Socialized theft

[minorwork]

Emotional superiority doesn't disqualify moral superiority because if it did there would be no such thing as morals.

No such thing as morals? I can get behind that idea. I do agree that morality of charity can not hide behind the facade of nobility if it becomes convenient to place oneself on the "right" side of an issue.

I don't get the logic of discounting charity as a farce for it being done for selfish reasons just to suit an argument that could not stand otherwise or as you say there would be no such thing to boast about. The Bible guys do a lot of picking and choosing to bolster their positions, so I guess it's worth a try.

[Yarn]

No such thing as morals? I can get behind that idea.

Good for you. Yay for sociopathy.

Or whatever the hell is up with Elliot

Elliot had a small tumour cut from his cortex near the brain's frontal lobe. He had been a model father and husband, holding down an important management job in a large corporation and was active in his church. But the operation changed everything.

Elliot's IQ stayed the same - testing in the smartest 3 per cent - but, after surgery, he was incapable of decision. Normal life became impossible. Routine tasks that should take 10 minutes now took hours. Elliot endlessly deliberated over irrelevant details: whether to use a blue or black pen, what radio station to listen to and where to park his car. When contemplating lunch, he carefully considered each restaurant's menu, seating and lighting, and then drove to each place to see how busy it was. But Elliot still couldn't decide where to eat. His indecision was pathological.

This was an unexpected discovery. At the time, neuroscience assumed that human emotions were irrational. A person without emotions should therefore make better decisions. His cognition should be uncorrupted. The charioteer should have complete control. To Damasio, Elliot's pathology suggested emotions are a crucial part of decision-making. Cut off from our feelings, the most banal decisions become impossible. A brain that can't feel can't make up its mind....

Damasio began studying other patients with similar brain damage. These all appeared intelligent and showed no deficits on any conventional cognitive tests. And yet they all suffered from the same profound flaw: because they didn't experience emotion, they had tremendous difficulty making decisions.

In his earlier book, Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason And The Human Brain, Damasio described trying to set up an appointment with an emotionless patient: alternative dates are suggested and the patient pulls out an appointment book and consults the calendar. For 30 minutes the patient enumerated reasons for and against each of the two dates: previous engagements, possible meteorological conditions, virtually anything that one could reasonably think about. "He was now walking us through a tiresome cost-benefit analysis, an endless outlining and fruitless comparison of options and possible consequences. It took enormous discipline to listen to all of this without pounding on the table and telling him to stop," Damasio wrote.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/feeli...#ixzz1tql3QoNP

[ironeagle]

So far in the multitude of posts pertaining to universal healthcare subjects I have posed these questions to the people for it and have yet to EVER recieve a response:

1. Wealready give life saving care by law to all citizens and non citizens so why would there be anyone dying (with possible few exceptions such as rare transplants conisdered controversial) from any disease or condition on a regular basis?
2. Why must a law forbidding the exclusion of pre-existing condition be accompanied by a one payer system and/or federal mandate to buy insurance we don't want?
3. Why do we allow insurance companies when it is actually insurance compainies in general who have increased and inflated the cost of medical care for the majority of the population, when doctors would otherwise lower prices or go out of business if we got rid of them?
4. why can't we pass laws allowing families to roll over their family medical accounts tax free each year to save for future medical bills instead of taxing it away or forcing them to buy unneeded medical services to spend it down?
5. Why can't we apply charlottan, fraud, and swindling laws to medical facilities, drug companies and the like when their actions become abusive in nature?
6. Why do we allow pattents on life saving medications and equipment?
7. If we change all those things without universal care which we absolutley can do, they why would we need universal healthcare, and why would we need to steal from hard workers so they can get junky care or no care so someone else can get some junky care?

[Dodds]

Working for a charity is not necessarily charitable. It can be, depending on what your opportunity cost for doing so is

Just out of curiosity, did you read the link I posted?

[Yarn]

1. Wealready give life saving care by law to all citizens and non citizens so why would there be anyone dying (with possible few exceptions such as rare transplants conisdered controversial) from any disease or condition on a regular basis?

What you refer to is universal emergency room care. Lack of health insurance results in deaths because we don't have universal health care when it comes to things other than the emergency room.

2. Why must a law forbidding the exclusion of pre-existing condition be accompanied by a one payer system and/or federal mandate to buy insurance we don't want?

In order for health insurance to work, it needs a pool of healthy people to balance out the costs of the unhealthy people. If people can't be discriminated against on the basis of prexisting conditions then they will just avoid getting health insurance until they are facing enormous medical costs. Unless they are forced to buy health insurance or they pay for it through the taxes.

3. Why do we allow insurance companies when it is actually insurance compainies in general who have increased and inflated the cost of medical care for the majority of the population, when doctors would otherwise lower prices or go out of business if we got rid of them?

Doctors charge insurance companies less money, and insurance companies have low profit margins. However, I suppose you could say that the paper work insurance companies require for making a claim are part of what has caused prices to rise. It may also be argued that when the consumer and payer aren't the same person, as is the case in health insurance, there is less price competition (though insurance companies often designate "approved" lists of providers). However, without health insurance, I doubt most people would save the money required to see them through any emergency, so health insurance seems necessary.

4. why can't we pass laws allowing families to roll over their family medical accounts tax free each year to save for future medical bills instead of taxing it away or forcing them to buy unneeded medical services to spend it down?

That sounds largely like a good idea. I worry a little that those with the most expensive health bills won't save enough.

5. Why can't we apply charlottan, fraud, and swindling laws to medical facilities, drug companies and the like when their actions become abusive in nature?

That sounds like loose price controls, which are what every other first world nation has when it comes to medical care. In a way, a hospital has something of a monopoly over local emergencies. Electricity is also provided via a local monopoly, and as a result its prices are regulated by the government.

6. Why do we allow pattents on life saving medications and equipment?

The same reason why we allow patents on anything else: to reward innovation. Without incentives, modern medicine would anywhere near as advanced as it is. One alternative would be for governments to buy the patents and then make them public, but I doubt you'd like that.

7. If we change all those things without universal care which we absolutley can do, they why would we need universal healthcare, and why would we need to steal from hard workers so they can get junky care or no care so someone else can get some junky care?

Without universal healthcare, note that is not the same thing as saying universal health insurance or single payer, excess deaths will occur. I don't care how it is done so much as I care how much it costs and what quality of care it provides. If you have a way of doing this that doesn't cut into those concerns, then once you've tested and proven it, I have no problem with it.

[ironeagle]

I do not think you actually answered question one. On question two there is no merit to your argument since people already do buy insurance they often pay way more for their care than thye recieve in care each year on average there is no reason people who do not want insurance and who do not want medical services should have to or would have to pay in so a few people with rare conditions can have affordable care. There is a difference between price controls and thwarting crime. while the line may be thin, there is a line a person valuing a service or medicine at a rate above and beyond a reasonable profit is a criminal charlotan. I understand the legal argument for pattents but I think they have a choice make medicine make some money or don't make it and don't make any money. I think allowing pattents on these things just allows crime. It allows swindling. I for one have no tolerance for swindling used hanging over the heads of sick and dying people. Interesting though how you seem to suggest being against "price control" but not against unconstitution theft of people's wages, government monopoly on health care and government intrusion into our lives.