- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
I scarcely hold it Objectivistic to have the government "examine" for medical qualifications. Let the patient judge for himself, or affiliate with a group that will do the judging for him.
I hold that conventional medicine gets a lot of things wrong, and that's the real reason for any worse healthcare outcomes the proponents of statist medicine keep citing the United States for.
(And neither is being provided slaves)
I am also aware that Rand Paul has presented an alternative plan, as have at least two others in the House. The problem is that these don't have the House Leadership stamp of approval and are being held up in Committee.
BTW, I really liked #13. I thought of it several years ago, and I haven't seen the idea anywhere else.
There should be no government interference in the form of mandating plans that must be available. Government planners confuse reform with more government planning, then sell it in the name of a "solution". The solution is for them to get out of it and stop planning other people's lives, then pushing more planning to 'fix' the problems they already caused and blaming it on a "crisis" in the market. Get rid of that and there is no need to suggest to them lists of ideas, the medical and insurance industry is perfectly capable of developing and offering valuable new ideas.
The one fundamental item is deeper than rejecting claims of a "crisis" needing their help: it's the false premise that health care is a "right" that government must turn into a coercive entitlement. Egalitarian nihilists see "crises" requiring more statism everywhere they look. They won't stop that until the collectivist premises are eliminated.
Couldn't providers do this under current tax law? Any business can chose to give away product or services, which decreases its profit, which decreases its tax obligation.
Who do you suppose would be paying for the services then? TANSTAAFL.
As a consultant, I had the same issues when I provided any service gratis or at a lower fee that did not cover my costs. I understand the tax aspects (and I am qualified via experience and education to prepare tax returns for others although I do not do so as a paid service as a matter of principle. I refuse to profit directly from an unconstitutional government law that loots from producers.).
Government should not be involved in either your business, nor mine.
I respect you for trying to create a different way than the current process, but allowing government to continue to interfere is not an acceptable solution because it continues the errors that have created the problem.
The GOP "solution" to Obamacare is also nothing more than a continuation of the same problem under a different name.
That was completely predictable, and many have posted the prediction of continued GOP interference in health insurance and health care. Trump should act to make every provision of Obamacare null and void, and to veto any replacement of it .
All fine except the government reimbursements. Establishing a local charity to make up the difference is a better voluntary answer that keeps the government out of your business.
I know this idea may sound counter intuitive to an Objectivist, but the drug companies have gone insane. I am all for maximizing profits, and there shouldn't ever be regulation on what they can sell drugs for, but if we want to keep from having a single payer system some day, then we have to start opening up competition for generics.
When a drug is first discovered in the laboratory, the firm files a patent which lays out the structure of the drug chemically. That means that from the date the patent application is filed, every single one of a company's competitors have access to what the drug is, what ailment it targets, and the chemical makeup - all for nothing. The only thing they have to do is figure out a way to mass-produce it. And the patent only lasts seventeen years.
Now, while all those competitors are figuring out how to mass-produce generic knock-offs, the filing company now has to go through an 11-year FDA vetting process of clinical trials in three stages: animal trials, limited human trials, extensive human trials. Each stage takes time and literally hundreds of millions of dollars. It's not atypical for the trial costs of medication to exceed $1 billion - and that's besides the research and development price tag which also commonly runs $1 billion.
Now assuming that they get to the end and the FDA signs off on the drug, they now have approximately five to six years left to market the drug and recoup their costs before the generic competition destroys their margins and their hopes of breaking even - let alone turning a profit. Add to this the fact that most drugs are now specialty drugs which target rare or very specific diseases drastically limiting their pool of prospective clients and you begin to see the true picture. I think that the patent coverage should extend for seventeen years after the FDA issues its approval/disapproval so as to give the developer more time to gain back their investment and enabling them to charge lower prices in the meantime.
― Albert Einstein
If all people were willing to change their minds when presented with more information, we'd have a much better world. I applaud you wholeheartedly for being more concerned with good policy than any preconceptions. Can we please elect more people to office like you?!?
While changing our minds can certainly be beneficial in many cases when new evidence presents itself, I would never want to be regarded as a "pragmatist".
I think what's funny is that the original Greek for "pragmatikos" or pragmatic is from the root "pragma" meaning a real thing. Being pragmatic means being a realist dealing with real things. I would think that Objectivists would identify heartily with being all about what is real and tangible but I think that the word pragmatic has been morphed into meaning compromise - a notion that was never present in the original word.
Pragmatism dominated American philosophy, beginning with the entire department at Harvard when Harvard was American philosophy. It came from the European philosophy of Kant, Hegel and the anti-conceptual Empiricists. The term itself came from Kant. It has dominated American thought in all realms with its emphasis truth is what "works" and opposition to principle on principle. Trump is a typical product of it.
On another note, why reply to post six months old? Why manufacture disagreements for the sake of arguing with others? Is that your only joy in life - to try to make yourself feel good by putting others down? If so, you deceive yourself. Peace comes internally as a result of knowing you are doing what is right.
The reason why Objectivism rejects Pragmatism has nothing to do with what you wrote. We don't speak ancient Greek. The term Pragmatism has been established philosophically for over a century and came from Kant. That is not a "manufactured disagreement for the sake of arguing". You do not understand Ayn Rand's philosophy or the people you are so hostile to.
There is this thing in psychology called projection where insecure people tend to see in others the very faults present in themselves. You have it and it adversely affects how you deal with others. You are not as superior as you think you are.
Hint: the English language is the biggest hodgepodge of other languages which exists. Very few words are originally derived from actual English - most are imported from other languages, including many Greek and Latin words, but interspersed heavily with German and French (as well as several others). Any assertion that English is some kind of master language will get you laughed out of any anthropology or linguistics department in the world, but you're welcome to go down that rabbit hole if you really want to...
Truth is truth. If you want to be objective: start with yourself. If you want to view me as hostile to you, that's your dream world. I don't waste my time hating other people. It's not worth the emotional investment as there's no payback. If argument and hostility is all you have to sustain your life, I truly do pity you.
In all seriousness there is a better way. It involves coming to grips with reality: that you can be reasonable and hospitable even with those you disagree with. You can step down off that pedestal you put yourself on and treat everyone else the way you want to be treated: as equals rather than supposed inferiors. I know it can be a tough thing to do, but the dividends are real. Try it - you might be surprised at the results.
If you aren't interested in my opinions, why did you go to a six-month-old post and specifically respond to mine by manufacturing an argument which didn't exist? "Methinks thou doth protest too much."
I am a paid member of this forum for four years now - something you can't claim despite all your self-titled "Objectivist" leanings. Put your money where your mouth is or you are nothing but a hypocrite.
Don't like what I have to say? Ignore my posts. There's a little "Hide" link that makes it very easy. My objectivity and relevance are in that 18,000+ ranking - and I didn't have to vote myself up to get there.
The pragmatist question would probably be a great new thread, as it is definitely something that gets thrown around both positively and negatively with objectivism. My biggest problem with pragmatism is that it fully involves an evolutionary use of thought. That is the whole premise. In order for capitalism to be successful, we need stability in rules and laws. We can't change the rules just because someone is winning and some are losing. As long as all rules apply to all people exactly the same, then fairness exists by definition. Pragmatists like to alter the rules as they go to try to level the playing field if there is a perceived imbalance. When they do this, it can create a new imbalance the opposite direction. Pragmatism creates a seesaw of what is seen as truth and reality. Truth and reality do not change, only perceptions change. Pragmatists tend to attempt to alter perceptions.
My 2 cents.