Talk politics.

If liberals hadn't fucked up our healthcare system, then maybe that wouldn't have happened.

From:

In what way. specifically, are liberals responsible for what happened to her brother?

From:

You're asking for a book length treatment of the subject. Such books are available. Most people who believe in socialized medicine will not read such books because they confront a comforting worldview with "inconvienent facts," to channel Al Gore.

If you're looking for a somewhat economically neutral treatment, which gives the socialist position a hearing, even if it has to bend over backwards, then read Strained Mercy: The Economics of Canadian Healthcare (http://www.chspr.ubc.ca/files/publications/1997/Strained_Mercy/index.html), by Robert Evans, for a good, introductory glimpse of the size and scope of the problems that people expect government to "fix." It's available, on line, in its entirety at the link posted, to be read for free, if one is interested. I'm pretty sure that most people who have an opinion on the subject won't do that. That's a shame, because people who claim to "care more" give the lie to their own assertions when they can't even be bothered to learn anything concerning the economic consequences of voting their beliefs.

From:

In other words, you have bupkis.

From:

This would be another example of you deliberately ignoring reality, even when it's pointed out to you in great detail. A real shame.

From:

It's another sign of me having little patience with Montecristo's pseudo-academic jargon.

From:

It's not pseudo and it's not jargon, and pointing you to additional sources is not him having bupkis.

From:

It's pseudo and jargon and waving your hand at a book when asked to support your claim with specifics most certainly is bupkes.

If I'd tried that when I was a graduate student I'd have been laughed out of the English department.

From:

Given the typical disdain for reason and reality that has infected the humanities departments I can understand that. Nevertheless, people can see when you metaphorically stick your fingers in your ears and stamp your feet,

paft, but if you think that's a good strategy, you're welcome to it. Perhaps contrary to yourself, I try to cultivate patience. I'll keep posting links for people who have a bit of intellectual curiosity and you can keep pretending that the information doesn't exist. I'm really posting it for them, not you.

From:

enders-shadow.livejournal.com

How about you post an excerpt from this wonderful tomb of information? Cite a relevant passage--and then link to the whole book. Just linking to the book is not an argument--it's a citation without a quote.

And "Given the typical disdain for reason and reality that has infected the humanities departments I can understand that." that's a terribly uninformed and unjust description of humanities departments. You're charging at windmills.

From:

Not just humanities departments. I can't imagine any reputable university faculty in any department, humanities or science accepting, "I read it in that book" as a viable cite.

From:

You asked for information. I gave it to you. Read it or not, as you will, as will anyone else who is curious. You continue to pretend that the information does not exist. The link is not for you it is for anybody else who is curious as to why I think what I do and wants to ascertain for himself if the idea has merit or at least acquire a little more information on the topic. The fact is that I am not turning in an academic paper for you to grade, get over yourself. You are not any sort of "reputable university faculty in any department," at least not here, in this forum, in this context. If I were writing some sort of academic treatise, I would crank out some 200+ page thesis, fully footnoted, and complete with bibliography. I'm not writing a thesis, and nobody else in this forum does so, either. You don't really want one in the first place; you're just posturing in the vain hope that you can convince anyone who might be influenced by my point of view to dismiss the link posted without looking at it.

In case you haven't been keeping up with current events on this forum you have the wrong context if you really are expecting some kind of defended thesis. Typically, in these comments, people don't even post anything to indicate what substantiates their opinion, even they do understand the provenance of their own ideas, which is too often not the case. They post their "feelings" on some topic with no substantiation or link back to any reason why they believe (or "feel") as they do at all — and you don't complain or say anything to them at all, as long as they happen to agree with your particular beliefs and prejudices. I'd say that leaves me miles ahead of a lot of people who comment in here. Disagree if you want; text space here is practically free.

From:

mrbogey.livejournal.com

I've been following this conversation. I find it worth noting that you're getting flack about academic research from someone who a few weeks back posted an article whose main thrust, that Mises supported fascism, was wrong because she relied on a second hand editing of a quote by Mises.

http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1142785.html?thread=90960385#t90960385

A classic tactic of sophistry is to use whatever argument structure suits the goal of victory with no regard for proper consistency. When you argue in detail they reply that you're being too detailed. When you argue in short lawyer-esque statements to keep your words from being twisted they reply that you're being evasive.

There is no debate tactic that can be used fairly against them because there's a way to deride any answer if you've the intellectual shallowness to go that route. Ultimately it results in an inconsistent ethos with all the scholarly vigor of a PT Barnum history book.

(no subject)

From:

paft.livejournal.com - Date: 22/9/11 18:02 (UTC) - Expand

From:

paft: It's pseudo and jargon and waving your hand at a book when asked to support your claim with specifics most certainly is bupkes. If I'd tried that when I was a graduate student I'd have been laughed out of the English department.
mc: Given the typical disdain for reason and reality that has infected the humanities departments I can understand that.

Asking for a cite more specific than, "I read it in a book" is not "disdain for reason and reality." And if you imagine that kind of rigor is only in the humanities departments, then you plainly know nothing about the basics of scholarship in any discipline. Science faculties would be just as demanding about cites (quite possibly even more) -- that is, they would expect a someone presenting an argument to cite, not just the book where they got the information used to bolster their claim, but the edition, the chapter, the page, and a quote of the relevant passage.

Sorry, but your posturing and bluster just don't substitute for actual intellectual rigor. You plainly don't really have anything to offer in the way of facts.

From:

Here is what it is to which the question comes down: You have cast this argument as a case of "Should 'society' just allow someone sick to die." I have objected that the question reflects either disingenuous demagogy or else a gross ignornance of the problems involved in producing and distributing medical goods and services. That's it. I believe socialized medicine is a problem, and economically contraindicated as a viable rule-set for society, but that was not the immediate argument I was making (although

gunslnger was making that assertion, to his credit). You demanded proof of me, for my assertion, not of

gunslnger for proof of his. The substance of my contention, not

gunslnger's, was that your characterization of the problems of "healthcare" as merely a question of "Should society allow a sick person to die" was a gross oversimplification of the issue. The book I cited, itself, cover to cover, not one little paragraph, which could be quoted, was the evidence that you are wrong and I am right: when the issue is seriously considered, it encompasses whole chapters of economic and ethical questions which go far beyond the simplistic question of whether "society" should "allow" a sick person to die. The book, in and of itself, is the prima facie evidence that the question is much more complex than you and Grigsby have presented it.

Edited Date: 22/9/11 00:14 (UTC)

From:

You claimed that liberals were responsible for what happened to Susan Grigsby's brother. I asked how, specifically. You plainly can't think of any specifics, so you just told me to read a book.

Sorry, but no, I have no intention of reading an entire book in the hopes that somewhere in there, I'll encounter support for your claim. Cite a specific passage in the book that provides a specific example.

If you can. Frankly, I doubt it.

From:

That's a nonsensical question to ask in response to what I said.

From:

Asking for specifics is not "nonsense."

You guys never have any.

From:

You asked about liberals doing something specific to her brother in response to a statement about the healthcare system. That's nonsensical.

From:

I was asking for some specific example of how liberals are responsible for the policies that killed her brother.

Nothing "nonsensical" about that.

From:

The attempt to cartelize the medical service providers, the insurance providers, and the pharmeceutical system is what makes the medical goods and services market such an expensive mess in the first place. Some of this is the fault of the so-called "left" and some is the fault of the "right." If all of the problems could be traced to one specific root "policy" or small group of them, then the belief that a government agency acting on a well-thought-out set of rules could "fix" the problem would not be erroneous and we wouldn't have many of the problems we have now, like the market distortions that make medicine so problematical. The fact is that "correct policy" cannot and does not fix the problem. What does address a significant portion of the distortions is to stop allowing "policy" to distort the market for medical goods and services in the first place.

From:

mc: The attempt to cartelize the medical service providers

What do you mean by this? Specifically what policies are you talking about?

From:

It is cartellization in allowing professional organizations to set limits on who studies their professions, when, and how which are then enforced by government. The AMA, for example, cartelizes the providers of medical services by force of law. The laws governing pharmacies and prescriptions cartelize the pharmeceutical goods and services market, by limiting competition. There is no feedback system, as there is with private regulation. There is no profit or loss. The regulatory agency is given carte blanche authority over the medical practicioner, and if their edicts restrict trade and monopolize (inherently, they do) then there is no way to correct the problem through a competitive firm taking business away from the regulator until the regulator's policies change or their attain their true market share based upon how much people trust their regulation.

In private regulation and certification there is a feedback mechanism. There is a reciprocal three-way market transaction communication going on between the regulator/certifier, the regulated provider of goods and services, and the ultimate customer. Government regulation lacks this, because its regulation is done by uncontestable edict for which there is no competing alternative.

From:

By "cartelizing," you mean establishing standards?

You think just anyone should be able to announce they're a doctor or surgeon and dispense medicine and perform operations? What protection would the patient have from dangerous quacks?

From: