Four-Step Healthcare Solution

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't think anyone has suggested that 'society' has goals. However, there are various ways in which the structure can be organised which will give different results in terms of benefits and responsibilities for the individuals who fall within the structures. Hence why living in the USA will give individuals different benefits and opportunities to those of individuals living in say, Angola.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The assumption you continue to make (as I said) is that private enterprise will act in an ethical manner. You're making just as many assumptions about the practical aspects human nature as the communists did. Different assumptions to be sure - but assumptions nonetheless.

And... no such thing as society? If you truly believe that - I'd be curious to know your position on the founding values and the rule of law.

I made no reference at all to business ethics. You wrote that the free-market relies on a *lot* of assumptions. I showed you how it absolutely did not.

This has nothing to do intangible and subjective ideas such as society. Because, yes, arguing such is an act of futility, just as saying forest's are green. A tree may or may not be green. A tree may be dying, and may have turned brown.

With the axiom that each rational individual acts in the belief that they will make their condition better than it previously was, there is no need to bring collectivist goals into this, because such a thing doesn't exist.

You showed no such thing. All you said was "its untrue" because human nature is such that people will do what they can to better their position. That of course applies to any and everyone from a used car dealer, to a street rapist and Bernie Madoff.

But that isn't what I was disputing.

Edited June 5, 2009 by Private Pike

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There is no such thing as society, there are only individuals attaining individual ends.

Society exists, but it's not a 'thing'. It's a structure of organisation.

It can't be quantified--uniform truths can't be derived from it--and there exists no goal of society that is not the goal of the individual.

It doesn't exist.

So if you were to go out and commit a crime - do you think that would fly as a defence in court?

"Society doesn't exist - ergo I cannot have offended it"

Good luck with that...

[Peikko 1,575]

Is this a little like the game of Id?

[mRx 16]

The assumption you continue to make (as I said) is that private enterprise will act in an ethical manner. You're making just as many assumptions about the practical aspects human nature as the communists did. Different assumptions to be sure - but assumptions nonetheless.

And... no such thing as society? If you truly believe that - I'd be curious to know your position on the founding values and the rule of law.

I made no reference at all to business ethics. You wrote that the free-market relies on a *lot* of assumptions. I showed you how it absolutely did not.

This has nothing to do intangible and subjective ideas such as society. Because, yes, arguing such is an act of futility, just as saying forest's are green. A tree may or may not be green. A tree may be dying, and may have turned brown.

With the axiom that each rational individual acts in the belief that they will make their condition better than it previously was, there is no need to bring collectivist goals into this, because such a thing doesn't exist.

You showed no such thing. All you said was "its untrue" because human nature is such that people will do what they can to better their position. That of course applies to any and everyone from a used car dealer, to a street rapist and Bernie Madoff.

But that isn't what I was disputing.

OK then, so you were disputing something that I didn't write?

[mRx 16]

There is no such thing as society, there are only individuals attaining individual ends.

Society exists, but it's not a 'thing'. It's a structure of organisation.

It can't be quantified--uniform truths can't be derived from it--and there exists no goal of society that is not the goal of the individual.

It doesn't exist.

So if you were to go out and commit a crime - do you think that would fly as a defence in court?

"Society doesn't exist - ergo I cannot have offended it"

Good luck with that...

Was my crime against society?

Show me exactly how society exists as a tangible entity, then we can commence debate on how unethical and greedy businesses harm society.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The assumption you continue to make (as I said) is that private enterprise will act in an ethical manner. You're making just as many assumptions about the practical aspects human nature as the communists did. Different assumptions to be sure - but assumptions nonetheless.

And... no such thing as society? If you truly believe that - I'd be curious to know your position on the founding values and the rule of law.

I made no reference at all to business ethics. You wrote that the free-market relies on a *lot* of assumptions. I showed you how it absolutely did not.

This has nothing to do intangible and subjective ideas such as society. Because, yes, arguing such is an act of futility, just as saying forest's are green. A tree may or may not be green. A tree may be dying, and may have turned brown.

With the axiom that each rational individual acts in the belief that they will make their condition better than it previously was, there is no need to bring collectivist goals into this, because such a thing doesn't exist.

You showed no such thing. All you said was "its untrue" because human nature is such that people will do what they can to better their position. That of course applies to any and everyone from a used car dealer, to a street rapist and Bernie Madoff.

But that isn't what I was disputing.

OK then, so you were disputing something that I didn't write?

Your views aren't encapsulated solely in this thread.

I'm just wondering what position you take on business ethics in this theoretical completely de-regulated free market economy you keep promoting.

[mawilson 2,133]

The function of an ER in America is to stabilize you, not cure you.

Exactly, so going to the ER doctor is just a short-term fix for a long-term problem....you go to a ER doctor complaining of a bad back, they'll tell you why it is but they won't treat it directly, they'll just suggest taking some sort of painkiller till you go and see a normal doctor.

HOLD ON on a minute the person can't afford to go to a normal doctor because they don't have health insurance......

Most Americans *can* afford it.

Who are these 40 million uninsured Americans?

• up to 7.5-10 million are illegal aliens
• over 9 million have household incomes over $75,000
• more than 50% are between 18 and 34 years of age and have relatively few health issues
• as many as 12 million are already eligible for Medicaid and other programs and simply haven't signed up
• many are between jobs and without insurance for less than 6 months

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There is no such thing as society, there are only individuals attaining individual ends.

Society exists, but it's not a 'thing'. It's a structure of organisation.

It can't be quantified--uniform truths can't be derived from it--and there exists no goal of society that is not the goal of the individual.

It doesn't exist.

So if you were to go out and commit a crime - do you think that would fly as a defence in court?

"Society doesn't exist - ergo I cannot have offended it"

Good luck with that...

Was my crime against society?

Show me exactly how society exists as a tangible entity, then we can commence debate on how unethical and greedy businesses harm society.

If you commit a murder who do you think punishes you? A structured judicial system trying you on the basis of a set of enshrined laws - or a group of local farm hands throwing a noose over a tree branch?

[mRx 16]

The assumption you continue to make (as I said) is that private enterprise will act in an ethical manner. You're making just as many assumptions about the practical aspects human nature as the communists did. Different assumptions to be sure - but assumptions nonetheless.

And... no such thing as society? If you truly believe that - I'd be curious to know your position on the founding values and the rule of law.

I made no reference at all to business ethics. You wrote that the free-market relies on a *lot* of assumptions. I showed you how it absolutely did not.

This has nothing to do intangible and subjective ideas such as society. Because, yes, arguing such is an act of futility, just as saying forest's are green. A tree may or may not be green. A tree may be dying, and may have turned brown.

With the axiom that each rational individual acts in the belief that they will make their condition better than it previously was, there is no need to bring collectivist goals into this, because such a thing doesn't exist.

You showed no such thing. All you said was "its untrue" because human nature is such that people will do what they can to better their position. That of course applies to any and everyone from a used car dealer, to a street rapist and Bernie Madoff.

But that isn't what I was disputing.

OK then, so you were disputing something that I didn't write?

Your views aren't encapsulated solely in this thread.

I'm just wondering what position you take on business ethics in this theoretical completely de-regulated free market economy you keep promoting.

OK, you win. Here's my position. For the sake of simplicity, a business can be seen as a supplier of a specific good or service. A consumer can also be seen as a supplier of a specific good (money). The only way an exchange will be made is if each party values the other's good more than their own (again, back to the principle that each individual will only act if he believes he will better himself). If they do not, an exchange will not be made. The rate of exchange, or price, determines the cost to both supplier and consumer. Ethics would fall under the cost.

If, as an individual, I believe that a particular supplier is someone whom I would not prefer to do business with (for whichever reason) then the cost of doing business with that supplier will rise. If the cost is higher than the benefit that I would receive, I will not make an exchange (again, back to the principle that each individual will only act if he believes he will better himself).

As an aggregate, individuals can therefore be seen as regulators; as each economic exchange we make, or don't make is the driving force behind what business exists and which does not.

[JimandChristy 1,689]

The function of an ER in America is to stabilize you, not cure you.

Exactly, so going to the ER doctor is just a short-term fix for a long-term problem....you go to a ER doctor complaining of a bad back, they'll tell you why it is but they won't treat it directly, they'll just suggest taking some sort of painkiller till you go and see a normal doctor.

HOLD ON on a minute the person can't afford to go to a normal doctor because they don't have health insurance......

Most Americans *can* afford it.

Not the people who fall into the category where they earn enough not be eligible for Medicaid but at the same time don't earn enough to see a doctor. It all adds up in the end, you got to pay $100 minimum just to see the doctor for a start, then add on any charges for diagnosis, which could include blood tests, x-rays, treatments etc etc.....there's a few more hundred dollars there. Even then once you've left the doctors office you must go and buy the medicines to treat your illness.....there's potentially another hundred dollars there again.

I was recently billed over $400 just to see a doctor for an allergic reaction to mosquito bites and all they did was give me an injection and strep test. Luckily I had travel insurance but if I was American and was in a job that didn't pay well and I fell into that category there is no way I could afford to go.

Edited June 5, 2009 by JimandChristy

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Medicaid isn't even just about not earning enough, they actually make you SPEND DOWN YOUR ASSETS to qualify. It's fvcking retarded.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The assumption you continue to make (as I said) is that private enterprise will act in an ethical manner. You're making just as many assumptions about the practical aspects human nature as the communists did. Different assumptions to be sure - but assumptions nonetheless.

And... no such thing as society? If you truly believe that - I'd be curious to know your position on the founding values and the rule of law.

I made no reference at all to business ethics. You wrote that the free-market relies on a *lot* of assumptions. I showed you how it absolutely did not.

This has nothing to do intangible and subjective ideas such as society. Because, yes, arguing such is an act of futility, just as saying forest's are green. A tree may or may not be green. A tree may be dying, and may have turned brown.

With the axiom that each rational individual acts in the belief that they will make their condition better than it previously was, there is no need to bring collectivist goals into this, because such a thing doesn't exist.

You showed no such thing. All you said was "its untrue" because human nature is such that people will do what they can to better their position. That of course applies to any and everyone from a used car dealer, to a street rapist and Bernie Madoff.

But that isn't what I was disputing.

OK then, so you were disputing something that I didn't write?

Your views aren't encapsulated solely in this thread.

I'm just wondering what position you take on business ethics in this theoretical completely de-regulated free market economy you keep promoting.

OK, you win. Here's my position. For the sake of simplicity, a business can be seen as a supplier of a specific good or service. A consumer can also be seen as a supplier of a specific good (money). The only way an exchange will be made is if each party values the other's good more than their own (again, back to the principle that each individual will only act if he believes he will better himself). If they do not, an exchange will not be made. The rate of exchange, or price, determines the cost to both supplier and consumer. Ethics would fall under the cost.

If, as an individual, I believe that a particular supplier is someone whom I would not prefer to do business with (for whichever reason) then the cost of doing business with that supplier will rise. If the cost is higher than the benefit that I would receive, I will not make an exchange (again, back to the principle that each individual will only act if he believes he will better himself).

As an aggregate, individuals can therefore be seen as regulators; as each economic exchange we make, or don't make is the driving force behind what business exists and which does not.

Right - but when we get into huge multinational corporations for instance (like Microsoft), having bad customer service and producing poorly designed products doesn't translate into poorer sales. Microsoft is as big as its ever been - and Apple, its only commercial competitor maintains a fairly steady market share.

You have things like Linux of course - but when software is designed by Microsoft affiliates specifically for their operating system its something of a captive market.

[JimandChristy 1,689]

Medicaid isn't even just about not earning enough, they actually make you SPEND DOWN YOUR ASSETS to qualify. It's fvcking retarded.

Having just read up about Medicaid, in fact I was wrong about earning enough to qualify for Medicaid, it seems to me even if you are dirt poor you can't qualify for it, well not fully. For example if you are a healthy woman you are only entitled to birth control and cervical cancer checks but nothing else, men/women also can't get basic care unless they are disabled or have a psychological condition that keeps them from working. It's more f***ed up than I thought!

Edited June 5, 2009 by JimandChristy

[mRx 16]

The assumption you continue to make (as I said) is that private enterprise will act in an ethical manner. You're making just as many assumptions about the practical aspects human nature as the communists did. Different assumptions to be sure - but assumptions nonetheless.

And... no such thing as society? If you truly believe that - I'd be curious to know your position on the founding values and the rule of law.

I made no reference at all to business ethics. You wrote that the free-market relies on a *lot* of assumptions. I showed you how it absolutely did not.

This has nothing to do intangible and subjective ideas such as society. Because, yes, arguing such is an act of futility, just as saying forest's are green. A tree may or may not be green. A tree may be dying, and may have turned brown.

With the axiom that each rational individual acts in the belief that they will make their condition better than it previously was, there is no need to bring collectivist goals into this, because such a thing doesn't exist.

You showed no such thing. All you said was "its untrue" because human nature is such that people will do what they can to better their position. That of course applies to any and everyone from a used car dealer, to a street rapist and Bernie Madoff.

But that isn't what I was disputing.

OK then, so you were disputing something that I didn't write?

Your views aren't encapsulated solely in this thread.

I'm just wondering what position you take on business ethics in this theoretical completely de-regulated free market economy you keep promoting.

OK, you win. Here's my position. For the sake of simplicity, a business can be seen as a supplier of a specific good or service. A consumer can also be seen as a supplier of a specific good (money). The only way an exchange will be made is if each party values the other's good more than their own (again, back to the principle that each individual will only act if he believes he will better himself). If they do not, an exchange will not be made. The rate of exchange, or price, determines the cost to both supplier and consumer. Ethics would fall under the cost.

If, as an individual, I believe that a particular supplier is someone whom I would not prefer to do business with (for whichever reason) then the cost of doing business with that supplier will rise. If the cost is higher than the benefit that I would receive, I will not make an exchange (again, back to the principle that each individual will only act if he believes he will better himself).

As an aggregate, individuals can therefore be seen as regulators; as each economic exchange we make, or don't make is the driving force behind what business exists and which does not.

Right - but when we get into huge multinational corporations for instance (like Microsoft), having bad customer service and producing poorly designed products doesn't translate into poorer sales. Microsoft is as big as its ever been - and Apple, its only commercial competitor maintains a fairly steady market share.

You have things like Linux of course - but when software is designed by Microsoft affiliates specifically for their operating system its something of a captive market.

We don't need to put this on the huge multinational level, as it all boils down to the same bones.

As an individual, if the cost of purchasing a computer w/ a Microsoft operating system, is greater than the benefit, then I will not make the exchange.

I can tell you that "bad customer service" and "poorly designed products" are subjective terms and validity of these statements is up to the discretion of the individual.