I often find it hilarious that people spend more time correcting spelling and grammatical errors than focusing on the topic at hand.
I think the markups are quite a bit higher than 1000% . Pharmaceuticals are upwards of 30000% in some cases.
zomgherecomethegrammarpolicequickcorrectmebecauseitisuberimportantandwhatnotple asedonotfocusonthetopicasspellingandgrammararewaymoreimportant!!!!!
Topic: Do I deserve to die and do I deserve healthcare? - page 2. (Read 4491 times)
Actually the average resuscitation from non traumatic ventricular tachycardia can be be achieved in under $1000 dollars. Its always more expensive with the 1000% supply markup though. We medical types get away with insain markups and ridiculous inefficiency. Our hospital only got computerized medical records a couple of years ago. They all run windows XP and are constantly getting infected with viruses. God Bless America.
I'm curious, when you say 'we medical types', are you referring to your fellow candy-stripers? Because I'm pretty sure a doctor, nurse, or even medical record clerk knows how to spell 'insane'.
I'm glad I'm not participating in this thread 
...awww snap
...awww snap 
You can save Human lives for around $1000 each, as researched by GiveWell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Givewell therefore I see no reason why anyone should fund health insurance for those who can't afford it since that far exceeds the cost of saving a life, unless such person helps the world more than most others do in which case they would be more valuable.
No a person does not deserve to die but death is not a bad thing. A person should never be entitled to healthcare either. I also have this thing in my head that people live too long and have too many children. I have seen the worlds population double in my lifetime so far. I suspect it will probably double again before i die.
Back to why nationalized healthcare and the continued sense of entitlement is a bad idea. What is the point of living past the time where you can actually enjoy life? Some people and I stress the word some are able to do things and continue to rock on well into their 80's and even 90's in some cases but most cannot. So to exist past usefulness and enjoyment is completely pointless and without merit. Who determines this point ? Each individual.
Entitlement is perhaps the most dangerous idea. Why does everyone suddenly seem to feel entitled to healthcare and why should it be provided by some government entity? Most people go to the doctor for every little thing and waste huge amounts of money simply because it costs them little. Those that do not have health insurance do not go to the doctor for every little perceived problem. The argument of entitlement is just another example of people living outside of their means. IF you happen to have a major health problem that is fixable then you can pay for it over time. If you happen to have a terminal illness then you are probably going to die. Even after spending large amounts of money for "treatment" you are probably still going to die. The only difference is someone was able to extract more value from you before you check out. Is this always true? No, but it is mostly true.
Back to why nationalized healthcare and the continued sense of entitlement is a bad idea. What is the point of living past the time where you can actually enjoy life? Some people and I stress the word some are able to do things and continue to rock on well into their 80's and even 90's in some cases but most cannot. So to exist past usefulness and enjoyment is completely pointless and without merit. Who determines this point ? Each individual.
Entitlement is perhaps the most dangerous idea. Why does everyone suddenly seem to feel entitled to healthcare and why should it be provided by some government entity? Most people go to the doctor for every little thing and waste huge amounts of money simply because it costs them little. Those that do not have health insurance do not go to the doctor for every little perceived problem. The argument of entitlement is just another example of people living outside of their means. IF you happen to have a major health problem that is fixable then you can pay for it over time. If you happen to have a terminal illness then you are probably going to die. Even after spending large amounts of money for "treatment" you are probably still going to die. The only difference is someone was able to extract more value from you before you check out. Is this always true? No, but it is mostly true.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/
Original Position
First published Tue Feb 27, 1996; substantive revision Sat Dec 20, 2008
The original position is a central feature of John Rawls's social contract account of justice, “justice as fairness,” set forth in A Theory of Justice (TJ). It is designed to be a fair and impartial point of view that is to be adopted in our reasoning about fundamental principles of justice. In taking up this point of view, we are to imagine ourselves in the position of free and equal persons who jointly agree upon and commit themselves to principles of social and political justice. The main distinguishing feature of the original position is “the veil of ignorance”: to insure impartiality of judgment, the parties are deprived of all knowledge of their personal characteristics and social and historical circumstances. They do know of certain fundamental interests they all have, plus general facts about psychology, economics, biology, and other social and natural sciences. The parties in the original position are presented with a list of the main conceptions of justice drawn from the tradition of social and political philosophy, and are assigned the task of choosing from among these alternatives the conception of justice that best advances their interests in establishing conditions that enable them to effectively pursue their final ends and fundamental interests. Rawls contends that the most rational choice for the parties in the original position are the two principles of justice. The first principle guarantees the equal basic rights and liberties needed to secure the fundamental interests of free and equal citizens and to pursue a wide range of conceptions of the good. The second principle provides fair equality of educational and employment opportunities enabling all to fairly compete for powers and prerogatives of office; and it secures for all a guaranteed minimum of the all-purpose means (including income and wealth) that individuals need to pursue their interests and to maintain their self-respect as free and equal persons.
Tear apart the Original Position Now.
Original Position
First published Tue Feb 27, 1996; substantive revision Sat Dec 20, 2008
The original position is a central feature of John Rawls's social contract account of justice, “justice as fairness,” set forth in A Theory of Justice (TJ). It is designed to be a fair and impartial point of view that is to be adopted in our reasoning about fundamental principles of justice. In taking up this point of view, we are to imagine ourselves in the position of free and equal persons who jointly agree upon and commit themselves to principles of social and political justice. The main distinguishing feature of the original position is “the veil of ignorance”: to insure impartiality of judgment, the parties are deprived of all knowledge of their personal characteristics and social and historical circumstances. They do know of certain fundamental interests they all have, plus general facts about psychology, economics, biology, and other social and natural sciences. The parties in the original position are presented with a list of the main conceptions of justice drawn from the tradition of social and political philosophy, and are assigned the task of choosing from among these alternatives the conception of justice that best advances their interests in establishing conditions that enable them to effectively pursue their final ends and fundamental interests. Rawls contends that the most rational choice for the parties in the original position are the two principles of justice. The first principle guarantees the equal basic rights and liberties needed to secure the fundamental interests of free and equal citizens and to pursue a wide range of conceptions of the good. The second principle provides fair equality of educational and employment opportunities enabling all to fairly compete for powers and prerogatives of office; and it secures for all a guaranteed minimum of the all-purpose means (including income and wealth) that individuals need to pursue their interests and to maintain their self-respect as free and equal persons.
Tear apart the Original Position Now.
I see a lot of meaningless collectivist buzzwords that don't require any tearing apart.
Beyond that, the idea of a "social contract" is a cheap justification for statist coercion. A contract that I have never seen nor agreed to and is only considered to be justified because it can be enforced is not a legitimate contract. Try harder.
Life isn't fair. Nature does not bestow upon us equal and fair characteristics, physical or mental. Some people are born smarter, stronger, better-looking and with larger dicks than others. Humanity will never achieve social equality, it is a chasing after the wind. The best we can do is to minimize coercion in society and teach each other to respect and help each other (the true concept of community), but not to force individuals to help others.
But I hear what you're saying. No, being rich does not inherently make one responsible for the poor. Remember, unless you stole it, Every dollar you have when you're rich is a dollar someone gave you in exchange for a service. You've already helped people, and been paid for it. (Charity's still a good thing, I just don't like giving at gunpoint.)
What about genetic wealth?
Honestly, did you just get your Silk Road order?
Paring out the bullshit, it basically boils down to 'What about the poor?'
So ones wealth does not change the weight of ones responsibilities?
Ever hear the Latin phrase, 'Non Sequitur'? It means, 'It does not follow'. Your question has no bearing to my translation of your previous question.
But I hear what you're saying. No, being rich does not inherently make one responsible for the poor. Remember, unless you stole it, Every dollar you have when you're rich is a dollar someone gave you in exchange for a service. You've already helped people, and been paid for it. (Charity's still a good thing, I just don't like giving at gunpoint.)
I would argue consequentialist reasoning Is a perfectly valid factor when debating the role of large armed groups such as armies. In this situation I don't see how anyone could say there is a universal maxim. Or in other words how can the use of private armies lead to justice that reliably track the truth despite varying relevant conditions. In a purely private army system what happens to disadvantaged independents?
I don't understand what you're saying.
and there in lies the problem
Spare me the snide remarks. Just clarify your statements because it sounds like special pleading.
to me, it sounds like hiding ignorance of the subject matter with big words. Either that, or he's one of those wordy stoners, and is actually trying to get a point across. Let me see if I can translate:
Paring out the bullshit, it basically boils down to 'What about the poor?'
I would argue consequentialist reasoning Is a perfectly valid factor when debating the role of large armed groups such as armies. In this situation I don't see how anyone could say there is a universal maxim. Or in other words how can the use of private armies lead to justice that reliably track the truth despite varying relevant conditions. In a purely private army system what happens to disadvantaged independents?
I don't understand what you're saying.
and there in lies the problem
Spare me the snide remarks. Just clarify your statements because it sounds like special pleading.
I would argue consequentialist reasoning Is a perfectly valid factor when debating the role of large armed groups such as armies. In this situation I don't see how anyone could say there is a universal maxim. Or in other words how can the use of private armies lead to justice that reliably track the truth despite varying relevant conditions. In a purely private army system what happens to disadvantaged independents?
I don't understand what you're saying.
Are you advocating a night-watchmen state or true private armies. Most modern Libertarian philosophers don't advocate true private armies. It may be bit of a Rorschach or free association thing but you say private armies and I think protection racket.
Funny, that's exactly what I think of when I hear "government".
So you are an Anarchist and/or anti-statist?
I started a thread entitled 'How to run an Anarchy'. What do you think?
Is the outcome of these two scenarios any different?
I grow weary of arguing against consequentialism.
A guy dying of a terminal disease is allowed to die vs. me shooting him in the head. Is the outcome of these two scenarios any different? Wait, before you answer, let's just stipulate that the outcomes are identical. Do you really think that they are therefore morally equivalent? I don't. I think murder is still wrong, even if he was going to die anyways and the outcome is the same.
Are you advocating a night-watchmen state or true private armies. Most modern Libertarian philosophers don't advocate true private armies. It may be bit of a Rorschach or free association thing but you say private armies and I think protection racket.
Funny, that's exactly what I think of when I hear "government".
Troll boy is worried about the rich funding private armies but that would at least be a step up from the rich that can just buy control of the public armies.
Is the outcome of these two scenarios any different? There are too many religious zealots in my area... It might turn out like somalia or some other fucked up tribal nation. We need a resurgence of Quakers and Anabaptist in our christian population? I prefer my original position and veil of ignorance, at least until someone comes up with a model I find preferable. I must state I haven't read Nozick yet.
The difference is that I am not taxed to pay for the private armies. People who have to fund their own wars are more reluctant to engage in war in the first place.
1) I was a hard working citizen but due to no fault of my own I lost my job and am currently looking for work but unable to find any.
Yeah, man works 40 years laying bricks and not once thinks about making a back-up plan.
Then loses job and cries "bricklaying is all I've ever known, how will I pay my rent now?".
Hey stupido, you had 40 years to make a back-up plan.
1) I was a hard working citizen but due to no fault of my own I lost my job and am currently looking for work but unable to find any.
Yeah, man works 40 years laying bricks and not once thinks about making a back-up plan.
Then loses job and cries "bricklaying is all I've ever known, how will I pay my rent now?".
Hey stupido, you had 40 years to make a back-up plan.
Or we could just keep fighting the War on Drugs, the War on Terrorism, and let the A.M.A., Pharma, and Med Insurance Banks write our legislation.
Just to expand on this idea. I wonder who is more likely to be able to effectively lobby for legislation, the poor and needy or moneyed special interest groups? Troll boy is worried about the rich funding private armies but that would at least be a step up from the rich that can just buy control of the public armies.
Jump to: