"The Affordable Debating Act of 2014"

TylerDurden said:

RobB said:

The AMA is a government agency?

It's more of a cartel really. Its tough to get a medical license in this country if you don't attend an AMA accredited Medical school. The AMA has limited the number of schools that get this accreditation. They even lowered the number when this started. Fewer Medical Schools -> Fewer Medical Students-> Fewer Doctors. This is a clear limit to supply. Limit your supply of any good or service, what happens to prices?

AMA doesn't accredit medical schools.

The AMA co-sponsors the LCME.

What's the LCME?

TylerDurden said:

The AMA co-sponsors the LCME.

Very good. Now google the AOA.

So.. You made a point without a point. Do you disagree that the supply of doctors has beem limited by the AMA?

Probably, but it's a private organization. Good for them.

Do you disagree with me simply to disagree? More healthcare to go around includes the absurd amount that is spent during the last six months of life to "keep people alive" (not necessarily living, but merely alive.

Also, see http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/dec10/advocacy2.asp re: costs of defensive medicine (yes, it's an effort to support malpractice reform, but I'm sure there some non-nominal cost of defensive medicine). Even if it is only 2.4% like this article http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/dec10/advocacy2.asp suggests, it's still a lot.

Tyler,

The Declaration of Independence states that we are ''endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights" that one of those "Rights" is "Life" and "to secure these Rights governments are instituted."

So clearly government has to protect me from being murdered.

Now suppose that science determines that my life is threatened by second hand smoke.
Must the government intervene to prohibit smoking in public places, or by doing so is the government violating smokers "Right to Liberty"?

RobB said:

Probably, but it's a private organization. Good for them.

Right. One that works with State Government to create licensing restrictions.

Steve said:

Do you disagree with me simply to disagree? More healthcare to go around includes the absurd amount that is spent during the last six months of life to "keep people alive" (not necessarily living, but merely alive.

Are you seriously accusing me of this now? You asked me a question about WWII. I answer it. You then change it to a hypothetical. I answer that. You then say I'm mean and I like theology. Tell me to read books...when I ask for clarifications you say you won't do your homework for me. And through all of that nonsense there doesn't seem to be a point to your line of questioning. And I'm disagreeing with you for the sake of disagreement? Puh-leaze.

Go pull someone else's pig tails for a while, why don't you.

LOST said:

Tyler,

The Declaration of Independence states that we are ''endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights" that one of those "Rights" is "Life" and "to secure these Rights governments are instituted."

So clearly government has to protect me from being murdered.

Now suppose that science determines that my life is threatened by second hand smoke.
Must the government intervene to prohibit smoking in public places, or by doing so is the government violating smokers "Right to Liberty"?

If 2nd hand smoke and the brief and disparate contact you might come into contact with outdoors is truly a threat to life, exposing people to the smoke violates their liberty. In this case, I think government could prevent smokers from smoking in public places.

This does not mean that I think the Federal Government should do this. Nor does it mean that I favor the current set of laws on smoking.

Also, it's not a problem or anything, but your post seems a bit out of left field.

Read my post and your response to it and then answer the question

No

Hint: it had to do with the cost of healthcare.

TylerDurden said:

RobB said:

Probably, but it's a private organization. Good for them.

Right. One that works with State Government to create licensing restrictions.

Hey, someone once told me private associations were part of the solution.

TylerDurden said:

pmartinezv said:

Do you truly believe that there aren't people in this country, many of whom are children, who don't get enough to eat? Around the world?

I don't believe I said that. I believe I said that people will not sit by and watch people starve or die of curable diseases. Are there people who don't get enough to eat? I suppose there are. But, I don't think this is a case of Americans sitting by and watching them starve.

We "watch" people suffering on a daily basis and we just "sit" by and do nothing about it. When you refer to watch, I guess you mean outside of your living room right? Because we sure don't make the effort to go and see the places where these people are indeed suffering. I guess as long as we don't "see it" it is not happening. We are insulated from what many go through. We "allow it" to happen all around us because we don't want to see it and we sure don't seek it. So yes we all do "sit by and watch" people starve or die of curable diseases on a daily basis. The only difference is what you consider "sit by and watch" and what I consider "sit by and watch".

Steve said:

Guess we should go back to the good old days before gubmint schools and let only the wealthy kids get educated at all and put the rest of the kids to work in factories. That'll teach the Chinese!

Isn't that what is already happening on the top levels of education?

@TylerDurden this is an old but good piece from someone who was on the "other side". Worth reading to get the point of view of someone who actually "saw" what really goes on in places that are so close yet so far from our daily lives. Someone who believed that nobody starved and was left to die.

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/10/why_i_left_the_gop/

TylerDurden said:

Also, it's not a problem or anything, but your post seems a bit out of left field.

I was trying to change the subject and have an actual discussion. I thought you'd appreciate something other than personal attacks.

The issue of restrictions on smoking can serve as a model of how philosophical principals work when applied to daily life.

RobB said:

TylerDurden said:

RobB said:

Probably, but it's a private organization. Good for them.

Right. One that works with State Government to create licensing restrictions.

Hey, someone once told me private associations were part of the solution.

Private groups of all kinds are generally good. However, you must look deeper than "its a private organization vs a Public Organization". I think Franz Oppenheimer framed this up well. Does the organization acquire wealth through "economic means" or "political means".

There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man…is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one’s own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others…I propose…to call one’s own labor and the equivalent exchange of one’s own labor for the labor of others, the “economic means”…while the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others will be called the “political means.”

The AMA is one of the the largest(like the top 2) in lobbying dollars in this country.

TylerDurden said:

The AMA is one of the the largest(like the top 2) in lobbying dollars in this country.

So? It can do whatever it wants with its money.

pmartinezv said:

@TylerDurden this is an old but good piece from someone who was on the "other side". Worth reading to get the point of view of someone who actually "saw" what really goes on in places that are so close yet so far from our daily lives. Someone who believed that nobody starved and was left to die.

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/10/why_i_left_the_gop/

Thanks for posting the article. I did read it. I agree with him on war. I am surprised to see that he actually had to be there in order to understand its glory is all moonshine in the words of Sherman. I also began to see things differently over time. However, thankfully, I didn't need to see war first hand to come to this POV.

Perhaps 9-11 was a factor for me. Initially, I was quite angry. But over time I thought about how traumatic that was. However, I then started thinking of these other countries that we bomb. I started wondering what that must be like to be in a place were buildings, etc are exploding, I'm sure seemingly at random. What must it be like to be in one of those buildings with your children? Then I thought if I was in one of those buildings and it got hit & one of my children died, you can bet a dollar to a donut I would hate whoever was responsible.

I think I agree with the author quite a bit regarding problems. However, I don't think I agree with him on solutions. If he is now a progressive, that in my view, means that he thinks we are going in the right direction. We will maintain and grow the institutions he doesn't like. I think a more decentralized system will result in systems better tailored towards these people.

Regarding the Conservative press, which I admit is awful: The liberal press is not very good either. Its really overall a mouthpiece for the government. Glenn Greenwald has done some great work exposing this stuff. I was a NY Times reader for many years. I realized that they really have their own narrative, and they choose what to give you. They are a mouth piece for the status quo. Sure, every now and then there's an article about how difficult it is being wealthy and living in NYC. But most of their stuff is parroting what the agenda of the status quo.

The final straw for me was the day after the 2008 GOP New Hampshire Primary when Ron Paul(became a supporter primarily because he was the only anti-war candidate on either side) and they managed not to print his name although he came in 3rd. Guiliani came in 5th which was a big story. I got to work after reading the paper on my commute & called them to cancel my subscription.

If you want to be well informed you have to read through various sources & you can't just accept it. You have to question everything you read.

LOST said:

TylerDurden said:

Also, it's not a problem or anything, but your post seems a bit out of left field.

I was trying to change the subject and have an actual discussion. I thought you'd appreciate something other than personal attacks.

The issue of restrictions on smoking can serve as a model of how philosophical principals work when applied to daily life.

Thanks Lost! That was really nice.

TylerDurden said:

RobB said:

TylerDurden said:

RobB said:

Probably, but it's a private organization. Good for them.

Right. One that works with State Government to create licensing restrictions.

Hey, someone once told me private associations were part of the solution.

Private groups of all kinds are generally good.

Except when they're not. The good/not good decision will be made by a panel of top men.

ridski said:

TylerDurden said:

The AMA is one of the the largest(like the top 2) in lobbying dollars in this country.

So? It can do whatever it wants with its money.

Absolutely. However, in this case, they are using this money to limit the supply of doctors through licensing schemes.

My answer to these issues is not to create a complex set of laws to limit spending by these organizations. These don't tend to work very well. Loopholes are found. These laws do not tend to get enforced equitably.

I prefer the government to have less power. Thus, there is less to lobby over. Organizations then are more apt to use the economic means to acquire $$ rather than the political means.

RobB said:

Except when they're not. The good/not good decision will be made by a panel of top men.

I'm not sure I follow

OP changed topic. I guess he took care of his plumbing problem

"I'm not sure I follow?"

Me either, the Affordable Plumbing Act joke, has become the Affordable Care Act joke, which we might as well label as the Affordable Debating Act. Carry on...

TylerDurden said:

RobB said:

Except when they're not. The good/not good decision will be made by a panel of top men.

I'm not sure I follow

Who will decide which private associations are good Americans and which are power hungry jerks?

Top men. That's who.