Atheistforums.com

The current medical bill photo going around...


(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18274755_10206837883824084_8953592340354110798_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=dbe225dfbc5624cfdb0af3e0c53efb75&oe=5B7E966E)


I can attest to the cost of this shit... for a quick scan of my head + an ambulance ride when I passed out while driving last year set me back about $15,000 in debt. (just to be told they couldn't find anything wrong). When I broke my wrist and needed staples in the back of my head? Another $10,000. Shit, just kidney stones cost me about $4k.

Like, there is a reason I don't have insurance... I can't afford it. So the logical solution must therefore be if I, or most people my age, get sick... we should just be forced into crippling debt. Which we are already in anyways, hence why we can't pay for insurance....

When my dad had cancer, we thankfully had it paid for by the gov't, because his bills were over $750,000 for treatment that made him worse and a hospice that mistreated him.


And then there is always this...


(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/VbtNFaguYth_-QdiBKTcYrftscc=/0x0:1440x2560/920x0/filters:focal(0x0:1440x2560):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7215337/e0sVSrc.jpg)


$40 to hold your baby after birth.

What a joke.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/rattlesnake-selfie-results-in-a-153k-medical-bill/

This article gives the main reason; the manufacturer charges $2500 a vial for anti-venom and then that gets marked up for consumers and insurance.

Is it too early to talk about universal healthcare?  (Or too late?)

In the UK you wouldn't get a bill.

Quote from: Shiranu on May 23, 2018, 12:09:41 AM



And then there is always this...


(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/VbtNFaguYth_-QdiBKTcYrftscc=/0x0:1440x2560/920x0/filters:focal(0x0:1440x2560):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7215337/e0sVSrc.jpg)


$40 to hold your baby after birth.

What a joke.

It's called "unbundling". Google is your friend. The last fifteen days have cost an average of $10,000 each for me.

Quote from: Jason78 on May 23, 2018, 02:31:34 AM
In the UK you wouldn't get a bill.

No, in the UK you get another royal wedding.  The marriage of Prince William (earlier) cost $250 million I hear.

And UK doesn't pay the full bill for defense from the Soviet Union/Russia.  Just saying.

Yes, say half of the DoD bill could be redirected, but then the US foreign policy has to change.

But for the US foreign policy to change, we have to not be dependent on ME petroleum etc.

And for that to happen, Americans need to stop driving cars.

Meanwhile back in military medicine ... what you can charge depends on your connections ...

Our team faced a network problem that was preventing admin capability necessary to facilitate the weekly backup of patient records.  We got paid for our time, the same as always ... we weren't able to hold the patients for ransom ;-)  The problem got understood and resolved.  You can say thanks now ... that we didn't charge $150,000 for this occasional service, particularly since we were under time pressure to get it done by yesterday.

BTW ... 8 years ago I had a series of kidney stone interventions that cost $100,000 ... fortunately I had insurance.  Otherwise I would have died in agony.  How much will you pay, or have someone else pay (socialism) to avoid that?  There is no free lunch, but we can reallocate expenditures in a more humane way.  In effect, health insurance is a broken kind of socialism ... someone else is paying.  We are a mixed economy over here, that some benefit from more than others (socialist doesn't equal equalitarian).  And no, ACA wasn't a good answer, it was another broken system proposed by crooks.

Quote from: Shiranu on May 23, 2018, 12:15:44 AM
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/rattlesnake-selfie-results-in-a-153k-medical-bill/

This article gives the main reason; the manufacturer charges $2500 a vial for anti-venom and then that gets marked up for consumers and insurance.

Word to the wise, the old rattlesnake bite kits don't work (but they were cheap).  Just get to doctor ASAP.  My farming relatives would carry a big stick to deal with a rattler while working, not a camera.  Don't earn a Darwin Award.

Quote from: Shiranu on May 23, 2018, 12:15:44 AM
This article gives the main reason; the manufacturer charges $2500 a vial for anti-venom and then that gets marked up for consumers and insurance.

Part of the reason it's so expensive is because of insurance.  When people have insurance, they don't care that much about what things cost.  So they get a bill for $45,000, and think, "Oh my, it's a good thing I have insurance," and they feel better.  The insurance company deals with it by charging more for insurance, happy to have the excuse that medical costs are going through the roof. 

But insurance companies don't pay the amount on the bill, because insurance companies have worked out agreements with hospitals to pay less than the amount.  People without insurance, the ones who can't afford it, are required to pay something like 25% more than what the insurance company pays, because they haven't worked out volume discounts for 90% of the bills that everyone else receives.

So it's not just the hospitals and pharmacies that overcharge.  They work hand in glove with insurance companies to make sure that together, they get more of your money.  And they do it because people don't care, hospitals don't care, and insurance companies don't care how much it costs.

Will universal coverage fix this?  Well, maybe yes and maybe no.  It depends on whether people and the people's representatives in government care.  The government has the power to tell hospitals and pharmacies to quit the bullshit, which you don't, and the government can regulate providers into charging realistic prices.  For example, $35 for a toothbrush is not a realistic price, even though health providers charge it all the time. By comparing prices of items available in stores with provider prices, we can calculate how ridiculously absurd providers jack prices up, which looks like it could be 10 times what the service is worth.  But will the government bother to regulate providers? 

That depends on what people demand of politicians and whether they will accept how much money providers give politicians to ignore their scam.  This weighs heavily on fairness in healthcare.  Simply put, there's more profit to be made if the process is kept unfair.  If the government is going to provide universal coverage, they have to be willing to regulate providers.  Otherwise universal coverage will indeed become something more than what tax payers can reasonably afford.

But you can bet your boots that our representatives have the power to make sure its done fairly and can bring the prices down to affordable levels that can only be achieved by universal coverage fairly applied, for much less than the current system.  They have the power, but they may not use it if there is nothing in it for them personally.

Quote from: Baruch on May 23, 2018, 06:08:33 AM
No, in the UK you get another royal wedding.  The marriage of Prince William (earlier) cost $250 million I hear.

And UK doesn't pay the full bill for defense from the Soviet Union/Russia.  Just saying.

Yes, say half of the DoD bill could be redirected, but then the US foreign policy has to change.

But for the US foreign policy to change, we have to not be dependent on ME petroleum etc.

And for that to happen, Americans need to stop driving cars.

Meanwhile back in military medicine ... what you can charge depends on your connections ...

Our team faced a network problem that was preventing admin capability necessary to facilitate the weekly backup of patient records.  We got paid for our time, the same as always ... we weren't able to hold the patients for ransom ;-)  The problem got understood and resolved.  You can say thanks now ... that we didn't charge $150,000 for this occasional service, particularly since we were under time pressure to get it done by yesterday.

BTW ... 8 years ago I had a series of kidney stone interventions that cost $100,000 ... fortunately I had insurance.  Otherwise I would have died in agony.  How much will you pay, or have someone else pay (socialism) to avoid that?  There is no free lunch, but we can reallocate expenditures in a more humane way.  In effect, health insurance is a broken kind of socialism ... someone else is paying.  We are a mixed economy over here, that some benefit from more than others (socialist doesn't equal equalitarian).  And no, ACA wasn't a good answer, it was another broken system proposed by crooks.

And if you had a royal family you could have one too.  The UK also regularly escorts the russian airforce out of our airspace.  And just for the record, you don't pay the full bill either.  If you want to pay the full bill, I'm sure we'd welcome the money.

Not everyone that has a problem can afford to have it treated.

Would you rather your taxes paid welfare for someone that can't afford treatment and can't work or would you rather get them fit and healthy and working so they can pay taxes to reduce the overall tax bill?

Quote from: Jason78 on May 23, 2018, 12:52:33 PM
And if you had a royal family you could have one too.  The UK also regularly escorts the russian airforce out of our airspace.  And just for the record, you don't pay the full bill either.  If you want to pay the full bill, I'm sure we'd welcome the money.

Not everyone that has a problem can afford to have it treated.

Would you rather your taxes paid welfare for someone that can't afford treatment and can't work or would you rather get them fit and healthy and working so they can pay taxes to reduce the overall tax bill?

US DoD equals sum of next seven powers ... seven.  Not that I think GB isn't an ally.  But who are they allied to?  The D-party, the CIA?

Yes, unfortunately people get sick and injured.  If you are sufficiently sick of injured, you are going to be out of work (unless some welfare program or workman's comp program will cover you).  i would prefer to have an honest tax system, instead of an insane and partisan one.  And yes, I would be happy to have half the Federal budget go to help pay actually needy people's medical needs.  I would be overjoyed.  My daughter is handicapped, she already gets some support that way.  Why not all those in dire need?  But to do that, you have to cut elsewhere.  And there are consequences to that.  DoD and Senior care are the biggest items, they would have to be cut to pay for medical needs (and of course most Senior care already goes for medical needs).  That pretty much leaves the DoD.

Quote from: Baruch on May 23, 2018, 01:14:50 PM
Why not all those in dire need?  But to do that, you have to cut elsewhere.  And there are consequences to that. 

You don't get it do you?  Not just those in dire need.  You give medical treatment to everybody, even for the little things.  This then lowers the burden for everyone.

For example, you can treat a handful of people for a harmful contagious disease and cure them for a small cost.  Or you can let that disease run rampant through hundreds, even thousands of people in a population where most can't afford to get the appropriate medical treatment for a huge cost.

Quote from: Jason78 on May 23, 2018, 01:44:49 PM
You don't get it do you?  Not just those in dire need.  You give medical treatment to everybody, even for the little things.  This then lowers the burden for everyone.

For example, you can treat a handful of people for a harmful contagious disease and cure them for a small cost.  Or you can let that disease run rampant through hundreds, even thousands of people in a population where most can't afford to get the appropriate medical treatment for a huge cost.

We could lower the burden, by having a much smaller population.  We could achieve that non-violently by prohibiting pro-creation for most people.

But as far as "entitlements" go ... nobody is owned any of that.  Not services, not money, not voting rights ...

Unfortunately the most effective way to reduce unnecessary medical expenditures is eating right, exercise, no drugs, no alcohol, no weed, no tobacco.  And people can choose that on their own.  They don't need a political party.  No jobs for Commissar of Aerobics.

You could just ignore it or sue them

Quote from: Draconic Aiur on May 23, 2018, 05:24:06 PM
You could just ignore it or sue them

A lawsuit requires money (either up front or as a result of a favorable judgement).  Ignoring a bill results in them suing you.

Quote from: Baruch on May 23, 2018, 06:42:27 PM
A lawsuit requires money (either up front or as a result of a favorable judgement).  Ignoring a bill results in them suing you.

hospital has yet to sue me for a bandaid costing 600 dollars

Quote from: Draconic Aiur on May 23, 2018, 07:50:58 PM
hospital has yet to sue me for a bandaid costing 600 dollars

Collection agency still has a full box of bandaids.  When they run out ...

Quote from: Baruch on May 23, 2018, 11:13:55 PM
Collection agency still has a full box of bandaids.  When they run out ...

its been almost 2.5 years

Shiranu what is the alternative? Do you want to force people to charge less for their services by force?

There's universal health care here, only costing 150 dkk a month (about 20 bucks a month), only the dentists have their own payments and those are also low because they are covered, in part, by the UHC. A trip to the dentist for my annual check-up costs me only 1,000 dkk with that coverage.

That bill in OP is insane. What the hell are they doing in the pharmacy that costs 83k ?

Quote from: Sal1981 on May 24, 2018, 05:48:34 AM


That bill in OP is insane. What the hell are they doing in the pharmacy that costs 83k ?

They are charging for their applied knowledge to service you.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2018, 05:50:08 AM
They are charging for their applied knowledge to service you.

I get that R&D costs money, but holy hell, 83k for one patient???

Quote from: Sal1981 on May 24, 2018, 05:58:12 AM
I get that R&D costs money, but holy hell, 83k for one patient???

They can charge what they want as long as they aren't forced by violence by the state to do otherwise. After all, you aren't forced to use their services.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2018, 06:01:01 AM
They can charge what they want as long as they aren't forced by violence by the state to do otherwise. After all, you aren't forced to use their services.

I'm sure I would go to a competitor with lower prices ...

Quote from: Sal1981 on May 24, 2018, 06:03:38 AM
I'm sure I would go to a competitor with lower prices ...

All competitors are going to charge roughly the same - as is their right. Well, it's their right so long as - again - the state doesn't compel them by threat of violence to do otherwise.

By the way. I am FOR socialised medicine.

I just want people to understand that socialised medicine is immoral. They need to understand that to install socialised medicine is to enact injustice upon individuals for the sake of the collective. If you understand this and reason that it's still worth it, then so be it; at least you know what your position really is.

Socialised medicine is the state forcing individuals to charge for their services what the state deems is right to charge. Failing to comply will be met with a gun pointed at you: armed police hauling you off to rot in a cell.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2018, 06:18:11 AM
By the way. I am FOR socialised medicine.  I just want people to understand that socialised medicine is immoral.

An example of immorality is a monopoly extorting the collective.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2018, 06:18:11 AM
They need to understand that to install socialised medicine is to enact injustice upon individuals for the sake of the collective. If you understand this and reason that it's still worth it, then so be it; at least you know what your position really is.

When a monopoly uses extortion to drain the recourses of the collective, it is not injustice to force them to stop.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2018, 06:18:11 AM
Socialised medicine is the state forcing individuals to charge for their services what the state deems is right to charge.

This is not likely in the US, where capitalism prevails, but it would not be immoral where the monopoly is taking advantage.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2018, 06:18:11 AM
Failing to comply will be met with a gun pointed at you: armed police hauling you off to rot in a cell.

Hyperbole!  This is only necessary when a criminal refuses to abide by the law.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2018, 06:18:11 AM
By the way. I am FOR socialised medicine.

I just want people to understand that socialised medicine is immoral. They need to understand that to install socialised medicine is to enact injustice upon individuals for the sake of the collective. If you understand this and reason that it's still worth it, then so be it; at least you know what your position really is.

Socialised medicine is the state forcing individuals to charge for their services what the state deems is right to charge. Failing to comply will be met with a gun pointed at you: armed police hauling you off to rot in a cell.

Enslave the doctors and nurses.  Non-compliant dentists will be forced to practice proctology as penance ;-)

There is no such thing as society - Margaret Thatcher.

However, monopolies only exist, where there is government regulation (and campaign contributions).  They don't occur naturally aside from the mindless herd behavior of the "collective".

QuoteI just want people to understand that socialised medicine is immoral.

Not remotely as immoral as forcing people to die, or crippled by debt, all so people can make money off of you being sick or injured.

QuoteFailing to comply will be met with a gun pointed at you: armed police hauling you off to rot in a cell.

And I say good! If a private citizen was giving you the option of dying or paying them $100,000+, that would be attempted murder and you bet your ass the police would threaten you at gun point. If you are looking to exploit people's health and life for money, then you can't complain when someone else threatens your life for doing so.

Quote from: Shiranu on May 24, 2018, 07:20:37 AM
Not remotely as immoral as forcing people to die, or crippled by debt, all so people can make money off of you being sick or injured.

And I say good! If a private citizen was giving you the option of dying or paying them $100,000+, that would be attempted murder and you bet your ass the police would threaten you at gun point. If you are looking to exploit people's health and life for money, then you can't complain when someone else threatens your life for doing so.

Every human being is required to die.  Complain to G-d if you can.  The only difference lies in the details.  "I have a right as a materialist to not credit G-d with this mess, and to use high technology, for free, to extend my dissolute life of no-exercise and lots of STD women etc).  Per your example, the ends justify the means.  So if I needed $100,000 to fix my kidneys, temporarily, to say extend my life by 5 years (say I need a transplant) then it is OK to rob a bank for the money for the procedure and beat up someone with a compatible kidney and take his kidney (or both, for being a capitalist ass about it all).  Or I can have the government steal the money and the kidney for me #The Resistance.

Quote from: SGOS on May 24, 2018, 07:11:22 AM
When a monopoly uses extortion to drain the recourses of the collective, it is not injustice to force them to stop.

Sure. But that's not what medical practitioners are doing. They aren't forcing you to use their services.

QuoteHyperbole!  This is only necessary when a criminal refuses to abide by the law.

Right. And when the state says you are no longer allowed to decide what to charge for your services, you are a criminal if you exercise your inalienable right to do so.

Quote from: Baruch on May 24, 2018, 07:12:20 AM
However, monopolies only exist, where there is government regulation (and campaign contributions).

Actually, they can exist where there is no government regulation too.  But the government always regulates.  It's the basic function of government.  In the US, the government usually regulates the individual, but in extreme cases of injustice, it can regulate a monopoly, but it usually won't.

Quote from: Shiranu on May 24, 2018, 07:20:37 AM
Not remotely as immoral as forcing people to die, or crippled by debt, all so people can make money off of you being sick or injured.

And here we have it. The 'progressive' thinks that by you not providing them a service for free/what they deem an acceptable trade, you are actively doing an injustice upon them.

Not how it works, kiddo.

QuoteAnd I say good! If a private citizen was giving you the option of dying or paying them $100,000+, that would be attempted murder and you bet your ass the police would threaten you at gun point. If you are looking to exploit people's health and life for money, then you can't complain when someone else threatens your life for doing so.

Just accept that your position is immoral upon the individual for the health of the collective. I'm of the same position as you, and I have to accept this reality. I don't try to reason that it's something else - because that's not what it is. Just tell yourself the truth. It's not necessarily ignoble to have a position the benefits the collective at the detriment of doing what is technically morally right.

An individual exercising their right not to provide you a service for what you want to offer is not the same as that individual imposing upon you a necessary dichotomy between their service and harm.

Hyperbole!  This is only necessary when a criminal refuses to abide by the law.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2018, 07:41:43 AM
Right. And when the state says you are no longer allowed to decide what to charge for your services, you are a criminal if you exercise your inalienable right to do so.

Exactly.  That would be the definition of criminality. 

Quote from: SGOS on May 24, 2018, 07:46:56 AM
Actually, they can exist where there is no government regulation too.  But the government always regulates.  It's the basic function of government.  In the US, the government usually regulates the individual, but in extreme cases of injustice, it can regulate a monopoly, but it usually won't.

Show me a natural monopoly and I will show you a pink elephant.  Yes, government regulates.  That is part of what it is there for.  But it is a partisan instrument ... the Rs only want to regulate Ds and vice versa.

No right is inalienable.  I've always wondered who put that nonsense in the constitution when it decreed that its objectives were inalienable rights.  Where do inalienable rights come from?  A higher power?

Quote from: SGOS on May 24, 2018, 07:49:31 AM
Exactly.  That would be the definition of criminality. 

So what exactly is your point? I said that charging people for your services what you wish is your right so long as the state doesn't tell you otherwise - because if they do you'd be forced by gun point (threat of violence) to stop.

You said that this was hyperbole and would only happen if the state deems you a criminal.

Is english your native language or..? Because the above sentence contradicts itself if it is meant to be a response to me:

It is not hyperbole.. IF the state does install socialised medicine.. BECAUSE then it would be criminal to run it privately..

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2018, 08:02:28 AM
So what exactly is your point?

My point is that you are exaggerating ideas to unreasonable proportions.  You are defining regulation as immorality in such an idiosyncratic way that it is unreasonable.  You imply that regulation by the state involves sadistic violence.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2018, 08:02:28 AM
I said that charging people for your services what you wish is your right so long as the state doesn't tell you otherwise - because if they do you'd be forced by gun point (threat of violence) to stop.

Here is what you said:

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2018, 08:02:28 AM
I just want people to understand that socialised medicine is immoral.

Hyperbole!  At best that's just a weird and totally arbitrary definition of immoral.

To continue your actual post:

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2018, 08:02:28 AM
Socialised medicine is the state forcing individuals to charge for their services what the state deems is right to charge. Failing to comply will be met with a gun pointed at you: armed police hauling you off to rot in a cell.

Rot in a cell?  That's hyperbole because it exaggerates the consequences of noncompliance.  You will be incarcerated until you have served your sentence.  That's all.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2018, 08:02:28 AM
You said that this was hyperbole and would only happen if the state deems you a criminal.

I misspoke.  I should have simply said rotting in a cell is hyperbole.

On top of that you say:

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2018, 08:02:28 AM
By the way. I am FOR socialised medicine.

You support something you define as immoral, and you support something you say violates someone's inalienable right through the use of violence.  I won't say you are self contradictory in this case, just not making much sense.

Quote from: SGOS on May 24, 2018, 08:37:30 AM
My point is that you are exaggerating ideas to unreasonable proportions.  You are defining regulation as immorality in such an idiosyncratic way that it is unreasonable.

I'll stop you right here because that is NOT what I'm doing. I was explaining things as they actually are because I want people to know what they're arguing for when they're pro socialised medicine. If you think explaining things as they are is hyperbole then you should examine your own biases.

QuoteRot in a cell?  That's hyperbole because it exaggerates the consequences of noncompliance.  You will be incarcerated until you have served your sentence.  That's all.

Let me get this straight. You have a problem with me saying, 'rot in a cell' because it sounds worse than, 'You will be incarcerated until you have served your sentence' and you think this stems from a bias *I* have?

So you have no problem with people explaining the consequences of your position so long as they express it in language that makes it look 'not that bad.' Well, hate to break it to ya' but that is readily telling everyone that you are ideologically possessed - not me.

Quote from: SGOS on May 23, 2018, 07:23:47 AM
Part of the reason it's so expensive is because of insurance.  When people have insurance, they don't care that much about what things cost.  So they get a bill for $45,000, and think, "Oh my, it's a good thing I have insurance," and they feel better.  The insurance company deals with it by charging more for insurance, happy to have the excuse that medical costs are going through the roof.

My sister works for a non-profit insurer, and happened to have the bill for our uncle's final hospital stay cross her desk.  Without insurance, the hospital would have billed his estate $90,000.  However, since it was an insurance company, the final total bill was about $9,000.

If $9,000 settles the bill for an insurer, why the everloving Technicolor fuck doesn't it settle the bill for an individual?

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2018, 08:47:40 AM
You have a problem with me saying, 'rot in a cell' because it sounds worse than, 'You will be incarcerated until you have served your sentence' and you think this stems from a bias *I* have?

Yes exactly, it's a personal bias exaggerated to make something you disagree with sound worse than it actually is.  Justify that socialized medicine is immoral, because I'm at a complete loss trying to make sense out of that.  If you didn't mean to claim that a person who is non-compliant with socialized medicine is going to rot in a cell, don't say that unless you want to exaggerate how evil socialized medicine is.

There are pros and cons to socialized medicine, and there is room for rational discussion, and if there are negative aspects to socialized medicine that you think people don't understand, you are going to need a better claim than, "It's immoral."  That's at least as biased as the Republican claim, "Healthcare will have Government death squads, deciding if you will be given treatment."   If you are not biased, you're doing a sloppy job as the voice of reason.

Quote from: trdsf on May 24, 2018, 09:13:28 AM
My sister works for a non-profit insurer, and happened to have the bill for our uncle's final hospital stay cross her desk.  Without insurance, the hospital would have billed his estate $90,000.  However, since it was an insurance company, the final total bill was about $9,000.

If $9,000 settles the bill for an insurer, why the everloving Technicolor fuck doesn't it settle the bill for an individual?

I suppose one would try to make the case that the insurance company deals in volume, which is true, but misses the point about how much price gouging is actually going on.  I expect a hospital or a doctor to make a good income, but if they are happy to get 10% from the insurance company, they should be equally happy to have the poor person who has no insurance pay them the same amount.

I can only think of two reasons at the moment why this sliding scale would be so Draconian.  It might be a special punishment for the uninsured intended as dire warning.  Or it could be unbridled greed.  In either case, I don't understand why it's warranted. 

Quote from: SGOS on May 24, 2018, 07:59:03 AM
No right is inalienable.  I've always wondered who put that nonsense in the constitution when it decreed that its objectives were inalienable rights.  Where do inalienable rights come from?  A higher power?

Deist Freemasonry.  Are you a Shriner like my grand pappy?  No, then no secret handshake for you.

Quote from: trdsf on May 24, 2018, 09:13:28 AM
My sister works for a non-profit insurer, and happened to have the bill for our uncle's final hospital stay cross her desk.  Without insurance, the hospital would have billed his estate $90,000.  However, since it was an insurance company, the final total bill was about $9,000.

If $9,000 settles the bill for an insurer, why the everloving Technicolor fuck doesn't it settle the bill for an individual?

You don't have special friends in Washington DC.  See George Carlin routines.

Quote from: SGOS on May 24, 2018, 11:20:48 AM
Yes exactly, it's a personal bias exaggerated to make something you disagree with sound worse than it actually is.  Justify that socialized medicine is immoral, because I'm at a complete loss trying to make sense out of that.

Already did. Socialised medicine is forcing practitioners to work for a fee which they don't necessarily want to work for. They get no choice, because if they attempt to charge what they want for their services they are compelled by violence by the state to do otherwise. That's why it's immoral.

Again I am for socialised medicine. Rather than attempt to reason that my position is without flaw, I accept its immorality as a justified evil for the benefit of society. It is immorality perpetuated against the individual for benefit of the collective.

 

QuoteIf you didn't mean to claim that a person who is non-compliant with socialized medicine is going to rot in a cell, don't say that unless you want to exaggerate how evil socialized medicine is.

I DID mean to say that. If someone attempts to practice medicine privately where socialised medicine exists, the government will retain them in a cell. That's exactly what will happen so that's why I described it loll

Quote from: SGOS on May 24, 2018, 11:37:18 AM
I suppose one would try to make the case that the insurance company deals in volume, which is true, but misses the point about how much price gouging is actually going on.  I expect a hospital or a doctor to make a good income, but if they are happy to get 10% from the insurance company, they should be equally happy to have the poor person who has no insurance pay them the same amount.

I can only think of two reasons at the moment why this sliding scale would be so Draconian.  It might be a special punishment for the uninsured intended as dire warning.  Or it could be unbridled greed.  In either case, I don't understand why it's warranted.

We do it in engineering ... we propose it will take $10,000 to build something, but know it will only take $5,000.  This gives an opportunity for management to cut the price in half and look like heroes.  In the Navy it is called "the Admiral's Bridge".  If you actually propose what it actually costs, you have already surrendered in the negotiation, and you have painted management into a corner ... or either approving a failure to be, or to simply deny the project.

Technically, in some cases, private medicine with private insurance will still exist, but only for the rich.  They don't have to obey laws meant for the hoi polloi.  In serious totalitarian societies, the rich will be dead, so their health care will be a moot point.

Right now this is happening with doctors who refuse Medicare, or who refuse any insurance.  The last dentist my mother went too, only takes cash.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2018, 12:44:00 PM
Socialised medicine is forcing practitioners to work for a fee which they don't necessarily want to work for. They get no choice, because if they attempt to charge what they want for their services they are compelled by violence by the state to do otherwise. That's why it's immoral.

Few people are paid what they think they're worth.  That doesn't mean they are entitled to more, and it's not immoral to refuse to pay them more.  If they don't like it, they have a choice to go do something else.

Quote from: SGOS on May 24, 2018, 01:11:57 PM
Few people are paid what they think they're worth.  That doesn't mean they are entitled to more, and it's not immoral to refuse to pay them more.  If they don't like it, they have a choice to go do something else.

And they have a choice to leave you bleeding out on the street.

If the AMA was worth a damn, then way back when, they would have denied treatment to anyone with insurance.  Let the insurance company paper pusher treat you.

Quote from: SGOS on May 24, 2018, 01:11:57 PM
Few people are paid what they think they're worth.  That doesn't mean they are entitled to more, and it's not immoral to refuse to pay them more.  If they don't like it, they have a choice to go do something else.

Yeah?

So if you work at a bakery, and then quit to go open your own bakery, the former bakery can come with armed force to tell you to either work for them, shut-down your bakery, or continue to operate your bakery and go to jail?

Not the same bud.

Under socialised medicine, the government is telling practitioners that they are not allowed to practice medicine unless its for them. Not the same as the current model we have for every other industry like your fallacious comparison attempts to posit lolll.

There is a difference between luxury goods and necessities. In civilized nations, the people have decided medical care is a right and not a privilege.

Quote from: Shiranu on May 24, 2018, 02:03:27 PM
There is a difference between luxury goods and necessities. In civilized nations, the people have decided medical care is a right and not a privilege.

In most, yeah. I would disagree that socialised medicine is a quality that has any bearing on the civility of a nation, if that's what you're implying. It just depends how strongly that nation values individual liberty. If they value it to the detriment of the collective, then socialised medicine isn't gonna' happen.

I myself value personal liberty a fucking lot. I won't sacrifice it in favor of much, but for socialised medicine I reluctantly will. Waiting periods go up, quality goes down, (though not nearly as much as some conservatards will tell you) but everyone gets it and people don't go into debt for years just for visiting the ER to find out nothing is wrong with them.

Worth it.

QuoteI would disagree that socialised medicine is a quality that has any bearing on the civility of a nation, if that's what you're implying.

I am implying that, amongst other things, because it is simply statistically true.

- Amongst developed country, we have a significantly higher rate of people dying to treatable illness when compared to medically socialized countries.
- Disease is significantly more a burden on a person's quality of life, as well as their potential life span, in the United States than it is in civilized societies.
- Our admission rate for preventable diseases is significantly higher than civilized countries, indicating that people don't want to get help before they have no other option.
- We have the highest rate of medical, medication, and lab errors compared to other countries (though only by a few percentage points on a few, so this one isn't quite as bad).
- We have a significantly higher rate of post-op suture ruptures than other countries.
- On cancer mortality, we are... pretty good, actually. So +1 to the United States there.
- However, when it comes to respiratory disease we have a very high mortality rate compared to other countries (again, part of the preventible disease problem).
- Compared to all civilized countries other than Canada, we have a significantly longer wait time to see a doctor on average.
- Again, compared to all except Canada, Americans check into the ER far more than any other country for symptoms that should be treated by a regular doctor.

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/#item-use-emergency-department-place-regular-doctor-visits-common-u-s-comparable-countries

Additionally, I would just like to add that Americans pay money towards health care than people in civilized country do on average, and often times by a large margin. The system is both more expensive and less effective than socialized medicine.

QuoteIt just depends how strongly that nation values individual liberty.

Individual liberty is not being a heartbeat away from having the next 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 years of your life heavily indebted. That is not liberty. Nor is "liberty" running a borderline criminal enterprise that exploits the health of others to line your wallet. That isn't liberty.

Quote from: Shiranu on May 24, 2018, 04:17:37 PMIndividual liberty is not being a heartbeat away from having the next 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 years of your life heavily indebted. That is not liberty. Nor is "liberty" running a borderline criminal enterprise that exploits the health of others to line your wallet. That isn't liberty.

Liberty isn't just a word you use to describe good things. All the things you described can be perfectly in-line with liberty.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2018, 01:41:40 PM
Under socialised medicine, the government is telling practitioners that they are not allowed to practice medicine unless its for them.

You are allowed to practice medicine if you are licensed to practice and fulfill certain obligations.  We don't know what those obligations might be, anymore than we know there will be government death squads.  Go ahead and believe socialized medicine is immoral if that pleases you.  Lots of people believe all sorts of strange things, and the world will still manage.

Quote from: Baruch on May 24, 2018, 01:12:48 PM
And they have a choice to leave you bleeding out on the street.

Yes, they could do that.  Everyone has a choice.  Although making a bad choice may backfire.

QuoteLiberty isn't just a word you use to describe good things. All the things you described can be perfectly in-line with liberty.

Being heavily indebted is not possessing liberty. Particularly not when it's indebted over something civilized societies deem to be a basic human right. There is no freedom in being tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt; you lose the freedom to live where you want, to purchase what you want, to a chance to move up in the world, to maintain a family, etc. ...

Quote from: SGOS on May 24, 2018, 05:27:22 PM
You are allowed to practice medicine if you are licensed to practice and fulfill certain obligations.  We don't know what those obligations might be, anymore than we know there will be government death squads.  Go ahead and believe socialized medicine is immoral if that pleases you.  Lots of people believe all sorts of strange things, and the world will still manage.

Human beings are immoral, doctors or not, patients or not.  All else is virtue signaling.

People practice medicine without a license all the time ... over the counter, with alcohol, with illegal drugs.  Mostly self-medicating practices.

Doctors are not expected to fulfill any obligations in fact, they only exist on paper.  AMA only protects itself, it is a union.  Or are you thinking of Dr Joel Fleischman?  He had an obligation to public service, for a few years, in Alaska .. in fiction.

Quote from: SGOS on May 24, 2018, 05:35:23 PM
Yes, they could do that.  Everyone has a choice.  Although making a bad choice may backfire.

Not in socialism ... in crony capitalism, you can loose a million bucks in the stock market speculations, and the Feds will back your casino loses.  In medical socialism, you can drink alcohol like a fish, and the taxpayer gets to pay for it.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2018, 01:41:40 PM
Yeah?

So if you work at a bakery, and then quit to go open your own bakery, the former bakery can come with armed force to tell you to either work for them, shut-down your bakery, or continue to operate your bakery and go to jail?

Not the same bud.

Under socialised medicine, the government is telling practitioners that they are not allowed to practice medicine unless its for them. Not the same as the current model we have for every other industry like your fallacious comparison attempts to posit lolll.

I think enslaving everyone is a good idea.  Liberals should get extra whippings, to remind them.

Quote from: Shiranu on May 24, 2018, 02:03:27 PM
There is a difference between luxury goods and necessities. In civilized nations, the people have decided medical care is a right and not a privilege.

I have decided as a demigod ... that socialists are annoying.  Bow down and worship me ... I am one of the People!

But really, the People aren't the government, they aren't even the owners.  Peasants aren't owners.  Owners are the government.

Quote from: Shiranu on May 24, 2018, 05:52:09 PM
Being heavily indebted is not possessing liberty. Particularly not when it's indebted over something civilized societies deem to be a basic human right. There is no freedom in being tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt; you lose the freedom to live where you want, to purchase what you want, to a chance to move up in the world, to maintain a family, etc. ...

Too late, Bush Jr /Obama obligated you to $14 trillion in just 2008/2009 ... better get to work paying off your debt.  Debt slaves have no rights.  You are already in chains, but you can't see them.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2018, 04:39:25 PM
Liberty isn't just a word you use to describe good things. All the things you described can be perfectly in-line with liberty.

Does "liberty" require impoverishment for the slightest uninsured accident or anomolous snake-bite?  Should community matter for something as group insurance? 

Shouldn't we all together want to to protect each other from general financial ruin from things we can't avoid?  Someone, through no fault, gets snakebite.  It could happen to anyone in some places.  Basically, it sounds to me that you are saying "screw you, go broke, and starve" for something you couldn't avoid. 

I like liberty.  But if it was your neighbor would you just let them starve being broke for a snakebite?  Do you care that little? 

Quote from: Shiranu on May 24, 2018, 05:52:09 PM
Being heavily indebted is not possessing liberty.

In fact it is. You are free to borrow; therefore you are free to accumulate debt. Again, 'liberty' isn't just a feel-good word.

Quoteyou lose the freedom to live where you want, to purchase what you want, to a chance to move up in the world, to maintain a family, etc. ...

Once again the progressive defines not being given things for free as a sort of injustice being enacted upon them. Pathetic.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 25, 2018, 05:21:38 AM
In fact it is. You are free to borrow; therefore you are free to accumulate debt. Again, 'liberty' isn't just a feel-good word.

Once again the progressive defines not being given things for free as a sort of injustice being enacted upon them. Pathetic.

You err again.  Insurance is not "free" nor is it tax-payer bourne.  It is a pooled collective response of individuals to random expensive threats to share financial risks.  Complete and utter capitalists do it, communists do it, and libertarians do it.

Quote from: Cavebear on May 25, 2018, 07:10:20 AM
You err again.  Insurance is not "free" nor is it tax-payer bourne.  It is a pooled collective response of individuals to random expensive threats to share financial risks.  Complete and utter capitalists do it, communists do it, and libertarians do it.

Yes, and in this case, it isn't value free.  Have insurance, the insurance agency owns you.  They have an interest in controlling you, to minimize their losses.  Also health insurance (relative to life insurance) doesn't work out mathematically.  With life insurance, there can only be one claim, and you can't claim it for yourself.  With health insurance, you use it and use it as often as you can (for smaller items), and statistically it becomes maximized after say age 60, when the majority of your health problems will catch up to you.  It only works mathematically for young healthy individuals ... but then that is why ACA wanted to expand the pool to young people who aren't carrying health insurance.  It makes the sheep pool higher quality for the insurer.  They would expel everyone older than 60 from health insurance if they could .. you have a prior condition after all, you are old.  Real cost of real health insurance for older people is cost prohibitive, because the higher risk must be paid for by higher premiums.  A millionaire like yourself, might not get this.

Quote from: Cavebear on May 25, 2018, 07:10:20 AM
You err again.  Insurance is not "free" nor is it tax-payer bourne.  It is a pooled collective response of individuals to random expensive threats to share financial risks.  Complete and utter capitalists do it, communists do it, and libertarians do it.

I think it's important to underscore this.  Universal health coverage is not free, and the only ones who don't seem to know this are the right wing fringes.  At least they pretend like they don't know it, probably so they can point to all the "freeloaders" who support it. But in addition to not being free, it's not going to be cheap, just cheaper than the half ass coverage we currently buy with all of it's deductibles, co-pays, and hidden exclusions for why "you're aren't covered for that."  It will require a substantial tax increase, but unlike the taxes we currently pay, which are redistributed to bankers who lost their asses playing with your money, or the auto manufacturers who miscalculated the future, this tax comes back to average citizens, and creates an overall savings.

Yes, it's going to cost, but you don't need to put yourself in the hands of a for-profit insurer that wants to collect premiums without providing a service.  In the end, it will be cheaper and less hassle fighting with the provider.  I doubt it will ever be as good a program as those found in most other western societies.  In the US, I think provisions will be made requiring you to purchase supplemental insurance, in order to keep the corporate insurers hand's in your pockets.  Because that's the way our representatives make sure their big cash donors can remain in the game.  No it won't be free, just a better product at a lower cost.

The point is ... Americans hate freedoms.  They want their neighbors enslaved to the government, or some corporate profit center.  America needs to die already.  Given that, health care is moot.  The dead don't need health care.

Quote from: SGOS on May 25, 2018, 09:22:34 AM
I think it's important to underscore this.  Universal health coverage is not free, and the only ones who don't seem to know this are the right wing fringes.  At least they pretend like they don't know it, probably so they can point to all the "freeloaders" who support it. But in addition to not being free, it's not going to be cheap, just cheaper than the half ass coverage we currently buy with all of it's deductibles, co-pays, and hidden exclusions for why "you're aren't covered for that."  It will require a substantial tax increase, but unlike the taxes we currently pay, which are redistributed to bankers who lost their asses playing with your money, or the auto manufacturers who miscalculated the future, this tax comes back to average citizens, and creates an overall savings.

Yes, it's going to cost, but you don't need to put yourself in the hands of a for-profit insurer that wants to collect premiums without providing a service.  In the end, it will be cheaper and less hassle fighting with the provider.  I doubt it will ever be as good a program as those found in most other western societies.  In the US, I think provisions will be made requiring you to purchase supplemental insurance, in order to keep the corporate insurers hand's in your pockets.  Because that's the way our representatives make sure their big cash donors can remain in the game.  No it won't be free, just a better product at a lower cost.

The right wing likes to suggest it is a "government give-away", but all insurance is merely a pooling of risk.  And that covers the right wingers if they choose to participate.  And when they don't choose, just listen to them scream about paying the full price. 

QuoteOnce again the progressive defines not being given things for free as a sort of injustice being enacted upon them. Pathetic.

No one is asking for anything for free; collectively sharing the burden to reduce the cost for everyone, and regulating the extent to how expensive the burden can be, is not "free". No one get's anything for "free" in a progressive country. No one thinks that.

You keep on repeating that, but it is both grossly inaccurate and frankly moronic.

Quote from: Shiranu on May 25, 2018, 10:30:28 AM
No one is asking for anything for free; collectively sharing the burden to reduce the cost for everyone, and regulating the extent to how expensive the burden can be, is not "free". No one get's anything for "free" in a progressive country. No one thinks that.

You keep on repeating that, but it is both grossly inaccurate and frankly moronic.

You said,

"you lose the freedom to live where you want, to purchase what you want, to a chance to move up in the world, to maintain a family, et"

You were clearly defining not getting free services (because you have no money/are in debt) as a restriction of your freedom, lol. You not having enough to trade for other peoples goods, services, and hard work, is not the same as them restricting your freedom.

Quote from: Shiranu on May 25, 2018, 10:30:28 AM
No one is asking for anything for free; collectively sharing the burden to reduce the cost for everyone, and regulating the extent to how expensive the burden can be, is not "free". No one get's anything for "free" in a progressive country. No one thinks that.

You keep on repeating that, but it is both grossly inaccurate and frankly moronic.

Nicely said.  But please don't delete the poster's name in the quote.  It makes it difficult to find the full post and the other earlier replies.  Just saying...

Quote from: Cavebear on May 25, 2018, 10:34:26 AM
Nicely said.  But please don't delete the poster's name in the quote.  It makes it difficult to find the full post and the other earlier replies.  Just saying...

If you say my name snakes physically manifest in your home.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 25, 2018, 10:37:18 AM
If you say my name snakes physically manifest in your home.

Quite the Goth Grrl, huh? 

Just checked around, no snakes.  Trust me, the cats would know...

And I do not fear snakes generally.  I saw one in the shed, and after examaning it carefully, picked it up and set it under the toolshed for a good Winter's sleep (and may it have caught many mice).  I just didn't want to be surprised when I grabbed a tool again.  There WAS a cottonmouth in the yard once...

Quote from: Cavebear on May 25, 2018, 10:58:05 AM
Quite the Goth Grrl, huh? 

Just checked around, no snakes.  Trust me, the cats would know...

And I do not fear snakes generally.  I saw one in the shed, and after examaning it carefully, picked it up and set it under the toolshed for a good Winter's sleep (and may it have caught many mice).  I just didn't want to be surprised when I grabbed a tool again.  There WAS a cottonmouth in the yard once...

A copperhead took up residence in my wood shed a couple of years ago.  I killed him, but it was an ugly affair with a lot of thrashing and showing of fangs.  I thought I could just whack him with a hoe, but they are strong and not prone to get cut in half.  I pinned him down with a shovel, then grabbed another shovel and kept jamming it against his neck until after a long battle, his head came off.

Quote from: Cavebear on May 25, 2018, 10:20:44 AM
The right wing likes to suggest it is a "government give-away", but all insurance is merely a pooling of risk.  And that covers the right wingers if they choose to participate.  And when they don't choose, just listen to them scream about paying the full price.

It is a pooling of the risk, if it is a tontine.  It isn't pooling with a giant corporation sucking up the money to Switzerland.

Yes, I would like to see everyone pay full price for everything (except children of course, they are stuck with the children's portion and their parents get to pay for them).  That is what honesty is.

Quote from: Shiranu on May 25, 2018, 10:30:28 AM
No one is asking for anything for free; collectively sharing the burden to reduce the cost for everyone, and regulating the extent to how expensive the burden can be, is not "free". No one get's anything for "free" in a progressive country. No one thinks that.

You keep on repeating that, but it is both grossly inaccurate and frankly moronic.

Have nine women share the pregnancy, to spread the risk and shorten the time?

I won't collectively share anything with any of you ... none of you are family.  And I don't share much with them either.  And yes, you do think in terms of free, because of free printing of fiat money by corrupt government.  If you had to pay for everything, without free printing, you would already have your multi-trillion dollar bill arrive at your mail box ... you couldn't put it on the tab for your grandchildren.  You are already the beneficiary of free stuff as a child, and most of us want to have Daddy government continue to pay for our larks.

Quote from: SGOS on May 25, 2018, 11:26:49 AM
A copperhead took up residence in my wood shed a couple of years ago.  I killed him, but it was an ugly affair with a lot of thrashing and showing of fangs.  I thought I could just whack him with a hoe, but they are strong and not prone to get cut in half.  I pinned him down with a shovel, then grabbed another shovel and kept jamming it against his neck until after a long battle, his head came off.

Too bad you didn't do that to Congress ... I keep thinking of that early American flag ...

Quote from: SGOS on May 25, 2018, 11:26:49 AM
A copperhead took up residence in my wood shed a couple of years ago.  I killed him, but it was an ugly affair with a lot of thrashing and showing of fangs.  I thought I could just whack him with a hoe, but they are strong and not prone to get cut in half.  I pinned him down with a shovel, then grabbed another shovel and kept jamming it against his neck until after a long battle, his head came off.

Sadly, I went through the same experience once.  And no one who has never tried to kill a snake knows how hard it is to kill one.  I nailed that cottonmouth into the ground with a sharp spade, and even loppers wouldn't cut its head off (it literally splipped between the blades).  It finally took many jumps on the sharpened spade blade to kill it. 

I tossed the body in the storm drain.  And even today local herpetologists swear there have never been cottonmouths here.  I should have kept the body.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 24, 2018, 05:44:23 AM
Shiranu what is the alternative? Do you want to force people to charge less for their services by force?

If profiteering from an unlucky persons suffering isn't criminal it's certainly ethically dubious.

If a tow truck towed your car off the motorway and then charged you £10K for a new fan belt you'd be pissed off and rightly so.

Quote from: Jason78 on May 25, 2018, 01:23:11 PM
If profiteering from an unlucky persons suffering isn't criminal it's certainly ethically dubious.

Well, that IS what the insurance companies do.  I think you have to give them some profit for organizing the insurance pool...  It takes people and equipment and they have to get paid...

Quote from: Cavebear on May 25, 2018, 01:36:11 PM
Well, that IS what the insurance companies do.  I think you have to give them some profit for organizing the insurance pool...  It takes people and equipment and they have to get paid...

I'm not saying that these people shouldn't be able to make a living.  But do they have to be run as for-profit entities?   Why not run them as mutual societies?  Why not regulate industries such as this so that people are definitely getting what they are paying for and getting value for money for it?

Quote from: Cavebear on May 25, 2018, 01:36:11 PM
Well, that IS what the insurance companies do.  I think you have to give them some profit for organizing the insurance pool...  It takes people and equipment and they have to get paid...

FWIW, a former insurance executive I met had just bought a business for himself.  I can remember just one comment, and I can't even remember the context.  All I remember was, "You don't have to be smart to make money in insurance."

Quote from: Jason78 on May 25, 2018, 01:52:02 PM
I'm not saying that these people shouldn't be able to make a living.  But do they have to be run as for-profit entities?   Why not run them as mutual societies?  Why not regulate industries such as this so that people are definitely getting what they are paying for and getting value for money for it?

That is positively Communistic.  And why not apply that idea to all public service businesses?  USMcDonald's Big Macs, $1.50...  Never mind thye cost.  Everyone gets a few.  Open only Sunday noon to 1 pm.

Quote from: SGOS on May 25, 2018, 01:52:53 PM
FWIW, a former insurance executive I met had just bought a business for himself.  I can remember just one comment, and I can't even remember the context.  All I remember was, "You don't have to be smart to make money in insurance."

I understand that.  You just need a database and a spreadsheet.  Figure the expenses and add 10%.  Like printing money.

Quote from: Jason78 on May 25, 2018, 01:52:02 PM
I'm not saying that these people shouldn't be able to make a living.  But do they have to be run as for-profit entities?   Why not run them as mutual societies?  Why not regulate industries such as this so that people are definitely getting what they are paying for and getting value for money for it?

The US the government has decided it's best to open their offices to private contractors.  I've seen it in the Forest Service.  Most everything that was done by the Forest Service at one time, is now bid out to private contractors, with the role of the FS to put one person in charge of oversight.  So getting into a business that competes with private enterprise goes contrary to government philosophy, which has traditionally been to get out of the business to encourage the private sector.  That's fine, until the company decides the way to success is to gouge the taxpaying consumer.

As far as regulating such companies, that's a dirty word in American politics today.  The watchword is deregulation, because if large corporations don't have to abide by inconvenient rules they make more money.  It's a two edged sword, however.  We deregulated banking, and look what happened.  Deregulation assumes corporations will act with some integrity.  The problem is that they don't.  Integrity gets in the way of profits.  And the measure of a company's success is profits.  The goal of the game is to get all the money.  The eventual end result is economic anarchy.

Quote from: SGOS on May 25, 2018, 02:16:48 PM
The US the government has decided it's best to open their offices to private contractors.  I've seen it in the Forest Service.  Most everything that was done by the Forest Service at one time, is now bid out to private contractors, with the role of the FS to put one person in charge of oversight.  So getting into a business that competes with private enterprise goes contrary to government philosophy, which has traditionally been to get out of the business to encourage the private sector.  That's fine, until the company decides the way to success is to gouge the taxpaying consumer.

As far as regulating such companies, that's a dirty word in American politics today.  The watchword is deregulation, because if large corporations don't have to abide by inconvenient rules they make more money.  It's a two edged sword, however.  We deregulated banking, and look what happened.  Deregulation assumes corporations will act with some integrity.  The problem is that they don't.  Integrity gets in the way of profits.  And the measure of a company's success is profits.  The goal of the game is to get all the money.  The eventual end result is economic anarchy.

Too much today is about "where's the money"?  I spent half my time in the Federal Government fending off companies who though we were the cow there to give them free milk.  On the contracts I DID get forced to allow and oversee, they squacked like strangled ducks if I actually enforced the terms of the contract. 

It was like "HOW DARE YOU!"

I never met a contractor how didn't have to be watched kill a cat sitting over a Nip leaf.  And you know who got choked most of the time?  ME!

Quote from: Jason78 on May 25, 2018, 01:23:11 PM
If profiteering from an unlucky persons suffering isn't criminal it's certainly ethically dubious.

If a tow truck towed your car off the motorway and then charged you £10K for a new fan belt you'd be pissed off and rightly so.

Of course I would be pissed. That's why I'm for socialised medicine.

Still doesn't change the fact that the government butting in to forbid you to decide for yourself what your services are worth is inherently immoral.

Quote from: Jason78 on May 25, 2018, 01:52:02 PM
I'm not saying that these people shouldn't be able to make a living.  But do they have to be run as for-profit entities?   Why not run them as mutual societies?  Why not regulate industries such as this so that people are definitely getting what they are paying for and getting value for money for it?

Quote from: Cavebear on May 25, 2018, 02:09:53 PM
That is positively Communistic.

Medicine is regulated. All industry is regulated.

jesus help me

Quote from: Cavebear on May 25, 2018, 02:25:02 PM
Too much today is about "where's the money"?  I spent half my time in the Federal Government fending off companies who though we were the cow there to give them free milk.  On the contracts I DID get forced to allow and oversee, they squacked like strangled ducks if I actually enforced the terms of the contract. 

It was like "HOW DARE YOU!"

I never met a contractor how didn't have to be watched kill a cat sitting over a Nip leaf.  And you know who got choked most of the time?  ME!

You failed ;-(  Thousands of companies get billions of dollars every year in direct payment of services and goods (I get a small part).  And the under the table stuff is worth trillions every year (Black Economy).  Government only decides how to be bribed, not to not be bribed (contracting agents who get subsequent jobs per revolving door in the industry they regulated or did business with).  The rules limiting revolving doors are toothless, particularly at the corporate director level.

Quote from: Jason78 on May 25, 2018, 01:23:11 PM
If profiteering from an unlucky persons suffering isn't criminal it's certainly ethically dubious.

If a tow truck towed your car off the motorway and then charged you £10K for a new fan belt you'd be pissed off and rightly so.

You should be pissed at being ripped off.  But that is how a lot of people make their money, unethically.  And government works with the crooks.

QuoteStill doesn't change the fact that the government butting in to forbid you to decide for yourself what your services are worth is inherently immoral.

But not as immoral as letting people profiteer off of the literal life of others, so gotta take the lesser of two evils.

That said, I disagree that there is anything immoral or unethical about a government doing it's job, which is to ensure that societies work together for the greater good and everyone is taken care of to the best of the state's ability.

When you talk about "free handouts"... that is literally the purpose of having a government, if you want to use that term "free handout" as loose as you did. If the government didn't provide basic necessities, then it would be worthless.

Quote from: Shiranu on May 25, 2018, 07:23:31 PM
But not as immoral as letting people profiteer off of the literal life of others, so gotta take the lesser of two evils.

That said, I disagree that there is anything immoral or unethical about a government doing it's job, which is to ensure that societies work together for the greater good and everyone is taken care of to the best of the state's ability.

When you talk about "free handouts"... that is literally the purpose of having a government, if you want to use that term "free handout" as loose as you did. If the government didn't provide basic necessities, then it would be worthless.

On what basis, if any, does someone claims "morality"?  There is no basis for it.  Morality comes from the barrel of a gun - to paraphrase Mao.

Quote from: Shiranu on May 25, 2018, 07:23:31 PM
But not as immoral as letting people profiteer off of the literal life of others, so gotta take the lesser of two evils.

'profiting off the life of others', at face value, is seemingly an evil thing. But if you examine it there's no evil in that idea. People profit off of making and selling food, which also sustains the life of others. People profit off of making and selling technology - some of it necessary for the life of others.

The alternative is forcing people who are capable of practicing medicine to work for no profit. That is evil at face value and evil upon analysis - because it's a description of slavery.

QuoteWhen you talk about "free handouts"... that is literally the purpose of having a government

Normally I'd try to subvert and work into a corner the 'progressive' until they are forced to reveal their true desire for government, but you just outright admitted it with pride. Amazing.

That is not what the government exists for.

The government exists to ensure freedoms, and should also be heavily constrained so it does not impede on the peoples freedoms itself.

QuotePeople profit off of making and selling food, which also sustains the life of others.

Sustaining the life and *being* the life of others are two completely separate concepts. That said, even the sustaining process is extremely regulated and subsidized by the state. If it wasn't, it wouldn't work and we would not be able to function as a society.

QuoteThe alternative is forcing people who are capable of practicing medicine to work for no profit.

Except that is not the alternative (at least, not one I have ever seen proposed). State employees are still paid wages. What is proposed is that they cant charge whatever they deem fair, because that is the equievelent of someone holding a gun to your head and telling you, "You pay me this much, or I won't be able to stop the bullet from entering your skull".

If you truly believe in individual freedom above all else, and if we are going to use outlandish exaggerations of the other person position, then you must believe this is an okay situation; the man is free to point the gun at another's head, and the other is free to meet his demands or not.

QuoteThe government exists to ensure freedoms, and should also be heavily constrained so it does not impede on the peoples freedoms itself.

I'm sorry, but this is an objectively false statement. Its in it's name, for christ sake.. Government, from the Latin gubernare, "to rule".

Anarchy is the ultimate of freedoms; governance is the polar opposite of anarchy. If freedom is what people formed governments for then they would never have formed governments.

Why did government form? From Mesopotamia to Africa, Europe to the Americas, governments formed because once you get enough people together, rules have to be enforced for the better of the collective (and thus, the individual); the regulation of water distribution (particularly important once you develop canal systems and other man-made water routing), the protection of one another (thus the need for an organized military and taxes), the improvement of living standards by building public works (roads, sewers, law enforcement, etc.)... all of these are the function of a government, because no individual is either capable of achieving these things by himself or willing to.

QuoteNormally I'd try to subvert and work into a corner the 'progressive' until they are forced to reveal their true desire for government, but you just outright admitted it with pride. Amazing.

I love that you think you backed me into a corner there. That was cute.

Maybe most Americans have been brainwashed into thinking "government" is a bad word, I don't know, but it's not. Government is what makes the world work smoothly. And yes, it can certainly be abused... but no worse than the alternative. And at it's best, governance has yielded hands-down the greatest moments of human achievement and prosperity.

Quote from: Shiranu on May 25, 2018, 09:45:21 PM
Anarchy is the ultimate of freedoms; governance is the polar opposite of anarchy. If freedom is what people formed governments for then they would never have formed governments.

Anarchy is not the ultimate of freedoms, because there is no entity to ensure those freedoms. That is why government was formed. Government grants rights to ensure freedoms. Government necessarily comes at the price of freedom, but if kept small it ensures that more freedom is had than it takes away.

Further:

For example, under anarchy, you don't necessarily have freedom to your own life. Someone kills you, which they are free to do, undermining your right to life. Government ensures your freedom to live by taking away the murderers freedom to kill you.

So all citizens are property of the State ... and are to be created, provisioned and disposed of by the State?  Sounds like totalitarianism to me.  I am my own property, wage and debt slave though I am.  If anything, I owe ultimate loyalty to G-d and to myself, and to the State a distant third.

Good, make the Republicans the one party, ban all other parties.  Establish dictatorship, stop all elections, enslave all Americans.  As a pet of the State, you can expect good treatment ;-)  Or does good dictatorship only arrive from the Democrats?

So, the basis of politics is in ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia?  Shiranu wants to be Pharaoh.

No, the cops don't stop crime.  They only document the crime scene after you are robbed or dead.

QuoteAnarchy is not the ultimate of freedoms, because there is no entity to ensure those freedoms.

You are contradicting yourself and arguing in my positions favour.

Ensuring freedom requires the restriction of freedom of someone else. That is simple logistics; you cannot stop someone from limiting your freedom without limiting their freedom to do as they choose... meaning you are against freedoms you don't want others to have. For example...

Quote...under anarchy, you don't necessarily have freedom to your own life. Someone kills you, which they are free to do, undermining your right to life.

You yourself admit this is stripping the murder's freedom... but I contend that, when you compare a "truly free" society to a government that prohibits murder, you are ignoring the freedom of the murdered as well.

In a truly free society (anarchy), the person being murdered had the freedom to increase his strength, increase his defenses, to avoid being murdered. He did not choose to do so, or was not capable of doing so to a sufficient extent, given that he was murdered. To say that the government should have protected him means that his freedom was worthless, and in vain, and devalues it.

Anarchy is the only logical way to protect the freedom of both parties; if you want the freedom to live, than you must utilize your freedom to be the strongest. If anyone defeats you it's only because you were not capable of utilizing your freedom to the level others did. If you believe in the sanctity of individual freedom then you have to be pro-anarchy, because it is the only system which your freedom is completely and utterly in your hands.

Anarchy is the ultimate freedom, both for those who benefit from it and those who suffer from it, because ultimately the people who suffer under anarchy had the freedom not to but did not use it.

QuoteGovernment ensures your freedom to live by taking away the murderers freedom to kill you.

So the governments primary role is... to regulate the freedom of others (and yours) to provide for you.

Exactly what I said.

QuoteThat is why government was formed.

You keep saying that, but you're not presenting any evidence to prove it (and in your last post, you outright contradicted it by saying the governments role is to limit the freedom of it's vassals).

Again; the very word government comes from govern, or gubernare, which means to rule... to subject other. It's name explictily states it's purpose; to enact it's will over others. That is not freedom, and it certainly raises question as to why it would be named such if it's purpose, going all the way back to the ancient Greeks (with gubernare being based on a Greek word for rulership), was to restrict rather than protect.


Side fact; Anarchy = an-arkhos... "Without Ruler". That sounds very much like freedom, does it not?

"So the governments primary role is... to regulate the freedom of others (and yours) to provide for you."

Your parents (or equivalent) provide for you, man-child ;-)  Grow up, but not too soon.

And no, the government isn't there to regulate, it is to act as a tool of the Establishment to screw everyone over, for fun and profit.  Read Machiavelli.

QuoteRead Machiavelli.

He came around a long, long while after governance... and his practices do not lead to either productive or long-lasting governments. I would say he is a very good example of what Government isn't suppose to inherently be.

Quote from: Shiranu on May 25, 2018, 10:18:30 PM
Ensuring freedom requires the restriction of freedom of someone else. That is simple logistics; you cannot stop someone from limiting your freedom without limiting their freedom to do as they choose... meaning you are against freedoms you don't want others to have. For example...

So far I agree.

QuoteYou yourself admit this is stripping the murder's freedom... but I contend that, when you compare a "truly free" society to a government that prohibits murder, you are ignoring the freedom of the murdered as well.

In a truly free society (anarchy), the person being murdered had the freedom to increase his strength, increase his defenses, to avoid being murdered. He did not choose to do so, or was not capable of doing so to a sufficient extent, given that he was murdered. To say that the government should have protected him means that his freedom was worthless, and in vain, and devalues it.

How does it devalue the murder victims freedom to say that the government should have restricted his murderers freedom to kill him?

QuoteAnarchy is the only logical way to protect the freedom of both parties; if you want the freedom to live, than you must utilize your freedom to be the strongest. If anyone defeats you it's only because you were not capable of utilizing your freedom to the level others did.

I.. guess? I'm not arguing that every freedom is good. The freedom to kill others for no reason is not good. I don't want it.

QuoteHow does it devalue the murdereds freedom to say that the government should have restricted his murderers freedom to kill him?

It doesn't. It devalues it in saying he wasn't able to properly utilize his own freedom to defend himself, and he needed a handout from the government instead of gaining the necessary strength or protection (through his own freedom to do so) to protect himself. Or perhaps he was murdered for something, in which case he had the freedom to meet the murderer's demands and declined to. Perhaps he insulted the murderer, as is his freedom, and thus the murderer should have the freedom to retaliate.

It is, essentially, saying he was not able to properly utilize his freedom, so we will do it for him.

It is saying that, "No, you don't know how to properly value your freedom and utilize it, so we will be in control now!".

QuoteThe freedom to kill others for no reason is not good. I don't want it.

Then you cant hold it over other people that "freedom" is your ultimate goal, since you only want it when it benefits you and don't want it when it doesn't. And the overwhelming majority of murders is not "for no reason"; one party was slighted, or wanted something from the other party. Should they not have the freedom to retaliate, or to take what they want?


Why is murder "bad"? And yes, this question has a point and isn't just a philosophical word game.

And yet again, by it's very definition of government is "ruled" and anarchy is "unruled", so you cannot argue that government's defining purpose is to insure freedom.

Quote from: Shiranu on May 25, 2018, 10:41:16 PM
It doesn't. It devalues it in saying he wasn't able to properly utilize his own freedom to defend himself, and he needed a handout from the government instead of gaining the necessary strength or protection (through his own freedom to do so) to protect himself. Or perhaps he was murdered for something, in which case he had the freedom to meet the murderer's demands and declined to.

It is, essentially, saying he was not able to properly utilize his freedom, so we will do it for him.

Yeah. That's what it is. Why you think it devalues his freedom to defend himself is beyond me, but frankly I don't care since your value judgement is not really pertinent to anything lol. If anything I'd say that having his his right to life enshrined in law is a pretty liberating thing.

Quoteyou cant hold it over other people that "freedom" is your ultimate goal, since you only want it when it benefits you and don't want it when it doesn't.

Being against the freedom to kill for 0 reason is to the benefit of everybody. There are 0 freedoms that I am both for and against depending on if it benefits me.

QuoteAnd yet again, by it's very definition of government is "ruled" and anarchy is "unruled", so you cannot argue that government's defining purpose is to insure freedom.

Shiranu: socialism doesnt mean socialism anymore words change man
Also Shiranu: hold my beer as i copy-paste the etimology of this word ad nauseum thinking im making an intelligent argument

(https://i.imgur.com/5fNUKXu.jpg)

QuoteWhy is murder "bad"? And yes, this question has a point and isn't just a philosophical word game.

It's not necessarily. Having the freedom to dish it out with 0 justification is bad.

Yeah, except society hasn't changed the definition of governance or anarchy, yet. Nice try though.

Quote from: Shiranu on May 25, 2018, 10:57:56 PM
Yeah, except society hasn't changed the definition of governance or anarchy, yet. Nice try though.

Every government that has ever existed has fit your narrow copy-pasted definition of government because words inform reality and not the other way around. Any government that doesn't fit the definition therefore wasn't a government. Your definition of government excludes a government that ensures more freedoms than it restricts from even being properly entitled a government. Truly a flawlessly argument. Some would say convenient.

Nevermind that if you trace back damn-near any word to its etymological origin its origin was expressing a waayyy more vague and malleable concept.

(https://i.imgur.com/5fNUKXu.jpg)

QuoteAny government that doesn't fit the definition therefore wasn't a government.

Cool.

Give me a single example of a government that wouldn't fit my definition of government, but still meets what you consider a government then.

QuoteIf anything I'd say that having his his right to life enshrined in law is a pretty liberating thing.

At the cost of the value of his liberation and the implementation of someone elses'.

QuoteBeing against the freedom to kill for 0 reason is to the benefit of everybody.

Except to the people who want the freedom to kill for zero reason.

Why should the fact it benefits you, or the majority, outweigh their freedom? Because it benefits the majority? Then you are arguing that the government should do what benefits the majority, even it restricts freedoms. Exactly what I have said it should do, and it's purpose is.

Again, you are literally making my argument for me, and then acting like you are winning. It's cute.

QuoteShiranu: socialism doesnt mean socialism anymore words change man

Except socialism has multiple definitions, being a concept rather than an entity. There is no "entity" of "the socialism"... there is an entity of, "the government".

Just like the concept of "beautiful" can change meaning over time, but the object we call a "baseball" cannot. A baseball, is a baseball, is a baseball, no matter what word you want to use for it.

I see why you have been avoiding the etymology; you are not particularly great at it, are you? Perhaps spend a little less time finding lame memes and brush up on how linguistics work.

Here, I will throw you a bone...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/government (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/government)

Look at every single definition of government... note how literally every single one of them (except for the one saying it's the name for the federal government) state that it is a means for a group to implement their authority over another group.

The key concept of government is governance, authority, restriction of freedom; that is it's very nature. If you want to give it another definition, that is again... perfectly fine... but until you get any group of people to accept that definition than it is as meaningful as me saying "blue" means up.

Now, here is socialism...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism)

Note; one of the definitions of it is a phase in between capitalism and communism, where the production or distribution of goods (but not necessarily ALL goods) is run by the state. Or that it's short for democratic socialism, "...in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth."

Aka, exactly what I am talking about. The hole you are digging yourself just keeps getting deeper and deeper, you disprove your own arguments, and you really want to keep flexing like you are somehow winning this argument.

(http://remezcla.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/tl-horizontal_main_2x.jpeg)

Quote from: Shiranu on May 25, 2018, 11:20:46 PM
Why should the fact it benefits you, or the majority, outweigh their freedom? Because it benefits the majority? Then you are arguing that the government should do what benefits the majority, even it restricts freedoms. Exactly what I have said it should do

Exactly what I have said it should do, as well - In some cases. I'm for socialised medicine despite recognising that it restricts the freedoms of certain individuals. I've been completely open about this more than once in here lol.

QuoteAgain, you are literally making my argument for me, and then acting like you are winning. It's cute.

Yeah? What argument did I make, and what position do I hold does this argument work in opposition to?

Quote from: Shiranu on May 25, 2018, 11:29:44 PM
Here, I will throw you a bone...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/government (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/government)

Look at every single definition of government... note how literally every single one of them (except for the one saying it's the name for the federal government) state that it is a means for a group to implement their authority over another group.

The key concept of government is governance, authority, restriction of freedom; that is it's very nature. If you want to give it another definition, that is again... perfectly fine... but until you get any group of people to accept that definition than it is as meaningful as me saying "blue" means up.

You are really good at arguing against strawmen, dude. You defeat your strawmen and then act smug about destroying your own creation.

What do you think you're arguing against here. What is going on in that head?

QuoteExactly what I have said it should do, as well - In some cases.

Right... "in some cases". Except when it clashes too much with your ideology that, "...individual freedom should be protected before all else."

The problem is you don't seem to have any consistent basis for that, it's all just pulled out of your ass on where that line is rather than some rational line; which is perfectly fine, just don't try to act all high and mighty about that being your reason. You aren't arguing in favour of "individual freedom", you are arguing in favour of what you want vs what you don't want.

QuoteYeah? What argument did I make, and what position do I hold does this argument work in opposition to?

That the government's primary role is to protect individual liberty rather than to hold power over a group for the (ideally, if not always in practice) betterment of society.

If the government is in the business of limiting freedom, it is inherently not in the business then of protecting freedom. That might be a side effect for people not effected by the limitations, but that is not it's primary purpose. The role of the government is to the govern, plain and simple, and governance means denying others of their freedom to maintain order.

QuoteYou are really good at arguing against strawmen, dude.

What do you think you're arguing against here.

Quote from: GilgameshThe government exists to ensure freedoms...

You have said that several times, and in several threads, and by definition, by logic, and by historical evidence dating back to essentially the beginning of history it is an incorrect statement. That section you quote addresses that; it states that a government is a form of authority, of holding power over someone else and using it... the exact opposite of ensuring freedom.


I'm still waiting for any example of a government, using the textbook definition of a government or even something a little more nebulous, that has the primary purpose of protecting the "individual freedom" of it's citizen.

Quote from: Shiranu on May 25, 2018, 10:24:29 PM
He came around a long, long while after governance... and his practices do not lead to either productive or long-lasting governments. I would say he is a very good example of what Government isn't suppose to inherently be.

Yes, you model your civics on cavemen, or future colonists on Alpha Centauri?  Concentrate on people today, or put this in the history or anthropology section.  You are in America, if you want to be Swedish, go there, and learn Swedish from the Swedish chef ;-)

Machiavelli told the truth about mankind.  An ugly Italian Mafia truth.  John Locke etc were full of shit.  And that is why the US, which is based on John Locke, is shitty.  Read Thomas Hobbes on absolute monarchy.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on May 25, 2018, 10:54:20 PM
It's not necessarily. Having the freedom to dish it out with 0 justification is bad.

I don't agree.  You are both making baseless assertions, and unlike Xero, you aren't making any statistical claims.  Give me some made up statistics!

Quote from: Cavebear on May 25, 2018, 02:09:53 PM
That is positively Communistic.  And why not apply that idea to all public service businesses?  USMcDonald's Big Macs, $1.50...  Never mind thye cost.  Everyone gets a few.  Open only Sunday noon to 1 pm.

When you're hungry, you've got plenty of options when it comes to food.

When you've got broken bones and you're bleeding from a car accident, you'll take the first ambulance that comes along.

That ambulance shouldn't be allowed to charge whatever it likes because a human being in pain will agree to almost anything for someone to take it away.

Let's say I discovery a way to prevent all cancers.  Let's say it costs me $5 per person.  Let's say I charge $5,000 a day for the cure.  People would try to pay it and I would be rich.  The government claims it has no power to take control of that method.  You would agree with that.

Now let's say I have a home and the government wants to build a road through it :for the public good".  They can and do. 

How is that different from taking a drug or method from an individual and taking a house from an individual "for the public good"?  Especially when "the public good" is MUCH greater in the case of a cancer cure...

Quote from: Cavebear on May 29, 2018, 05:20:51 AM
Let's say I discovery a way to prevent all cancers.  Let's say it costs me $5 per person.  Let's say I charge $5,000 a day for the cure.  People would try to pay it and I would be rich.  The government claims it has no power to take control of that method.  You would agree with that.

Now let's say I have a home and the government wants to build a road through it :for the public good".  They can and do. 

How is that different from taking a drug or method from an individual and taking a house from an individual "for the public good"?  Especially when "the public good" is MUCH greater in the case of a cancer cure...

It is a public good to minimize payment to government employees.  How do you feel about much fewer (too few) government employees?  What about if we use slaves, so that a person like you can't retire nicely?  In nature, it is right to rob, assault and murder.  Where is your morality coming from?  Mine isn't from authority (not even government law), but from my developed conscience.  Scared yet?  Shouldn't be, my conscience is opposed to robbing, assault and murder.  Stupid me, failing to go Darwinian on people.  Socialism is collective Darwinism, not Social Darwinism (which is individual Darwinism).  Like Darwinism, if it encourages natural behavior?

Yes, there is imminent domain.  The US redefined that a few years ago.  The SCOTUS says the government can take any properly, or goods, or your good name from you ... not just for common good, but to benefit a private party the government wants to benefit.  This is tyranny.  Feel good about eminent domain now?  How about the government takes back your retirement, as they want to take back the Social Security I haven't filed for yet?  They can and will.  And you will join me looking for food scraps from the dumpster in the alley.  Social solidarity!

The US has become Venezuela, we have Chavez and Maduro for leaders, but the hyperinflation and destitution hasn't arrived yet.

Quote from: Baruch on May 29, 2018, 06:43:43 AM
It is a public good to minimize payment to government employees.  How do you feel about much fewer (too few) government employees?  What about if we use slaves, s that a person like you can't retire nicely?  In nature, it is right to rob, assault and murder.  Where is your morality coming from?  Mine isn't from authority (not even government law), but from my developed conscience.  Scared yet?  Shouldn't be, my conscience is opposed to robbing, assault and murder.  Stupid me, failing to go Darwinian on people.  Socialism is collective Darwinism, not Social Darwinism (which is individual Darwinism).  Like Darwinism, if it encourages natural behavior?

Yes, there is imminent domain.  The US redefined that a few years ago.  The SCOTUS says the government can take any properly, or goods, or your good name from you ... not just for common good, but to benefit a private party the government wants to benefit.  This is tyranny.  Feel good about eminent domain now?  How about the government takes back your retirement, as they want to take back the Social Security I haven't filed for yet?  They can and will.  And you will join me looking for food scraps from the dumpster in the alley.  Social solidarity!

The US has become Venezuela, we have Chavez and Maduro for leaders, but the hyperinflation and destitution hasn't arrived yet.

That's easy.  Your initial statement is false.  If you want qualified government employees to perform vital functions, then they have to be paid. 

Not as highly as commercial equals are paid of course. One of the things that attracts people to government service is "service".  We accept lower pay the same way our more athletic and daring military government employees do though not so willing to run obstacle courses or face bullets or shoot others.  But some things have to be done to keep the "Gummint" working.

There are people who produce the checks that the susidized farmers love to see.  There are people who do soil tests that farmers depend on.  There are people who study diseases in order to prevent epidemics.  The list is very long, but you are not thinking of those things. 

I won't strain your fixated mind further.

"If you want qualified government employees to perform vital functions, then they have to be paid."  Competence isn't a desired feature, according to neo-libs.  They just want all the fake money in their fake bank accounts ... so they can have one big happy planation, run from Zurich perhaps.

Yes, I am fortunate to work with basically competent Federal civilian and military.  But that isn't the end game.  Checkmate against "government of the people, by the people, for the people" is the goal.  Both for Republicans and Democrats circa 1865.

I am pro-government, I see it in action, and it isn't a boogie-man.  It is monkeys, all the way down.

Quote from: Baruch on May 29, 2018, 07:01:31 AM
"If you want qualified government employees to perform vital functions, then they have to be paid."  Competence isn't a desired feature, according to neo-libs.  They just want all the fake money in their fake bank accounts ... so they can have one big happy planation, run from Zurich perhaps.

Yes, I am fortunate to work with basically competent Federal civilian and military.  But that isn't the end game.  Checkmate against "government of the people, by the people, for the people" is the goal.  Both for Republicans and Democrats circa 1865.

I am pro-government, I see it in action, and it isn't a boogie-man.  It is monkeys, all the way down.

Why are all people "monkeys" to you then, and not apes?  There IS a difference.

Quote from: Cavebear on May 29, 2018, 07:03:09 AM
Why are all people "monkeys" to you then, and not apes?  There IS a difference.

People have had this argument with me before.  Rhetoric doesn't demand pedantic accuracy.  Monkeys are cute, and yes, the N word applies to all people, not just people from Africa (but we all came from Africa ultimately).  On Planet of the Apes, are you an orangutan, a chimpanzee, or a gorilla?

Quote from: Baruch on May 29, 2018, 07:04:39 AM
People have had this argument with me before.  Rhetoric doesn't demand pedantic accuracy.  Monkeys are cute, and yes, the N word applies to all people, not just people from Africa (but we all came from Africa ultimately).  On Planet of the Apes, are you an orangutan, a chimpanzee, or a gorilla?

Accuracy demands accuracy. 

LOL!  Did you really think you had to remind me we all came from Africa?  I've been studying general and human evolution for 50 years now.  I dare say I could answer most any question you have. 

On the Planet Of The Apes, I am a human.

Quote from: Cavebear on May 29, 2018, 07:31:50 AM
Accuracy demands accuracy. 

LOL!  Did you really think you had to remind me we all came from Africa?  I've been studying general and human evolution for 50 years now.  I dare say I could answer most any question you have. 

On the Planet Of The Apes, I am a human.

What is the truth? - Pontius Pilatus
You can't handle the truth! - Jack Nicholson character

If you are human, then you would be mute and pre-technological. And mostly naked.

Yes ... remind you of Africa.  But you assume, anyone to the Right of Mao is a KKK member.  Yankee Doodle.

Quote from: Baruch on May 29, 2018, 01:36:20 PM
What is the truth? - Pontius Pilatus
You can't handle the truth! - Jack Nicholson character

If you are human, then you would be mute and pre-technological. And mostly naked.

Yes ... remind you of Africa.  But you assume, anyone to the Right of Mao is a KKK member.  Yankee Doodle.

Like Charleston Heston...

I am reminded of a short sci-fi story.  The world ended and a bunch of robots were wandering around debating (logically of course) about who should be in charge.  Then they came across a decrepit starving human who demanded "FOOD" and they all immediately said "Yes Sir"!

Quote from: Cavebear on May 29, 2018, 02:19:55 PM
Like Charleston Heston...

I am reminded of a short sci-fi story.  The world ended and a bunch of robots were wandering around debating (logically of course) about who should be in charge.  Then they came across a decrepit starving human who demanded "FOOD" and they all immediately said "Yes Sir"!

A better story (I think it was in Reader's Digest 30 years ago).  Post apocalypse.  Robot Tokyo Disneyland gets reactivated by a random electrical event.  The Mickey Mouse and Goofy robots reactivate and start wandering around looking for something to do.  Being close to China, the Mickey Mouse robot is radical and the Goofy robot is traditional.  In the end they run into some cavemen, and Mikey starts spouting Marxist nonsense.  The cavemen demolish him.  Goofy however seems less annoying and actually wants to do something useful, rather than spout ideology.  They decide to keep him.

Quote from: Baruch on May 29, 2018, 07:14:17 PM
A better story (I think it was in Reader's Digest 30 years ago).  Post apocalypse.  Robot Tokyo Disneyland gets reactivated by a random electrical event.  The Mickey Mouse and Goofy robots reactivate and start wandering around looking for something to do.  Being close to China, the Mickey Mouse robot is radical and the Goofy robot is traditional.  In the end they run into some cavemen, and Mikey starts spouting Marxist nonsense.  The cavemen demolish him.  Goofy however seems less annoying and actually wants to do something useful, rather than spout ideology.  They decide to keep him.

Every dog has his day.  I always laughed that Goofy and Pluto were both dogs and few saw the contradiction between the two.  One a bipedal human-like one and the other not.