Universal Single-Payer Healthcare

[JaKiri]

I know you're just being humorous there, but saying it again like that actually forces me to post this in public, because if I don't then some -- fool -- wil assume we're letting you off the hook. So for the record, if you call someone an idiot again you'll receive a flame infraction.

 

If you want to discuss it further, my inbox is open.

 

Rules? I wrote the rules!

 

(Well, not really)

[ParanoiA]

That's not ad hominem, you idiot.

 

I think this sums it up nicely....

 

Ad hominem abusive

Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting or belittling one's opponent' date=' but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensibly damning character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions. [i']This tactic is frequently employed as a propaganda tool among politicians who are attempting to influence the voter base in their favor through an appeal to emotion rather than by logical means, especially when their own position is logically weaker than their opponent's[/i]

 

I can handle arguing with an elitist, but I prefer them to at least be honest about their self inflation.

 

The problem here is that unless you regulate what can and can't be sold (especially as medicine), the people who sell dangerous things don't become tortfeasors until the harm is done. If people sold fish that could only be used to slap you, then you would presumeably prefer people not to be allowed to buy the fish in the first place rather than waiting for them to come up and slap you, and then getting some marginal compensation.

 

From what I've seen, our litigatory culture has little problem keeping companies focused on prevention. Not to mention, companies will focus on whatever the consumer is focused on. The day after the atkinson diet was featured on Oprah, I saw carb counts on the menus of all my favorite restaraunts - even fast food for crying out loud.

 

If safety is everyone's concern, companies will go out of their way to kiss our ass and show off how safe they are, making marketing claims that bind them to law. (Not to mention Action news and investigative journalism will keep them in check.. )

 

Why can't the government actively investigate these matters? Why does there have to be a special set of laws to get the government's help in ensuring the legitimacy of business?

 

Could you please clarify how this relates to the difference between laissez-faire capitalism and a socialist government on the topic of promoting or reducing the effect of monopolies?

 

It seems a just a little bit like a non sequitur' date=' given that this was started by you complaining about the US government encouraging monopolies, which socialism does (according to you) and laissez-faire capitalism does not.[/quote']

 

"laissez-faire capitalism" was not advocated by me and most certainly neither is socialism. Rather a much, much less regulated free market system. Right now, we have a heavily regulated market; a controlled market; a government-corporate monopoly.

[JaKiri]

I can handle arguing with an elitist, but I prefer them to at least be honest about their self inflation.

 

Ad hominem is claiming that the argument is invalid due to the personal flaws of the proposer.

 

What I did is claim that you had personal flaws because your argument was invalid.

 

From what I've seen, our litigatory culture has little problem keeping companies focused on prevention.

 

There are a huge number of case studies, extending to this day, of companies balancing the cost of litigation against the cost of fixing a flawed product. The Ford Pinto is probably the best example of this.

 

If safety is everyone's concern, companies will go out of their way to kiss our ass and show off how safe they are, making marketing claims that bind them to law.

 

There are already things that bind them to law, they still break them.

 

(Not to mention Action news and investigative journalism will keep them in check.. )

 

Everyone can sleep safely knowing that Action News is on the case, assuming they manage to investigate the products before they're sold!

 

Why can't the government actively investigate these matters? Why does there have to be a special set of laws to get the government's help in ensuring the legitimacy of business?

 

So you want government to regulate industry... without regulations?

 

"laissez-faire capitalism" was not advocated by me and most certainly neither is socialism. Rather a much, much less regulated free market system. Right now, we have a heavily regulated market; a controlled market; a government-corporate monopoly.

 

A free market without government regulation, government created monopolies and the like is the very definition of liassez-faire capitalism.

 

I must point out that you didn't answer my question.

[ParanoiA]

Ad hominem is claiming that the argument is invalid due to the personal flaws of the proposer.

 

What I did is claim that you had personal flaws because your argument was invalid.

 

So it's the intellectual equivalent of a spelling error. Noted.

 

There are already things that bind them to law' date=' they still break them.[/quote']

 

Regulations are laws. And yet, here you are advocating that even more of them will somehow solve something that enforcement wouldn't. In your own words, they still break them. Enforcement is the key here, not more law.

 

Everyone can sleep safely knowing that Action News is on the case, assuming they manage to investigate the products before they're sold!

 

No one will be safe until there's action news on action news.

 

So you want government to regulate industry... without regulations?

 

You mean like how the government investigates murder without "human interface regulations" and committees? Why not? The rules of the land apply to all, business and private. Enforcement includes investigation and prosecution - neither of which need yet another bureaucratic subset of laws and requirements in order to exercise.

 

A free market without government regulation' date=' government created monopolies and the like is the very definition of liassez-faire capitalism.

 

I must point out that you didn't answer my question.[/quote']

 

Actually, Laissez-faire simply means "let do", so nothing short of non-interference will ever really qualify. And no, I'm not any more excited about elitist rich thugs running the country than I am lying, cheating, elitist rich thugs. I like free markets and the natural checks and balances inherent in such systems, the compliment to human nature and freedom.

 

However, some regulation is required due to greed and blinding self interest of totally free capitalism, so regulation is necessary, in my opinion. However, we seem to approach regulation like a Union approaches business - a total lack of regard or respect for said business - as if they are an evil entity that needs to be stopped, rather than the essential contributor of the economy.

 

But that's a personal opinion and I'd rather argue more on Dr Paul's position, since it's more fun.

[bombus]

Nope, competition drives costs down, that has been proven over and over again. But, in the chase for profits, lower margin services might be sacrificed for higher margin services. Instead of making parts for you tape recorder, they make cd players. Instead of offering cheap x-rays for patients, they go for the MRI. Instead of fixing cleft pallets, they provide boob jobs.

 

Competetion does NOT decrease prices when a nationalised monopoly is concerned. It actually increases them. Simple economics.