I only said non-trivial metrics...and you're not exactly answering my question.
You cannot show me that any method that involves coercion is better than any method that does not.
Topic: "You've got two, he's got none, give him one!" - Redistribution of Health - page 3. (Read 8094 times)
July 09, 2011, 09:39:29 PM
You cannot show me that any method that involves coercion is better than any method that does not.
July 09, 2011, 09:37:56 PM
i'll give a kidney only to people i know and care about. if there is ever a law forcing you to give one away i'll happily murder a few semi-random people to offset the kidneys usefulness
July 09, 2011, 09:35:00 PM
That said, it's true I can't tell you how to assign a cardinal value to pain but that's light-years from demonstrating that pain can not be measured with a unit.
If you can't assign a cardinal value to something then it can't be quantified. A unit is a quantity. Therefore, anything that can't be assigned a cardinal value can't be measured with a unit.
Yes, only when you define "quantity" to mean only "cardinal value". Just like you did there. However "quantity" doesn't have to refer to "cardinal value". Also as my Sifu would say:"Your confusion lies in your pronoun".
Quote
Like I said, you can rank subjective things but that's apparently all you wanted to assert anyways
Correction, that's all I did assert.
Quote
so I'm not sure why you're going out of your way to prove something you're clearly wrong about.
My thoughts exactly. 
July 09, 2011, 09:27:06 PM
That said, it's true I can't tell you how to assign a cardinal value to pain but that's light-years from demonstrating that pain can not be measured with a unit.
If you can't assign a cardinal value to something then it can't be quantified. A unit is a quantity. Therefore, anything that can't be assigned a cardinal value can't be measured with a unit. Like I said, you can rank subjective things but that's apparently all you wanted to assert anyways so I'm not sure why you're going out of your way to prove something you're clearly wrong about.
July 09, 2011, 09:12:36 PM
Out of curiosity. If I could demonstrate to you that in any and all circumstances that the outcomes of strictly adhering to this principle would be, by every non-trivial metric lesser than at least one alternative. Would you decide that this principle isn't worth following?
Fiat justitia ruat caelum.
+1 If that is the price we pay for not running our society on pain and suffering, so be it.
Then you could not show me that the outcomes would be worse on every metric.
I only said non-trivial metrics...and you're not exactly answering my question.
July 09, 2011, 09:05:59 PM
Out of curiosity. If I could demonstrate to you that in any and all circumstances that the outcomes of strictly adhering to this principle would be, by every non-trivial metric lesser than at least one alternative. Would you decide that this principle isn't worth following?
Fiat justitia ruat caelum.
+1 If that is the price we pay for not running our society on pain and suffering, so be it.
Then you could not show me that the outcomes would be worse on every metric.
July 09, 2011, 08:49:41 PM
So in fact you can say that stimulus X is more painful than stimulus Y.
I didn't say you couldn't do that. That's not quantification. That's ranking.
A rank is still a metric - it's just an ordinal metric. Which is all I argued. Everyone is in less pain.
Quote
You can rank pain but you can't quantify it.
Alex I'm going to go with an "implied argument from ignorance" here (should have called you on that earlier for your own good!
)So yes cardinality is beside the point and quantification is only relevant when you define it to mean "cardinality". That said, it's true I can't tell you how to assign a cardinal value to pain but that's light-years from demonstrating that pain can not be measured with a unit.
Quote
Do you understand the difference between ordinality and cardinality?
Apparently so!I'm glad we had this talk!
July 09, 2011, 08:43:04 PM
So in fact you can say that stimulus X is more painful than stimulus Y.
I didn't say you couldn't do that. That's not quantification. That's ranking. You can rank pain but you can't quantify it. Do you understand the difference between ordinality and cardinality?
July 09, 2011, 08:37:21 PM
Wouldn't pain and suffering be non-trivial metrics?
There are no units of pain. Imagine if you said that your toothache hurts 48% than your headache. That would be absurd.
In medicine, pain metrics are used all the time. So in fact you can say that stimulus X is more painful than stimulus Y. Studies on analgesics and palliative care use them. Your confusion lies in the fact that they are ordinal not ratio.
July 09, 2011, 08:32:15 PM
Wouldn't pain and suffering be non-trivial metrics?
There are no units of pain. Imagine if you said that your toothache hurts 48% than your headache. That would be absurd. Now imagine if I said, my toothache hurts 48% more than your headache. You can't even quantify your own pain much less quantify pain between two subjects.
July 09, 2011, 08:27:38 PM
Out of curiosity. If I could demonstrate to you that in any and all circumstances that the outcomes of strictly adhering to this principle would be, by every non-trivial metric lesser than at least one alternative. Would you decide that this principle isn't worth following?
Fiat justitia ruat caelum.
+1 If that is the price we pay for not running our society on pain and suffering, so be it.
July 09, 2011, 08:25:32 PM
Out of curiosity. If I could demonstrate to you that in any and all circumstances that the outcomes of strictly adhering to this principle would be, by every non-trivial metric lesser than at least one alternative. Would you decide that this principle isn't worth following?
Fiat justitia ruat caelum.
July 09, 2011, 08:17:47 PM
Out of curiosity. If I could demonstrate to you that in any and all circumstances that the outcomes of strictly adhering to this principle would be, by every non-trivial metric lesser than at least one alternative. Would you decide that this principle isn't worth following?
Fiat justitia ruat caelum.
+1 If that is the price we pay for not running our society on pain and suffering, so be it.
July 09, 2011, 08:06:38 PM
Out of curiosity. If I could demonstrate to you that in any and all circumstances that the outcomes of strictly adhering to this principle would be, by every non-trivial metric lesser than at least one alternative. Would you decide that this principle isn't worth following?
Fiat justitia ruat caelum.
July 09, 2011, 08:02:37 PM
Anyone want to volunteer what exactly this idea is "logically consistent" with?
Sure, I'll bite: The removal of monopoly services and replacement with market services is logically consistent with the Non-agression Priciple, which is the guiding principle for both the libertarian and Voluntaryist viewpoints.
Fair enough.
Out of curiosity. If I could demonstrate to you that in any and all circumstances that the outcomes of strictly adhering to this principle would be, by every non-trivial metric lesser than at least one alternative. Would you decide that this principle isn't worth following?
July 09, 2011, 07:08:02 PM
And the sustainable price is much higher if you're the only one. It's even higher if people aren't forced to pay that cost themselves (insurance). It's even higher if that insurance is state subsidized. So, if you're for robbing the poor to give to the rich, keep arguing that point.
But you're not the only one. There are many other companies out there who compete with you. They have to research their own drug, but they can compete if they want. They even get a monopoly on their own substance. If they charge more than their competitors they have to prove additional value. And when the research cost has been covered they can sell just above production cost, to keep competition out.I think we can agree on one thing though. US health system sucks. Virtually every country in Europe have lower drug costs than the US, more accessible health care and lower cost for the state. You need to fix it. Have you tried single payer system? Works in Europe.
July 09, 2011, 03:55:45 PM
If you have a single provider of health care, such as the NHS here in the UK, you can purchase in bulk and get the best price.
Thats your first sentence shown false. By a real world example.
Because the drugs are bought in bulk from taxes, it costs uses nothing at the point of delivery. Thats your second sentence shown false. Again by what happens in real life.
Private insurance exists in the UK and it costs MORE than the NHS. Thats your third sentence gone.
Controlling costs does not hurt the poor at all. How could it? Thats your fourth.
Seriously, yesterday you made nice logical arguments. This is like "make something up and if anyone disagrees make more stuff up" Have you been on drugs today?
Thats your first sentence shown false. By a real world example.
Because the drugs are bought in bulk from taxes, it costs uses nothing at the point of delivery. Thats your second sentence shown false. Again by what happens in real life.
Private insurance exists in the UK and it costs MORE than the NHS. Thats your third sentence gone.
Controlling costs does not hurt the poor at all. How could it? Thats your fourth.
Seriously, yesterday you made nice logical arguments. This is like "make something up and if anyone disagrees make more stuff up" Have you been on drugs today?
Yesterday you argued that competition reduced the price of something. Today you argue it doesn't. Which is it?
Bulk buying reduces the cost, but it reduces it from an inflated maximum. Bulk buying is also perfectly possible, no matter the number of drug companies offering meds. Nice try, but, no.
Buying drugs via taxes proves my fourth sentence. Thank you.
Private insurance costs more than the NHS because the NHS is state subsidized, and thus payed for by other people. See the fourth sentence.
And you're not controlling the price of the drugs at all, you're controlling the visible cost. There's a lot more hidden..
July 09, 2011, 03:44:55 PM
No, the good prices and good service only come after the monopoly ends. "charge what the market will bear" only applies when there is a market. if you're the only one, you can charge whatever you want.
Clearly bullshit. A new drug needs to be marketed and sold. If you overcharge people won't buy. There's nobody out there forcing you to buy. Just say no. When enough people say no to a price it will drop until enough say yes. Simple as that. I thought you understood how the market works.
You don't think there's a market for a better cancer drug, or vaccine, or antibiotics? You sell on that market and you charge what it will bear.
And the sustainable price is much higher if you're the only one. It's even higher if people aren't forced to pay that cost themselves (insurance). It's even higher if that insurance is state subsidized. So, if you're for robbing the poor to give to the rich, keep arguing that point.
All 4 sentences in your reply are false
Then disprove even one.
If you have a single provider of health care, such as the NHS here in the UK, you can purchase in bulk and get the best price.
Thats your first sentence shown false. By a real world example.
Because the drugs are bought in bulk from taxes, it costs uses nothing at the point of delivery. Thats your second sentence shown false. Again by what happens in real life.
Private insurance exists in the UK and it costs MORE than the NHS. Thats your third sentence gone.
Controlling costs does not hurt the poor at all. How could it? Thats your fourth.
Seriously, yesterday you made nice logical arguments. This is like "make something up and if anyone disagrees make more stuff up" Have you been on drugs today?
July 09, 2011, 03:31:26 PM
No, the good prices and good service only come after the monopoly ends. "charge what the market will bear" only applies when there is a market. if you're the only one, you can charge whatever you want.
Clearly bullshit. A new drug needs to be marketed and sold. If you overcharge people won't buy. There's nobody out there forcing you to buy. Just say no. When enough people say no to a price it will drop until enough say yes. Simple as that. I thought you understood how the market works.
You don't think there's a market for a better cancer drug, or vaccine, or antibiotics? You sell on that market and you charge what it will bear.
And the sustainable price is much higher if you're the only one. It's even higher if people aren't forced to pay that cost themselves (insurance). It's even higher if that insurance is state subsidized. So, if you're for robbing the poor to give to the rich, keep arguing that point.
All 4 sentences in your reply are false
Then disprove even one.
July 09, 2011, 03:30:08 PM
No, the good prices and good service only come after the monopoly ends. "charge what the market will bear" only applies when there is a market. if you're the only one, you can charge whatever you want.
Clearly bullshit. A new drug needs to be marketed and sold. If you overcharge people won't buy. There's nobody out there forcing you to buy. Just say no. When enough people say no to a price it will drop until enough say yes. Simple as that. I thought you understood how the market works.
You don't think there's a market for a better cancer drug, or vaccine, or antibiotics? You sell on that market and you charge what it will bear.
And the sustainable price is much higher if you're the only one. It's even higher if people aren't forced to pay that cost themselves (insurance). It's even higher if that insurance is state subsidized. So, if you're for robbing the poor to give to the rich, keep arguing that point.
All 4 sentences in your reply are false
Jump to: