying. Keep everything voluntary and preserve individual rights.

As a society we can care for each other without someone forcing their viewpoint on us.

[apbt55]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
If a teenager (without medical insurance and whose family is poor) is doing a “backyard wrestling” stunt, jumping off a roof onto another teenager on a table, and breaks his leg, should he get emergency medical treatment for it?

Yes? But it was his fault, it should be “tough titty” unless he can pay for it, right?[/quote]

\in this instance technically the persons home owners insurance will be liable, whoever owns the property if their is no insurance.

You are using the argument of ethics, I am saying it is unethical and a direct violation of the persons rights to force them to give treatment, so they need to get paid. It is a direct violation of the tax payers then to force them to pay for said treatment. If they wish to donate time or the caregivers wish to donate service then that is great, but to use the force of the government is unethical.

[storey420]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
If a teenager (without medical insurance and whose family is poor) is doing a “backyard wrestling” stunt, jumping off a roof onto another teenager on a table, and breaks his leg, should he get emergency medical treatment for it?

Yes? But it was his fault, it should be “tough titty” unless he can pay for it, right?[/quote]

Nope, as stated I am OK with helping to pay the costs of emergency healthcare. Sure the kid is probably a moron but we all do stupid crap as kids and may grow into a fruitful member of society and it is in our interest to offer emergency care for folks regardless if they have the money or not. This unfortunately means two criminals shoot each other and need critical care then yes it is covered, hey the system doesn’t work perfectly. Now take that backyard wrestling summummabitch and let him drink his sodey pop by the liter every day, have no job, milk off the welfare system to survive and 30 years later he develops type 2 diabetes and can’t pay for the expensive drug treatments?? Yep, tough titty.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
If a teenager (without medical insurance and whose family is poor) is doing a “backyard wrestling” stunt, jumping off a roof onto another teenager on a table, and breaks his leg, should he get emergency medical treatment for it?

Yes? But it was his fault, it should be “tough titty” unless he can pay for it, right?[/quote]

\in this instance technically the persons home owners insurance will be liable, whoever owns the property if their is no insurance.

You are using the argument of ethics, I am saying it is unethical and a direct violation of the persons rights to force them to give treatment, so they need to get paid. It is a direct violation of the tax payers then to force them to pay for said treatment. If they wish to donate time or the caregivers wish to donate service then that is great, but to use the force of the government is unethical. [/quote]

Do you believe taxes for having other services provided to everyone are equally a violation of taxpayers rights?

[Brother_Chris]

Hmm…I swore I posted this in an existing thread. Interesting conversation.

[orion]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
If a teenager (without medical insurance and whose family is poor) is doing a “backyard wrestling” stunt, jumping off a roof onto another teenager on a table, and breaks his leg, should he get emergency medical treatment for it?

Yes? But it was his fault, it should be “tough titty” unless he can pay for it, right?[/quote]

\in this instance technically the persons home owners insurance will be liable, whoever owns the property if their is no insurance.

You are using the argument of ethics, I am saying it is unethical and a direct violation of the persons rights to force them to give treatment, so they need to get paid. It is a direct violation of the tax payers then to force them to pay for said treatment. If they wish to donate time or the caregivers wish to donate service then that is great, but to use the force of the government is unethical. [/quote]

Do you believe taxes for having other services provided to everyone are equally a violation of taxpayers rights?[/quote]

Taxpayers rights is an oxymoron.

[orion]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
If a teenager (without medical insurance and whose family is poor) is doing a “backyard wrestling” stunt, jumping off a roof onto another teenager on a table, and breaks his leg, should he get emergency medical treatment for it?

Yes? But it was his fault, it should be “tough titty” unless he can pay for it, right?[/quote]

Look, free healthcare!

http://www.thisistotalessex.co.uk/news/NHS-trust-director-dies-operations-cancelled/article-3390891-detail/article.html

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
If a teenager (without medical insurance and whose family is poor) is doing a “backyard wrestling” stunt, jumping off a roof onto another teenager on a table, and breaks his leg, should he get emergency medical treatment for it?

Yes? But it was his fault, it should be “tough titty” unless he can pay for it, right?[/quote]

Nope, as stated I am OK with helping to pay the costs of emergency healthcare. Sure the kid is probably a moron but we all do stupid crap as kids and may grow into a fruitful member of society and it is in our interest to offer emergency care for folks regardless if they have the money or not. This unfortunately means two criminals shoot each other and need critical care then yes it is covered, hey the system doesn’t work perfectly. Now take that backyard wrestling summummabitch and let him drink his sodey pop by the liter every day, have no job, milk off the welfare system to survive and 30 years later he develops type 2 diabetes and can’t pay for the expensive drug treatments?? Yep, tough titty.[/quote]

Hey man I’m all for a sugar tax.

But now I’ll hear all about how thats a violation of rights and its trying to control people and everything. I disagree though. Shit food = health problems, right? So the people eating shit food are costing everyone else money (either through unpaid hospital bills or insurance costs). If we put a tax on the companies that make shit food, and a tax for buying the shit foot, we can use that money for the healthcare costs… or people will just buy less shit food because its more expensive now.

Alternately, we can raise food standards and ban HFCS and trans fats. I think that would be “tough love”.