A (Rhetorical Question)

[Jordan Gwendolyn]

A question:

Why is it that a moderate to conservative healthcare bill that does not guarantee all Americans receive coverage and is nothing more than an insurance company giveaway is over 1900 pages long?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28904.html

But, the state of Pennsylvania has a healthcare bill which guarantees single payer healthcare and does not even give health insurance corporations a seat at the table, and it is only 27 pages long?

http://www.healthcare4allpa.org/documents/HB1660_2009_version.pdf

The answer, because single-payer healthcare is not only the most comprehensive and brings the most economic justice, but also eliminates overhead and does not need as long of a document.

And why is it that some Republicans in the PA state legislature actually support this bill, yet there is virtually no R support for Obamacare?

The answer is simple, because it is fiscally conservative to bring true economic and social justice on the healthcare front. And think of it this way, single-payer healthcare is like having not-for-profit police and fire protection paid for by tax dollars; we currently have the latter and that's working out just fine for us. I'd hate to have to deal with Kaiser Pyromente or Blue Cross Constabulary when I need help.

[Senator Libertas]

ObamaCare is designed to bring you the worst of all worlds. It needed to be thousands of pages long to ensure they could make it the most costly, wasteful, ineffective, and destructive corporate welfare handout imaginable.

[SPC]

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=279

That's an even shorter health-care plan.

[Χahar]

Eliminating medical licenses is most probably the worst idea that I have ever heard.

[Thomas D]

This question doesn't seem rhetorical at all.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

ObamaCare is designed to bring you the worst of all worlds. It needed to be thousands of pages long to ensure they could make it the most costly, wasteful, ineffective, and destructive corporate welfare handout imaginable.

     Not to mention hide the worst stuff deep inside of it. Remember how quickly they wanted to get it to a vote?

[I left.]

Eliminating medical licenses is most probably the worst idea that I have ever heard.

But...but.....but, Why shouldn't I be able to get my butcher to cut off that growth?? Free market!!!

[crypto-fascist superhero]

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=279

That's an even shorter health-care plan.

That's, quite frankly, retarded.

[SPC]

Eliminating medical licenses is most probably the worst idea that I have ever heard.

There's nothing wrong with being board-certified, I just think that that shouldn't be required in order to sell medical services. So long as you say up front that you are not board-certified, what is the problem?

[dialectical fetishist]

SPC, why do you think the free market can solve everything? I ask this as an honest question because I've always found arguments against it and very few for it.

[SPC]

SPC, why do you think the free market can solve everything? I ask this as an honest question because I've always found arguments against it and very few for it.

That's a loaded question. I do not believe that the free market can solve everything. I simply believe that a free market can solve problems better than a monopolistic central state can.

[dialectical fetishist]

SPC, why do you think the free market can solve everything? I ask this as an honest question because I've always found arguments against it and very few for it.

That's a loaded question. I do not believe that the free market can solve everything. I simply believe that a free market can solve problems better than a monopolistic central state can.

You propose privatizing the police, the oceans, the army... everything. How can you justify that?

[SPC]

SPC, why do you think the free market can solve everything? I ask this as an honest question because I've always found arguments against it and very few for it.

That's a loaded question. I do not believe that the free market can solve everything. I simply believe that a free market can solve problems better than a monopolistic central state can.

You propose privatizing the police, the oceans, the army... everything. How can you justify that?

I just did. Logically speaking, natural competition in services provides higher quality and lower priced services than a coercive monopoly. Would you like for me to go into more detail about the specific topics, or just a brief on voluntaryism in general?

[dialectical fetishist]

It's better than a private monopoly in my opinion, yes. But a public one.

Anyway, I'd like to see you justify privatizing the police force/army.

[SPC]

It's better than a private monopoly in my opinion, yes. But a public one.

Anyway, I'd like to see you justify privatizing the police force/army.

Worst case scenario is that you're back to having a government again, and as Etienne de la Boetie demonstrated, governments can't do anything without the tacit consent of the majority. So voluntaryism at it's worst is simply what we have right now.

Police today have more in common with tax collectors than they do with protecting people. Occasionally they do catch violent criminals. However, socialized law enforcement gets a paycheck regardless of whether their "customers" like their services. If their behavior is really distasteful, they will get a paid vacation. Therefore, it stands that the socialist system encourages them to have reckless behavior and go after nonviolent offenders. Additionally, it is pratcially impossible to sue the state for any damages it may cause, so they face no penalty for acting unnecessarily violently. Since they get indirectly paid through extortion, it stands to reason that nonviolent activies that the state fines or takes away through asset forfeiture will be the activities socialized law enforcement will go after most. Thus why you see much more drug raids, parking tickets, speeding tickets, etc. then you see police actually preventing violent crime (which socialized law enforcement usually "enforces" after the fact so they can punish the criminal rather than provide restitution for the victim). On the other hand, a law enforcement agency that was actually subject to competition would be far less likely to endulge in any of these behaviors, since they would have to pay for damages they cause and would have to keep their customers in order to stay in business.

[Snowguy716]

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=279

That's an even shorter health-care plan.

Basically.. let the elderly and disabled die.  Then we will all be "better off".  Please keep your WoW economics to WoW and let people living in the real world deal with real world problems.

[Senator Libertas]

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=279

That's an even shorter health-care plan.

Basically.. let the elderly and disabled die.  Then we will all be "better off".  Please keep your WoW economics to WoW and let people living in the real world deal with real world problems.

Strange, I didn't see that in the link. You must have read something else.

[Earth]

Eliminating medical licenses is most probably the worst idea that I have ever heard.

There's nothing wrong with being board-certified, I just think that that shouldn't be required in order to sell medical services.

Haha, this speaks for itself.

So long as you say up front that you are not board-certified, what is the problem?

There are plenty of stupid, or oblivious people, that's why.

Bunch of dumb asshole ideas, period.

[SPC]

So you trust these supposed "stupid" people to vote for good politicians to manage your health care, but not to exercise clear judgement themselves about which doctor to use? Other than that, your "argument" is entirely ad hominem attacks. Please explain why a totalitarian corporatist health care system would be preferable to a free market in health care?

[Earth]

So you trust these supposed "stupid" people to vote for good politicians to manage your health care, but not to exercise clear judgement themselves about which doctor to use? Other than that, your "argument" is entirely ad hominem attacks. Please explain why a totalitarian corporatist health care system would be preferable to a free market in health care?

It's very simple; without a medical license you aren't "a doctor". At the very least, it stops or curtails these snake oil salesman from doing more harm.

I don't trust anyone to vote for 'good' candidates, so it's beside the point. Politicians no more manage healthcare, then they manage my personal finances.

I'm not playing along to this silly dichotomy of "totalitarian corporatist health care" versus "the free market". Find someone that'll take that argument seriously.

[Snowguy716]

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=279

That's an even shorter health-care plan.

Basically.. let the elderly and disabled die. Then we will all be "better off".  Please keep your WoW economics to WoW and let people living in the real world deal with real world problems.

Strange, I didn't see that in the link. You must have read something else.

Strange... it was near the end, which you probably didn't read.  So I guess in a sense I did read something else.

4. Eliminate all subsidies to the sick or unhealthy. Subsidies create more of whatever is being subsidized. Subsidies for the ill and diseased breed illness and disease, and promote carelessness, indigence, and dependency. If we eliminate them, we would strengthen the will to live healthy lives and to work for a living. In the first instance, that means abolishing Medicare and Medicaid.

Only these four steps, although drastic, will restore a fully free market in medical provision. Until they are adopted, the industry will have serious problems, and so will we, its consumers.

[SPC]

So you trust these supposed "stupid" people to vote for good politicians to manage your health care, but not to exercise clear judgement themselves about which doctor to use? Other than that, your "argument" is entirely ad hominem attacks. Please explain why a totalitarian corporatist health care system would be preferable to a free market in health care?

It's very simple; without a medical license you aren't "a doctor". At the very least, it stops or curtails these snake oil salesman from doing more harm.

I don't trust anyone to vote for 'good' candidates, so it's beside the point. Politicians no more manage healthcare, then they manage my personal finances.

I'm not playing along to this silly dichotomy of "totalitarian corporatist health care" versus "the free market". Find someone that'll take that argument seriously.

Again, what is the problem if the person says up front, "I am not a licensed doctor"?

[Snowguy716]

So you trust these supposed "stupid" people to vote for good politicians to manage your health care, but not to exercise clear judgement themselves about which doctor to use? Other than that, your "argument" is entirely ad hominem attacks. Please explain why a totalitarian corporatist health care system would be preferable to a free market in health care?

It's very simple; without a medical license you aren't "a doctor". At the very least, it stops or curtails these snake oil salesman from doing more harm.

I don't trust anyone to vote for 'good' candidates, so it's beside the point. Politicians no more manage healthcare, then they manage my personal finances.

I'm not playing along to this silly dichotomy of "totalitarian corporatist health care" versus "the free market". Find someone that'll take that argument seriously.

Again, what is the problem if the person says up front, "I am not a licensed doctor"?

What makes you think that not licensing doctors now would be any different than in the 19th century?  Especially when you have no way to recoup your losses should the snake oil salesman harm you.

Earth:  It's not really worth arguing with SPC.  He's an anarchist that believes that the dollar is a better tool for democracy than your own person.  So if you have two dollars and I have only one.. your'e worth twice the votes.

[Senator Libertas]

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=279

That's an even shorter health-care plan.

Basically.. let the elderly and disabled die. Then we will all be "better off".  Please keep your WoW economics to WoW and let people living in the real world deal with real world problems.

Strange, I didn't see that in the link. You must have read something else.

Strange... it was near the end, which you probably didn't read.  So I guess in a sense I did read something else.

4. Eliminate all subsidies to the sick or unhealthy. Subsidies create more of whatever is being subsidized. Subsidies for the ill and diseased breed illness and disease, and promote carelessness, indigence, and dependency. If we eliminate them, we would strengthen the will to live healthy lives and to work for a living. In the first instance, that means abolishing Medicare and Medicaid.

Only these four steps, although drastic, will restore a fully free market in medical provision. Until they are adopted, the industry will have serious problems, and so will we, its consumers.

Nope, sorry, I asked for the part that says " let the elderly and disabled die". Let's see it.

[SPC]

So you trust these supposed "stupid" people to vote for good politicians to manage your health care, but not to exercise clear judgement themselves about which doctor to use? Other than that, your "argument" is entirely ad hominem attacks. Please explain why a totalitarian corporatist health care system would be preferable to a free market in health care?

It's very simple; without a medical license you aren't "a doctor". At the very least, it stops or curtails these snake oil salesman from doing more harm.

I don't trust anyone to vote for 'good' candidates, so it's beside the point. Politicians no more manage healthcare, then they manage my personal finances.

I'm not playing along to this silly dichotomy of "totalitarian corporatist health care" versus "the free market". Find someone that'll take that argument seriously.

Again, what is the problem if the person says up front, "I am not a licensed doctor"?

What makes you think that not licensing doctors now would be any different than in the 19th century?  Especially when you have no way to recoup your losses should the snake oil salesman harm you.

Earth:  It's not really worth arguing with SPC.  He's an anarchist that believes that the dollar is a better tool for democracy than your own person.  So if you have two dollars and I have only one.. your'e worth twice the votes.

http://mises.org/daily/4276

Like the mythical Hollywood portrayal of the American "Wild West" as a place in which the denizens of every town were killing each other in gunfights every minute of the day, the free-market period in American medicine has also been distorted as one in which towns were mobbed by traveling quacks prescribing dangerous treatments that killed the townspeople in droves. Organized mainstream medicine concocted this myth, and as previously noted, it was they and not the homeopaths and eclectics who were killing large numbers of people via bloodletting and metal poisoning.[7] This is why it took time and effort for any caregiver to win the widespread trust of a typical community in 19th-century America. The public en masse blindly lapping up snake oil dispensed from the dirty travel trunks of carnival-tent quacks is wild legend.

Anyway, if the afformentioned snake oil salesman didn't say up front that he did not have a medical degree, the swindled client would be able to sue that salesman to fraud. You also fail to mention that such "snake oil salesman" exist today in the form of chiropractors and homeopathic medicines, who are exempted from the restriction from practicing medicine in exchange for paying the state for a degree in chiropratry.