02 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignI guess that Marx was no Marxist then:
The absolute of all Marxist systems is that the end justifies the means.
The censorship itself, however, admits that it is not an end in itself, that it is not something good in and for itself, that its basis therefore is the principle: "The end justifies the means." But an end which requires unjustified means is no justifiable end...
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1842/free-press/ch05.htm
😵
02 Apr 10
Originally posted by TerrierJackI'd prefer that we attempted to set small manageable goals, which actually solve problems instead of promising pie in the sky.
If you expect me to argue that people don't die or that money will keep you alive then you're being irrational. We've covered seniors for how long now? Other countries are covering all of their citizens in a mythic way? The only argument that would match yours would be to claim that rainbows will drop from the sky and cure all disease and infirmity. Get ...[text shortened]... current situation than waste my breath trying to convince you that the earth is not flat.
02 Apr 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThat's the problem with third party payor plans. If you are paying for the service yourself, it is of no consequence to anyone else.
Much of poor health of rich people is also related to poor lifestyle choices. Should they be denied treatment?
A whole host of questions arise when you ask others to pay for something you receive.
02 Apr 10
Originally posted by adam warlock
I guess that Marx was no Marxist then:
The censorship itself, however, admits that it is not an end in itself, that it is not something good in and for itself, that its basis therefore is the principle: "The end justifies the means." [b]But an end which requires unjustified means is no justifiable end...
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1842/free-press/ch05.htm
😵[/b]Then I guess not, but somehow those professing to follow Marx have latched onto "the end justifying the means" like pitbulls.
02 Apr 10
Originally posted by normbenignOne of the many distortions of the so called Marx's followers.
Then I guess not, but somehow those professing to follow Marx have latched onto "the end justifying the means" like pitbulls.
Almost all of them predicted in here http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1873/statism-anarchy.htm:
"The differences between revolutionary dictatorship and statism are superficial. Fundamentally they both represent the same principle of minority rule over the majority in the name of the alleged “stupidity” of the latter and the alleged “intelligence” of the former."
And here: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1872/karl-marx.htm
"But in the People’s State of Marx there will be, we are told, no privileged class at all. All will be equal, not only from the juridical and political point of view but also from the economic point of view. At least this is what is promised, though I very much doubt whether that promise could ever be kept. There will therefore no longer be any privileged class, but there will be a government and, note this well, an extremely complex government. This government will not content itself with administering and governing the masses politically, as all governments do today. It will also administer the masses economically, concentrating in the hands of the State the production and division of wealth, the cultivation of land, the establishment and development of factories, the organization and direction of commerce, and finally the application of capital to production by the only banker – the State. All that will demand an immense knowledge and many heads “overflowing with brains” in this government. It will be the reign of scientific intelligence, the most aristocratic, despotic, arrogant, and elitist of all regimes. There will be a new class, a new hierarchy of real and counterfeit scientists and scholars, and the world will be divided into a minority ruling in the name of knowledge, and an immense ignorant majority. And then, woe unto the mass of ignorant ones!
Such a regime will not fail to arouse very considerable discontent in the masses of the people, and in order to keep them in check, the “enlightened” and “liberating” government of Mr. Marx will have need of a not less considerable armed force. For the government must be strong, says Engels, to maintain order among these millions of illiterates whose mighty uprising would be capable of destroying and overthrowing everything, even a government “overflowing with brains.”"
A real Nostradamus!
02 Apr 10
Originally posted by normbenignBecause that way, people get health care according to their need rather than according to the depth of their pockets. That's why it's so much more efficient.
That of course includes governments. So why is it preferable to have bureaucrats deciding the worth of medical treatments, or the worth of the persons receiving them?
02 Apr 10
Originally posted by normbenignWhat kind of questions arise when you ask others to pay for your army, police and infrastructure?
That's the problem with third party payor plans. If you are paying for the service yourself, it is of no consequence to anyone else.
A whole host of questions arise when you ask others to pay for something you receive.
04 Apr 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe army, police, and infrastructure don't provide personal services from which only one person benefits.
What kind of questions arise when you ask others to pay for your army, police and infrastructure?
If a country is attacked, all suffer.
If there is one criminal in a community, all suffer.
If there is a road or bridge, all will benefit from it.
But only I benefit from my CAT scan or antibiotic treatment. There is no chance that providing that service will benefit the rest of society. That's why healthcare is not the sort of thing that should be publicly funded.
We also mis-use insurance. Once something is common, it becomes too expensive to use a third party to pay for it. That would be like taking out insurance to cover the 'risk' of running out of gas. Insurance only works to cover rare, catastrophic, unpredictable occurrences.
04 Apr 10
Originally posted by spruce112358If someone else is healthy, they can work. If other people work, I benefit.
The army, police, and infrastructure don't provide personal services from which only one person benefits.
If a country is attacked, all suffer.
If there is one criminal in a community, all suffer.
If there is a road or bridge, all will benefit from it.
But only I benefit from my CAT scan or antibiotic treatment. There is no chance that providing ...[text shortened]... ing out of gas. Insurance only works to cover rare, catastrophic, unpredictable occurrences.
05 Apr 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNot really so clear. Me paying for you to be healthy will also increase competition for my job and thereby lower my own wages -- in addition to lowering the cost of services I may need.
If someone else is healthy, they can work. If other people work, I benefit.
05 Apr 10
Originally posted by spruce112358Yes, excellent point. How about if everyone was disabled except for you? You would get the best jobs. Hurray! Or wait...
Not really so clear. Me paying for you to be healthy will also increase competition for my job and thereby lower my own wages -- in addition to lowering the cost of services I may need.
05 Apr 10
Originally posted by spruce112358I get it. You're death squad advocate!
That publicly funded healthcare is probably manageable. Publicly funded "death prevention" is not. I have no objection to someone spending any amount of their own money on "Hail Mary" cures at the end of life -- but I have a problem with public funding being spent on such.
I'm just saying that the US will now have to create an analog to UK's NICE to deny public funding for non-cost-effective treatments in order to manage costs.
06 Apr 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorra"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king." That's been recognized for a long time.
Yes, excellent point. How about if everyone was disabled except for you? You would get the best jobs. Hurray! Or wait...
You seem to want to blind the one-eyed man so that no one has an unfair advantage.
06 Apr 10
Originally posted by spruce112358You're against greater access to health services for the less well off because it would increase competition and make the economy more cost effective?
Not really so clear. Me paying for you to be healthy will also increase competition for my job and thereby lower my own wages -- in addition to lowering the cost of services I may need.