A (Rhetorical Question)

[Ban my account ffs!]

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.

[Ban my account ffs!]

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.

[Ban my account ffs!]

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.

[Ban my account ffs!]

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.

Are you really that dense?

What do you suppose will happen to the elderly and the disabled when their medical coverage is taken away and they cannot get their medication or see their doctors?

I think it says pretty clearly that they want to thin the herd or at least threaten to thin the herd to try and force at least some of these people into some kind of unspecified action (like... get better.. which isn't much of a solution).

So yes, Libertas, it's exactly that.  If you don't agree it's because you didn't interpret what they said correctly.

So, I'll post it one more time:

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

I suppose you're stupid enough to actually believe that by getting rid of all subsidies for the sick and unhealthy, their will to live will just be renewed and they'll all just get better.

For example, if my mother loses her medical coverage, one of two things will happen:

1)  My entire family will go bankrupt trying to pay her medical costs

2)  She will die due to lack of care

Which one of those do you want for my family, Libertas?  Just let me know, and then I'll tell you what I want for you and your family and where you can all have a nice warm extended vacation.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Snowguy, you seem to be misinterpreting his statement. The idea is that if such subsidies were eliminated, people would take greater precautions to safeguard against a potential medical problem happening. Since your stooping to using an argument from pathos, might I ask whether it is moral to use a third-party to force your neighbors to pay for your mother's medical bills?

EDIT: Speaking of bankrupcy, you might want to look at what share of the national debt Medicare and Medicaid make up http://www.usdebtclock.org/

I think it is perfectly moral for our society to pay the medical costs of the sick and disabled.  In this made up world you seem to inhabit, it might make sense to get rid of all medical care to the poor or the sick and disabled to cannot afford it and just say "tough!"... but in the real world, we abandoned that cold social darwinism long ago.

But I also think the entire argument is bunk.  People already decided long ago to safegard against potential medical problems, which are much less affordable by the elderly due to higher frequency of problems or by the poor due to lack of funds, by voting for politicians that enacted Medicare and Medicaid.  By doing this, everybody gets medical coverage.  This is necessarily much better, in my interpretation of what is moral, than telling 9 people they must die early so that the 1 person can have enough money to save himself 10 times over and thus go buy a 3rd home for his grandson.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Snowguy, you seem to be misinterpreting his statement. The idea is that if such subsidies were eliminated, people would take greater precautions to safeguard against a potential medical problem happening. Since your stooping to using an argument from pathos, might I ask whether it is moral to use a third-party to force your neighbors to pay for your mother's medical bills?

EDIT: Speaking of bankrupcy, you might want to look at what share of the national debt Medicare and Medicaid make up http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Because if nothing else, even ignoring the obvious moral/sentimental reasons and assuming your worldview, it's just being pragmatic. Do you really think the uninsured or impoverished wouldn't eventually revolt and impose a system even more draconian than whatever comparatively tame social democracy snowguy wants? It's just self preservation. Know when to pick your battles.

If it's not the gub'mint showin up at your door with guns demanding that you pay up, it'll be somebody.  And somebody doesn't guarantee you rights under the constitution.

[Ban my account ffs!]

As far as Mint's original post, SPC, you're darn tootin right we should at least make government policy based on the fear of violent revolt.  Unless you threaten the revolt with overwhelming government force or throw the riff raff enough peanuts to satiate them, with today's educated citizens, things will go badly very quickly.

As I've said before, your political ideology would only work in a vacuum, or, perhaps at some point in our evolutionary future when we've become much more agreeable.  But I have a feeling eventually humans will probably drop all forms of capitalism instead for a form of economic collectivism as a simple means of practicality as we devote our minds to other, more important matters.