Small Business: Doctors going broke

[Johnny Vinyl]

Jazdoc,

I don't really want to get into a debate about who killed who, because you'd lose that argument in a heartbeat. So instead, let's get back to the topic at hand. Whether you like it or not, government not only has a role to pay in this issue, it has a duty and a responsibility to see to it that services reach those who need it. The lack of a total subsidized healthcare system in the U.S. is a shameful strike against a great nation. And if I may be so bold, there is no political will in your country to rectify it either....on either side of the political fence I might add. Instead, porkbarrel politics is becoming even more entrenched as those involved in the glad-handing are getting richer by the second. I personally think the problem is beyond fixing.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I think there are certain individuals who think that universal health care means that they will become the six million dollar man on the public tax dime.

They think they can drink, smoke, use drugs, live recklessly, reproduce incontinently and they will get liver, lung, kidney and heart transplants on demand with all the artificial limbs and eyes they may require, without supporting their own children or even working.

I see this sort of thing a lot. But I can't say I've ever...not once...seen it from someone who is actually expressing that point of view. I've only seen it attributed to faceless, anonymous people by those who oppose whatever it is -- healthcare, welfare, medicare, Europeans, a particular political candidate -- whose policies they imagine will create those conditions. It is the very essence of the straw man argument; create an absurd position that you attribute to your opponent, but which is not held by your opponent, and argue against that instead of his actual point of view. Why? It's easy to appear to defeat a shallow cliche.

Strawman is actually a very polite, but not totally honest term for it. Duplicitous bullshit would be more to the point.

Tim

 

[jazdoc]

Tim,

In a sense I agree with you. Once the state becomes the sole provider of health care it has the right to deny treatments that it deems not cost effective, i.e. chemotherapy for the elderly. Indeed, doesn't the state have an implicit moral obligation to restrict healthcare to those who burden society with costs resulting from their unhealthy lifestyle choices?

Patricia Hewitt, the former head of the British National Health Service has already advocated withholding health care for the obese and from smokers (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...erate-on-smokers-and-the-obese-says-hewitt.do). While controversial, this makes explicit what is already occurring in practice. Sadly, many UK physicians agree. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576704/Dont-treat-the-old-and-unhealthy-say-doctors.html)

But rationing isn't limited to those who don't make socially acceptable lifestyle choices. Currently the NHS is rationing services for cataracts surgeries, tonsillectomies and joint replacements to save money (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-nhs-begins-rationing-operations-2327268.html).

But you'll be comforted to know that the Scottish NHS is proudly trumpeting their efforts to cut waiting times from diagnosis to treatment to under 1/3 of a year! (http://www.18weeks.scot.nhs.uk/)

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

At times I have to wonder what people think how a country will hold without a government ... I also wonder how people think hat such a system out to function? Without taxes? The interesting thing is that these people use the Internet to protest the government or most often public parks to do the same .. The Irony of things ..

 

[MylesBAstor]

Hi

At times I have to wonder what people think how a country will hold without a government ... I also wonder how people think hat such a system out to function? Without taxes? The interesting thing is that these people use the Internet to protest the government or most often public parks to do the same .. The Irony of things ..

See Somalia

 

[jazdoc]

Hi

At times I have to wonder what people think how a country will hold without a government ... I also wonder how people think hat such a system out to function? Without taxes? The interesting thing is that these people use the Internet to protest the government or most often public parks to do the same .. The Irony of things ..

Frantz,

That's a bit of a 'straw man' argument. This nation was founded on the principle of limited government. Nearly everyone understands that government fulfills an indispensable role; be it national defense or establishing a clear 'rule set' of society. The Constitution was written to define this limited role in order to protect the individual.

Let's invert the argument...what are your limiting principles, i.e. what should government not be allowed to do? Along the same lines, is there any current function of government that is run so poorly or is so ineffective as to not merit continued funding?

 

[Ron Party]

Yes. Corporate welfare and personhood.

 

[audioguy]

Yes. Corporate welfare and personhood.

I think I'm afraid to ask but "personhood" means what exactly?

 

[Steve Williams]

I was wondering the same???

 

[Ron Party]

Giving corporations the same rights as individuals. The U.S. Supreme Court, tipped in the balance of *strict constructionists*, gave such rights to corporations. When they do such things, of course, the right wing doesn't accuse them of being activist. But give individuals more rights and judges are accused of judicial activism. Pathetic.

 

[Mark (Basspig) Weiss]

See Somalia

See CAPITALISM: THE UNKNOWN IDEAL by Ayn Rand.

 

[Mark (Basspig) Weiss]

Then we should be good, with regulation at a low, and enforcement even lower.

Tim

But we have neither. Ask any doctor who deals with regulations, or has to allocate 30-40% of his staff to regulatory compliance tasks.

 

[jazdoc]

Giving corporations the same rights as individuals. The U.S. Supreme Court, tipped in the balance of *strict constructionists*, gave such rights to corporations. When they do such things, of course, the right wing doesn't accuse them of being activist. But give individuals more rights and judges are accused of judicial activism. Pathetic.

Ron this is a very interesting topic and I hope some of our lawyer membership jumps in. Just to clarify your position, are you saying that corporations should not have any rights or protections such as due process, etc. or is this only referring to speech a la 'Citizens United'?

Does limiting a corporation's rights simultaneously limit its responsibilities, i.e. you can only tax people not a non-person?

Are there any other groups who shouldn't have some rights of individuals such as non-profits and unions?

Again, not trying to be argumentative. I think this is a fascinating topic deserving of further discussion and your point is a good one, just open ended.

 

[Ron Party]

Ron this is a very interesting topic and I hope some of our lawyer membership jumps in. Just to clarify your position, are you saying that corporations should not have any rights or protections such as due process, etc. or is this only referring to speech a la 'Citizens United'?

I mentioned 2 points: corporate welfare and personhood. Citizens United is the jumping off point for corporate personhood.

Does limiting a corporation's rights simultaneously limit its responsibilities, i.e. you can only tax people not a non-person?

Talk about corporate welfare (my second point). Heck no.

Oh. I am in the lawyer membership here.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Ron this is a very interesting topic and I hope some of our lawyer membership jumps in. Just to clarify your position, are you saying that corporations should not have any rights or protections such as due process, etc. or is this only referring to speech a la 'Citizens United'?

Does limiting a corporation's rights simultaneously limit its responsibilities, i.e. you can only tax people not a non-person?

Are there any other groups who shouldn't have some rights of individuals such as non-profits and unions?

Again, not trying to be argumentative. I think this is a fascinating topic deserving of further discussion and your point is a good one, just open ended.

I'll believe a corporation is a person when Texas executes one!

 

[jazdoc]

Talk about corporate welfare (my second point). Heck no.

Again, just to be sure we are talking to and not past each other, you are against all tax breaks and government subsidies for corporations (and I assume partnerships, LLC's, etc)?

 

[Ron Party]

I'll believe a corporation is a person when Texas executes one!

Good one!

All tax breaks and gov't subsidies? I don't know all of them, so I cannot answer the question as framed.

We're taking this thread far afield from its original topic.

 

[Steve Williams]

I agree

what happened to those poor docs who are declaring Chapter 11

 

[jazdoc]

Let me try and redirect it back...

How do you reconcile the rights of an individual versus the individual mandate of the 'Affordable Care Act'?

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

I agree

what happened to those poor docs who are declaring Chapter 11

They're looking for affordable health care.......good luck!