User Tag List

First 243233343536 Last

Results 331 to 340 of 365

  1. #331
    Senior Member OWK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haven View Post
    I'm gonna go with no that's not how it works. I linked to the article on legitimacy, you are free to read it and figure that out for yourself.
    I'm just asking you for a little intellectual honesty here.

    You say that it is moral for government to do, what it is immoral for individuals to do, because of something called "legitimacy".

    You say that this "legitimacy" comes about as a function of majority support.

    I ask you if this means that it is "legitimate" for the majority to... say... enslave the minority..?

    If not, why not?

    It's a simple question really. But one which has significant implications if you're willing to address it sincerely.

  2. #332
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haven View Post
    First off, I would be happy to donate $1000 for grandma's kidney transplant.

    That magic is called "legitimacy", a basic condition for governing according to wikipedia. When a people decide they like one group of gun toting thugs more than all the other groups of gun toting thugs, they call them a government. As you say, it is quite normal. If a government loses its legitimacy then it should, and probably will be replaced with a new group of gun toting thugs, unless there is some magical third option that you will reveal to me in a condescending manner after casually dismissing each of my points (I assume this is where you are going with these annoying hypothetical situations, it's just getting a bit too abstract for me).
    The problem @Haven, is that you are basing public policy on your feelings, for a *PRIVATE* good.
    That is, "I feel good hypothetically donating $1000 for grandma's kidney transplant" --is
    a) about *your* emotions
    b) an idealized case, where

    • it is black-and-white life or death
    • the treatment is efficacious
    • there is no cheaper palliative treatment
    • the disease being treated is readily identified with
    • the disease being treated is not the predictable consequence of poor lifestyle choices
    • the treatment is a one-off
    • the patient is sympathetic
    • the patient will not continually re-trigger the need for essentially the same treatment
    • the patient is thought of as an "upstanding member of society", not someone whose whole life has been consuming more than they produce
    • not necessarily a member of a voting bloc which can skew elections by voting for those who promise the most benefits


    So you jump from that, to justify a gigantic Mongolian Cluster Fuck of a bureaucracy which, in its attempts to avoid gaming the system, will necessarily entail monstrous quantities of red tape and rigidly inflexible bureaucrats, at ENORMOUS overhead -- but will only succeed in creating barriers to people who need treatment, or flexibility in treatment (e.g. people who react negatively to certain cheap generic formulations), but will still allow itself to be gamed anyway.

    Look up the numbers on what it was promised Medicaid & Medicare would cost, vs. their REAL costs. And even at that, many doctors have been refusing to take new patients, because the government reimbursement rate in many cases did not even adequately address the doctor's time in filling out the paperwork, let alone thoroughly evaluating the patient.

    And all so that you can "Feel Good" over a hypothetical.

    Charity is managed MUCH better, by individuals (Doctors deciding which cases to treat at reduced fees), or private organizations (say, churches and the like, but not nonprofits when run by MBAs), than it is EVER managed by the government.

    But there is a class of people with severe brain damage who have an eternal mantra stuck in their heads, "GOVERNMENT IS GREAT" (meaning, those "The More You Know" condescending propaganda TV ads make me feel good about myself, so I must control everyone else's life so I can pretend I'm living up to that ideal): and by accident or design, they have infested the decision-making positions in most major societal institutions.

    How's that Hopey-Changey working for you? Half of the National Debt (on the order of $16 TRILLION, or is it 17 by now) has been run up in a single administration. And they said of Reagan that "I could create the illusion of prosperity too if you'd let me write $200 billion in hot checks every year."

    But in this case, we have tremendously more debt than that, and no prosperity, except for the connected oligarchs who are in with this administration, and the inequity of wealth is higher than ever.
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.

  3. #333
    Nips away your dignity Fluffywolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,422

    Default

    At least this is one thing my country does right.

    Here everyone has to get healthcare by law and there's a healthy compitition market in place all the while health care insurances are required to accept any and all into their system disregarding age or prior condition.

    As a result, the money spent on healthcare per person is much much lower than it is in for example the US due to better saturation.

    I pay 150 euro a month and I'm fully covered.

    Obamacare would've been a good first step towards a cheaper system but hey, bitches be bitching.
    ~Self-depricating Megalomaniacal Superwolf

  4. #334
    reflecting pool Typh0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    3,083

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haven View Post
    First off, I would be happy to donate $1000 for grandma's kidney transplant.

    That magic is called "legitimacy", a basic condition for governing according to wikipedia. When a people decide they like one group of gun toting thugs more than all the other groups of gun toting thugs, they call them a government. As you say, it is quite normal. If a government loses its legitimacy then it should, and probably will be replaced with a new group of gun toting thugs, unless there is some magical third option that you will reveal to me in a condescending manner after casually dismissing each of my points (I assume this is where you are going with these annoying hypothetical situations, it's just getting a bit too abstract for me).
    Edit: I read your link. Not about gun toting thugs at all. On the contrary, legitimacy means acceptance by the governed that the governing are legitimate, as opposed to a being coercive. Do you know what you are talking about, Mr Sorin?

  5. #335
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OWK View Post
    You don't understand that roads could be privately owned?
    Of course they can be owned. The point is that they can only be owned by one entity and therefore cannot be owned by the end users. The original post, Cafe asked if she could own roads; she cannot own a road because any road she would want to buy is already owned and creating another is not viable.

    Hence, roads are natural forming monopolies, and I'm not talking about the capital/land issues that are alone sufficient to cause them. This is about the fundamental nature of roads. It's probably the worst example of privatization because roads form a full mesh rather than (typically) a star network with the nodes being some form of linear chain/mesh. Typically the production and backbone links can be privately owned but the final distribution chains are normally "publicly" owned (eg: a city owns its own distribution links).

    ---

    (FWIW, when you quote, if you keep the quote=ptgatsby;#####, it shows up in notifications. )

  6. #336
    Senior Member statuesquechica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    INFj
    Enneagram
    9w8 sx/so
    Posts
    428

    Default

    @grey_beard: •the patient is thought of as an "upstanding member of society", not someone whose whole life has been consuming more than they produce

    What does the above statement mean that you posted ? I know you are outlining the "ideal patient" but I don't know how this fits into your hypothetical model...
    I've looked at life from both sides now
    From up and down and still somehow
    It's life's illusions I recall
    I really don't know life at all

    Joni Mitchell

  7. #337

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OWK View Post
    You disagree?

    Or you don't want to be honest about something because it makes your uncomfortable?
    I disagree. When you are receiving services for your money, it's hard to call it "theft". At worst you can say you're getting ripped off.

    There are a lot of things that can be debated, but if you find the entire concept of federal taxation to be unacceptable, then there really isn't any point in a debate. If you find the concept of federal taxation to be acceptable but misapplied in the case of universal health care, then I would suggest that you are being penny wise and pound foolish.
    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.

    Johari
    /Nohari

  8. #338
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Health care costs after Medicare and Medicaid was introduced

    "Prior to 1965, before the introduction of Medicaid and Medicare, health care in the USA consumed 6% of the Gross Domestic Product. As a result of government in medicine health care, it now consumes 18%."

    Medicare and Medicaid have tripled the cost of healthcare. That's not even the worst part. Much of that expense goes towards paying bureaucrats, not the doctors and nurses who administer the care.

    More than 5000 hospitals exist in the USA. Not all have substantial losses. How much of the medical costs are associated with the administration of "health care"? At least $15 billion is spent on administration of these 5000 hospitals. Prior to government involvement these expenses did not exist.
    In the UK, where the National Health Service employs 1.4 million, only 113,000 are doctors and 390,000 are nurses. So-called paramedical and administrative personnel make up the rest. Only 7% of all the billions spent in the NHS go to physicians. More than 50% is spent on "administration". In the USA the result of government control of medical care is the same. Billions are wasted on the constructs of government involvement.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  9. #339
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by statuesquechica View Post
    @grey_beard: •the patient is thought of as an "upstanding member of society", not someone whose whole life has been consuming more than they produce

    What does the above statement mean that you posted ? I know you are outlining the "ideal patient" but I don't know how this fits into your hypothetical model...
    @statuesquechica--

    Can't remember where I heard of the study; it was found that it was cheaper, for one chronically dependent group in NYC, simply to give them a voucher to stay 365x7 in a motel, then to keep on cycling them on and off of social services, giving them counseling, inpatient treatment, etc.

    I'm not deliberately being obscure to try to make a point; I can't find the study at the moment. For all I know, I heard it on the radio a year ago.

    The problem is that the "need" for these kind of services is virtually infinite: some people will avail themselves of as great a quantity of aid as is available.

    You can think of "everybody is covered no matter what" philosophy, vs. "you have to pay for it" (the two extremes, right?) as limiting cases of stable and unstable singular points.

    It will be less controversial, and less emotionally inflammatory, to illustrate the point by talking first about transfer payments -- housing vouchers, Obamaphones, what have you.

    In the first case, where people can only receive what they pay for with their own money, what happens is that demand is limited: those who have enough money, buy something. Those who don't have enough money, do without, or buy a substitute good, or save up their money to buy it, or *go out and earn more money to buy the thing with*. But when people go and earn more money, what they are doing is in fact contributing to the economy -- by getting a job they are (usually) creating wealth by having the job; so they are "making a bigger pie" for everyone to share down the road.

    But when people are *given* things, there is no self-limiting mechanism on demand: if someone couldn't afford something anyway, that would normally cause them to not buy it. But if it is given at the behest of a politician, or a politician under the sway of a lobbying campaign, then the people to whom the good is given, have the incentive to demand more: but they are not doing anything on their end to increase the economy (making a bigger pie) -- they are merely diverting money from other people, who have their money confiscated without any choice in the matter. There is no automatic limiting of demand, so the demands tend to grow over time (as people become accustomed to a certain standard of living, it is mundane and taken for granted, so they want more).

    A similar process happens with healthcare. The problem is that the techniques used to weed out those gaming the system (e.g. as with false workman's comp claims) is that the documentation requirements become onerous, or the heavily codified definitions fail to handle unusual cases, so that people who really suffer from the unusual cases get left out in the cold, but the schemers hone in on the loopholes in the definitions and use them to get the extra benefits they want: they don't particularly care which lie or fraud they use, as long as the treat comes out when they press the correct button.
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.

  10. #340
    Senior Member OWK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou View Post
    I disagree. When you are receiving services for your money, it's hard to call it "theft".
    So if a mugger sticks a gun in your face, takes your wallet, then buys you a soda... he isn't a thief?

Similar Threads

  1. If the inferior function is so bad than what's made of the remaining four functions?
    By Willow Tree in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-18-2016, 07:31 PM
  2. What is so fascinating about gender politics?
    By Ingrid in grids in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 05-02-2016, 05:58 AM
  3. [ENTJ] ENTJ Ladies . . . what do you see is good/bad about being an ENTJ?
    By Windigo in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 04-09-2012, 09:38 PM
  4. What's so bad about wanting a Union job?
    By miss fortune in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 10-18-2008, 11:35 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO