5 Things I Saw as a 9/11 First Responder

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"If a pharmaceutical company jacks it's prices to unreasonable levels they go bust"
unless they agree among themselves to jack up their prices equally, which they did and do. not surprised you've shown us your economic myopy again


"The number of truly helpless people is small"
that's because you don't understand what you read. there are many people d ...[text shortened]... w there weren't enough people clearing the rubble and there might be people trapped under there.

How do we decide who is worthy of charity.

By making it voluntary (there is no other type but I'll indulge your double speak for now) The UK is an excellent example of what the welfare state does to true charity. There were thousands of what were called friendly societies, these were community groups that banded together to help those in need in the community. People knew each other better than any social worker bureaurat could do. Those trying to hitch a free ride were known. Help was seen for what it really is, i.e. not a 'right'. With the growth of the welfare state so the decrease in friendly societies, what a shame. The welfare state promotes an uncaring society.

Originally posted by Wajoma
If you like, guess I must be ubermensch too because I decided how much sugar to put on my cornflakes this morning, even though you were still free to put as much, or as little sugar on your cornies, or you might choose not to have cornflakes at all.

I wasn't free to withhold my contribution to the army, police, etc.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Looks like you've just introduced new criteria. This should be a lesson to you about comparing apples and oranges.

Thousands of people travel to places like the Philippines and Thailand for all sorts of medical procedures.

According to the Wikipedia page "the majority of health care in Thailand is provided by the public sector." [1]. For the Philipines 40% of hospitals are publicly owned, 65% of health care expenditure is by the government [2]. You have still failed to find an example of a health care system which is both cheap and private.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_Thailand
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_the_Philippines

Originally posted by DeepThought
According to the Wikipedia page "the majority of health care in Thailand is provided by the public sector." [1]. For the Philipines 40% of hospitals are publicly owned, 65% of health care expenditure is by the government [2]. You have still failed to find an example of a health care system which is both cheap and private.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_Thailand
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_the_Philippines

In both of the cited cases, the systems have the disadvantages of a mixed system, where the shortcoming tend to be laid at the feet of the private sector, while it suffers from the distortions of a competitor which gives away the product.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Not all of them. Some of them. And they deserve to die, according to you. Nice to see your true colours.

I never came to the conclusions that you allege, not close. How about acknowledging that poor people aren't stupid or helpless, and enabling them to solve their own problems, instead of giving the handouts, just enough to keep them poor and dependent.

Originally posted by Wajoma
How do we decide who is worthy of charity.

By making it voluntary (there is no other type but I'll indulge your double speak for now) The UK is an excellent example of what the welfare state does to true charity. There were thousands of what were called friendly societies, these were community groups that banded together to help those in need in the comm ...[text shortened]... e decrease in friendly societies, what a shame. The welfare state promotes an uncaring society.

The growth of the welfare state leads to an "I gave at the office" mentality. Those who favor government compassion (AN OXYMORON) generally are prone to be much less personally generous to charities.

Originally posted by normbenign
In both of the cited cases, the systems have the disadvantages of a mixed system, where the shortcoming tend to be laid at the feet of the private sector, while it suffers from the distortions of a competitor which gives away the product.

A few pages ago Wajoma claimed that the cheapest health care systems were in countries with the least regulation and least involvement of the public sector. He is yet to cite a country where that is the case. Then he accused me of shifting the goal posts as I added a reasonable quality criterion, which I had assumed was implicit. In fact, all he stated in his last reply to me was that people travel to the Phillippines and Thailand for treatment. I think his statements have been fabrication followed by equivocation.

Originally posted by DeepThought
A few pages ago Wajoma claimed that the cheapest health care systems were in countries with the least regulation and least involvement of the public sector. He is yet to cite a country where that is the case. Then he accused me of shifting the goal posts as I added a reasonable quality criterion, which I had assumed was implicit. In fact, all he state ...[text shortened]... Thailand for treatment. I think his statements have been fabrication followed by equivocation.

I think the Philippines satisfies those requirements. It is cheaper, it is less regulated, there is still a high level of care available and at 40% public hospitals that's got to be less than the UK (for eg).

What would be prescription drugs in other countries are freely available over the counter at legitimate chemists in the Philippines. Being able to side step a compulsory doctors appointment for a simple course of antibiotics is a considerable saving.

Originally posted by DeepThought
A few pages ago Wajoma claimed that the cheapest health care systems were in countries with the least regulation and least involvement of the public sector. He is yet to cite a country where that is the case. Then he accused me of shifting the goal posts as I added a reasonable quality criterion, which I had assumed was implicit. In fact, all he state ...[text shortened]... Thailand for treatment. I think his statements have been fabrication followed by equivocation.

I can't speak for Wajoma. The numeric arguments can never be trusted. Too many variables, and too many different government and partly free market systems. The argument has to be theoretical, taking into account the likely behaviors of humans under a variety of theoretical systems.

There hasn't been a free market health care system on the planet in some time. Comparing various State run systems isn't possible or productive.

Originally posted by normbenign
I can't speak for Wajoma. The numeric arguments can never be trusted. Too many variables, and too many different government and partly free market systems. The argument has to be theoretical, taking into account the likely behaviors of humans under a variety of theoretical systems.

There hasn't been a free market health care system on the planet in some time. Comparing various State run systems isn't possible or productive.

If the facts tell a different story than the theoretical argument, perhaps it's time to adjust the theoretical argument?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
If the facts tell a different story than the theoretical argument, perhaps it's time to adjust the theoretical argument?

The facts are there are countries with more free, cheaper, less regulated medical care. But the fact is making those comparisons or cherry picking which comparisons to make is erroneous, in each case there are a million different factors influencing those stats. I prefer to argue consistently that my body belongs to me I am responsible for what goes into it, and the care of it. You have yet to provide some qualification for making a superior claim to my body.

Hands off KN, invites only.

Originally posted by Wajoma
The facts are there are countries with more free, cheaper, less regulated medical care. But the fact is making those comparisons or cherry picking which comparisons to make is erroneous, in each case there are a million different factors influencing those stats. I prefer to argue consistently that my body belongs to me I am responsible for what goes into it ...[text shortened]... rovide some qualification for making a superior claim to my body.

Hands off KN, invites only.

Ah, back to anarchism again, are we? Oh, no wait, you are not an anarchist - the role of government is stuff you like, because that is the role of government, and that's not a circular argument at all.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Ah, back to anarchism again, are we? Oh, no wait, you are not an anarchist - the role of government is stuff you like, because that is the role of government, and that's not a circular argument at all.

It's true, I can distinguish between an entity that protects your life and property and one that stakes a claim on your life and property.

Originally posted by Wajoma
It's true, I can distinguish between an entity that protects your life and property and one that stakes a claim on your life and property.

Yes, as we all know the resources used to maintain a legal system and law and order are conjured by the tooth fairy, while resources used to maintain a health care system require a "claim on your life and property."

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yes, as we all know the resources used to maintain a legal system and law and order are conjured by the tooth fairy, while resources used to maintain a health care system require a "claim on your life and property."

Do you acknowledge the difference between an entity that protects your life and property and one that makes a claim on your life and property?