My position is (like RP’s) that government regulation of the Health Care industry is the root of all the problems related to HC reform (if we would get rid of the regulation, no one would be claiming that we need the reform). My opponent is pro-regulation and is to the point of asking me direct questions about how the unregulated free market would offer better solutions than the following regulations: isolation of communicable disease, public sanitation, drinking water standards, sterilization of medical and dental instruments, purity of pharmaceutical products, sewage and waste water treatment, standardized testing of medical professionals and inspection of hospitals, insisting that hospitals use disposable needles. While I have previously given him the standard theory of how regulation serves to encourage incompetence (by reducing small-business competition), I thought it wise to consult this forum for possible responses to the above questions.
Need help in another HC debate
- Thread starter idirtify
- Start date
L
LibForestPaul
Guest
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapc...ilk/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_pet_food_recalls
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20254745/
http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...-jewelry_N.htm
No regulation = dangerous goods and dead people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_pet_food_recalls
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20254745/
http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...-jewelry_N.htm
No regulation = dangerous goods and dead people.
L
LibForestPaul
Guest
Because when you are lying on a gurney with your intestines hanging out in the ER room, I doubt you will notice if the equipment is sterile, and even if it isn't, I doubt your ass is going to get up and walk to the next hospital ER.
angelatc
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 50,703
State regulation.
I am not trying to hijack your thread, but air and water regulation is an area where I disagree with the libertarians. I think they naturally cross state lines and therefore the constitution should be amended to give the federal government the right to impose controls. I won't be of much help there.
On the other hand, if the free market works properly, you'd never go to the dirty hospital in the first place because they'd be bankrupt and out of business.
I am not trying to hijack your thread, but air and water regulation is an area where I disagree with the libertarians. I think they naturally cross state lines and therefore the constitution should be amended to give the federal government the right to impose controls. I won't be of much help there.
On the other hand, if the free market works properly, you'd never go to the dirty hospital in the first place because they'd be bankrupt and out of business.
angelatc
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 50,703
There were regulations.
AJ Antimony
Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2008
- Messages
- 2,555
It seems like those questions really aren't related to the health care topic being debated right now. The debate isn't whether there should be drinking water regulations or not. The regulations you should be talking about are federal ones in regard to health care and health insurance. For example, ask your opponent if he is aware of the HMO Act of 1973? Liberals of course don't realize at all that HMOs are an Act of government.
Thanks. I may do that later. But for now we are arguing principle. If I can’t show how ALL regulation of private companies lowers quality (at least in the long run), I loose.
Turn the tables. Say you can't show ALL situations. Ask him to show you JUST ONE situation where a heavily government regulated business DID produce better quality without incurring heavy losses or cutting back on something else.
you can't jump debates.... you need to focus on one area, otherwise you'll never be able to pin down the fundamental disagreement.
The bottom line in all of those places, though, is that if there is a demand for those services, there is an incentive for people to provide them because they can make a profit. Under voluntary interaction schemes, the more you satisfy people, the more money you make. Trade is win-win.
Uhhh that was the government regulation case, which always creates moral hazard, as people trust the monopoly and don't seek better quality regulation in the competitive market.
L
LibForestPaul
Guest
Because when you are lying on a gurney with your intestines hanging out in the ER room, I doubt you will notice if the equipment is sterile, and even if it isn't, I doubt your ass is going to get up and walk to the next hospital ER.
Yes, go shop around...and let the free market do its magic...
Yes, go shop around...and let the free market do its magic...
Try not to be so close-minded
obviously people don't make decisions at that point - in a framework of voluntary interaction, people act to the ends of their own choice, which if you are any indication, would include taking steps earlier to enter into transactions which would make sure that the people responsible for their care were of utmost quality.
Objectivist
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2009
- Messages
- 3,716
Here's a favorite argument of mine, see how it works out in your mind and then try it on someone. Remember there is no logical fallacy if we all agree that stealing is immoral. This is from another forum that I posted some time ago.......
Liberal Progressive Democrats, Ignorant or Immoral?
After the period of time I've been here I've come to one of two conclusions, It's what I do, find denominators. In the forums I've visited I have found LPDs stating they are for government programs to help those that are less fortunate, which is admirable if it is true. I think most of us step up to the plate as Americans when our fellow man is in dire straits. Some here will suggest that only 'they' are on the side of good.
Now if you have the capacity to determine where help is needed then why do you have a problem delivering that solution on your own? Why do you think the government needs to be involved? Because you can stand in line at the grocery store and donate to most charities, or spend 5 minutes online and you could donate to any charity or organization you so choose. Anything from the Red Cross to United Way or the Homeless Shelter or the SPCA. IS it that you are stupid or ignorant? DO you really not know which organizations need help? You do know that you can start your own charity rather simply by visiting a CPA and filing out some paperwork?
SO if you are not stupid and are capable of sending funds to any charity of your choice or forming one of your own, then you would be immoral to force other free people to do it in your name. Isn't that what you are doing in fact, immorally taking(by force if needed)money from one person and then pretending it came from you or your group? That's what it looks like when you force another to contribute against their will and then the leaders of your group take credit for it, in your name. Immorality at it's peak and definitely not freedom loving people.
I'm only left with two conclusions on the issue of government assistance in the realm of welfare or social spending programs, either LPDs are ignorant or immoral. Which is it? Because I've laid out the options that are available to you with todays technology and I cannot come up with another option at the base. Unless you think you are more ignorant than the politicians you elected as the leaders of your group? I wouldn't guess that for most LPD that I've run into, there are some though.
.........I can apply this to any number of LPD programs and seeing that 69 million people voted for BO, why don't they pool their resources and start their own damn healthcare system? Blue Cross has 100 million customers and many would switch to the BO Plan if it looked good, wouldn't they?
My latest addition would be to question why don't the politicians that support this healthcare system give up the one they currently use in favor of the one they are going to IMMORALLY FORCE people to use? Yeah you heard me, if you don't have health insurance the Obama Administration plans on penalizing you by charging you a $1000.00 fine. This story came via the AP two days ago but some of here knew it all along because we pay attention to details when the devil is in them.
Note again I asked a question about being ignorant or immoral, not a statement.
Liberal Progressive Democrats, Ignorant or Immoral?
After the period of time I've been here I've come to one of two conclusions, It's what I do, find denominators. In the forums I've visited I have found LPDs stating they are for government programs to help those that are less fortunate, which is admirable if it is true. I think most of us step up to the plate as Americans when our fellow man is in dire straits. Some here will suggest that only 'they' are on the side of good.
Now if you have the capacity to determine where help is needed then why do you have a problem delivering that solution on your own? Why do you think the government needs to be involved? Because you can stand in line at the grocery store and donate to most charities, or spend 5 minutes online and you could donate to any charity or organization you so choose. Anything from the Red Cross to United Way or the Homeless Shelter or the SPCA. IS it that you are stupid or ignorant? DO you really not know which organizations need help? You do know that you can start your own charity rather simply by visiting a CPA and filing out some paperwork?
SO if you are not stupid and are capable of sending funds to any charity of your choice or forming one of your own, then you would be immoral to force other free people to do it in your name. Isn't that what you are doing in fact, immorally taking(by force if needed)money from one person and then pretending it came from you or your group? That's what it looks like when you force another to contribute against their will and then the leaders of your group take credit for it, in your name. Immorality at it's peak and definitely not freedom loving people.
I'm only left with two conclusions on the issue of government assistance in the realm of welfare or social spending programs, either LPDs are ignorant or immoral. Which is it? Because I've laid out the options that are available to you with todays technology and I cannot come up with another option at the base. Unless you think you are more ignorant than the politicians you elected as the leaders of your group? I wouldn't guess that for most LPD that I've run into, there are some though.
.........I can apply this to any number of LPD programs and seeing that 69 million people voted for BO, why don't they pool their resources and start their own damn healthcare system? Blue Cross has 100 million customers and many would switch to the BO Plan if it looked good, wouldn't they?
My latest addition would be to question why don't the politicians that support this healthcare system give up the one they currently use in favor of the one they are going to IMMORALLY FORCE people to use? Yeah you heard me, if you don't have health insurance the Obama Administration plans on penalizing you by charging you a $1000.00 fine. This story came via the AP two days ago but some of here knew it all along because we pay attention to details when the devil is in them.
Note again I asked a question about being ignorant or immoral, not a statement.
Objectivist
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2009
- Messages
- 3,716
Explain why 7500 people a year die from taking Aspirin then.
33,000 people die from prescription drugs
32,000 people have adverse reactions to prescription drugs.
Illegal drugs only kill about 17,000 people. And nobody ever died of over smoking marijuana.
Kind of blows your statement to crap in the wind.
Last edited:
L
LibForestPaul
Guest
When you are unconscious and someone is sticking dirty forceps into your anus because your intestine is hanging out after an auto accident, let me know how no regulation is working out. LOL
Objectivist
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2009
- Messages
- 3,716
You keep glossing over reality. Reality that we have more regulations than ever before and people still get stitched up with forceps inside.
I know if without excessive regulations any hospital that provided shoddy service would be out of business in short order. Now why would a company want to commit suicide? It's not in their interest to purposely cause harm and there is no logic in starting a business only to destroy it purposely.
Oh, and as a former medic I can tell you that people have infections everyday in hospital. Most occur AFTER surgery and no regulations are preventing it.
L
LibForestPaul
Guest
Because they are GREEDY.
Why do CEOs run their companies into the ground? Use corporate funds for their own piggy bank? Raid other companies just to sell off its parts?
GREED = I don't care what happens in 10 years, where is my money NOW!
Regulations = I don't get hurt in the first place. Its great if I can sue a doctor who fucks up my eye surgery, but it does not help that I am now blind.
The Jungle, good read...what life is like w/o regulation.
Why do CEOs run their companies into the ground? Use corporate funds for their own piggy bank? Raid other companies just to sell off its parts?
GREED = I don't care what happens in 10 years, where is my money NOW!
Regulations = I don't get hurt in the first place. Its great if I can sue a doctor who fucks up my eye surgery, but it does not help that I am now blind.
The Jungle, good read...what life is like w/o regulation.
Objectivist
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2009
- Messages
- 3,716
Regulations don't protect you from malpractice and the judicial system is in place for recourse if you are a victim. Medical mistakes are made daily and we have reams of regulations.
They have a stop sign up the street and last week someone ran it and destroyed another person truck as well as their own car. Was that intersection properly regulated ?? I think so.
Similar threads
