It depends on what group they choose to associate with, humans make these decisions daily, but they cannot be made arbitrarily by outside sources. When they are history tells us that the failure is going to be spectacular and certain.
Brits resort to pulling own teeth
- Thread starter LadyT
- Start date
Diuretic
New member
You chose to dodge the question. Does that mean you are a dodger?
I did not dodge the question it is clearly outlined in there. What part of "humans make these decisions daily" is difficult for you to wrap your mind around? Does this mean you are disingenuous?
You simply tend to ignore the other parts of the statement that you find inconvenient to your argument. You wish to make the arbitrary decisions for others and to ignore the failures of the past.
You cannot force humans to relate to a group that they do not wish to. Each time it is tried it has become a spectacular failure.
Lao Tse
Verified User
What a ridiculously assinine statement.
Diuretic
New member
I asked a straight question and got a wordy, irrelevant response. Anyway, I suppose that's all I'll get from now on.
Diuretic
New member
Aside from that uninformed response, have you got anything remotely logical or are you all out of ideas again? Why post here if you can't contribute, are you just making up the numbers or is it a habit you can't break?
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Tort reform is SO OLD, and it's ALREADY BEEN DONE. I see no difference in our medical prices.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Medicine isn't something that the market can do effectively. There's no competition in medicine. Everybody is going to need medical care. I'd rather pay 5% more taxes, and be assured that it will be taken care of all my life, than pay 15% more of my income to insurance companies and be half broke all the time searching for doctors.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Please. Under the current system, they ALREADY DO.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Funny, you say all of this shit, but NONE OF IT happens in France.
America just needs to take the French model and tranplant it over here. It simply works, and it works well. There are no waiting lines in France, the bad doctors are weeded out, and get this, they spend about as much of their government budget on healthcare as we do.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Better take away that incentive to do well, insure that you will only get the ones who were too stupid to drop out and spend their education money where they can make money, that will make it all better.
There are some areas where free markets cannot deal. Essential services that everybody needs.
Here is a point in case. Free markets create dentistry that many of the poor cannot access, for financial reasons. They don't distribute properly. Adam Smith's mythical 'invisible hand' doesn't work.
The idea that markets give incentives to do better is also a myth.
Take my area, benefits and returning the unemployed to work.
The government has recently handed contracts to private corporations to deal with certain unemployed demographics. We 'farm' off this demographic to the private company for six months. If the company gets the unemployed person into work the company keeps the benefits that would have been given to the individual for the six months, providing the job lasts more than just 13 weeks. The ethos in these firms is to get them into any old job in the first week, resulting in large numbers going into temporary, crappy jobs that don't last and provide the jobseeker with no prospects.
We, in the public sector don't have that immediate rush for financial gain, spend time with the jobseeker, providing them with skills, training and career planning so that they get into sustainable, lasting jobs.
Guess which organisation has less incidents of unemployed returning to benefits quickly?
Unfortunately, our government being congenital idiots follow the free market myths.
There are some areas where free markets cannot deal. Essential services that everybody needs.
Here is a point in case. Free markets create dentistry that many of the poor cannot access, for financial reasons. They don't distribute properly. Adam Smith's mythical 'invisible hand' doesn't work.
The idea that markets give incentives to do better is also a myth.
Take my area, benefits and returning the unemployed to work.
The government has recently handed contracts to private corporations to deal with certain unemployed demographics. We 'farm' off this demographic to the private company for six months. If the company gets the unemployed person into work the company keeps the benefits that would have been given to the individual for the six months, providing the job lasts more than just 13 weeks. The ethos in these firms is to get them into any old job in the first week, resulting in large numbers going into temporary, crappy jobs that don't last and provide the jobseeker with no prospects.
We, in the public sector don't have that immediate rush for financial gain, spend time with the jobseeker, providing them with skills, training and career planning so that they get into sustainable, lasting jobs.
Guess which organisation has less incidents of unemployed returning to benefits quickly?
Unfortunately, our government being congenital idiots follow the free market myths.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
In other words, providing essential services can run contrary to the ethos of making a profit.
Lao Tse
Verified User
Everybody needs food. Why is food still handled by free market?
Markets give incentives to do better when there is adequate competition. Having the government handle it eliminates all competition. It will be a monopoly. GO study the disadvantages of monopoly, mr. logic.
Irrelevant? Only "irrelevant" because it both directly answered and expanded on the subject which took away your pre-prepared remark, the attempt to be all lawyer-like and keep us all to "yes" and "no" is fallacy. The ideas we speak of are larger than that.
If you take the incentive from the best and brightest, those that compete the strongest and are more capable, to do well in any particular area then those you have left providing the service may "do" for you, but I prefer the best and brightest giving me my medical care rather than what was left after those most capable of competing have left.
uscitizen
Villified User
France does not take out the profit motive in being a Doctor. It is places that make it illegal to have a private practice that I am mostly speaking against. Like Canada.
There is a reason that doctors leave Canada to practice here, it isn't because what they are doing is working, and it is because they take much of the incentive away for them to do well.
Lao Tse
Verified User
Like I said, there is cooperation and competition going on on all different level. They cooperate on the mammoth kill, they compete for mates, the clan may cooperate with some clans, but compete with others. Your simplistic intellect is stifling you. Get smart.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Everybody needs food. Why is food still handled by free market?
If the abundance of it shrinks to dangerous levels, such as during World War II, then yes.
Markets give incentives to do better when there is adequate competition. Having the government handle it eliminates all competition. It will be a monopoly. GO study the disadvantages of monopoly, mr. logic.
Go study the disadvantages of monopoly? You're what, 15?
The market gives incentives to make more money, not necessarily to do better. As I pointed out in my earlier example ref privatised employment services. And other essential services such as dentistry and other healthcare. In consumerism markets drive new and inventive ways to make money, such as creating new consoles, but then essential services aren't part of consumerism. In essential services the primary interest should be provision of service, not making increasing amounts of money.
If the abundance of it shrinks to dangerous levels, such as during World War II, then yes.
Markets give incentives to do better when there is adequate competition. Having the government handle it eliminates all competition. It will be a monopoly. GO study the disadvantages of monopoly, mr. logic.
Go study the disadvantages of monopoly? You're what, 15?
The market gives incentives to make more money, not necessarily to do better. As I pointed out in my earlier example ref privatised employment services. And other essential services such as dentistry and other healthcare. In consumerism markets drive new and inventive ways to make money, such as creating new consoles, but then essential services aren't part of consumerism. In essential services the primary interest should be provision of service, not making increasing amounts of money.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
If you take the incentive from the best and brightest, those that compete the strongest and are more capable, to do well in any particular area then those you have left providing the service may "do" for you, but I prefer the best and brightest giving me my medical care rather than what was left after those most capable of competing have left.
That's pretty condescending to the many excellent doctors working in the NHS, Damo. It assumes that those that work in the NHS are somehow second best, but the long history of medical discovery through the NHS, and the work of doctors up and down the country on a daily basis may prove you wrong...
That's pretty condescending to the many excellent doctors working in the NHS, Damo. It assumes that those that work in the NHS are somehow second best, but the long history of medical discovery through the NHS, and the work of doctors up and down the country on a daily basis may prove you wrong...