Whistleblowers and Obama Health Care


Off-Topic Discussions

201 to 250 of 352 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Darkwing Duck wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
By choosing not to cut checks. I don't believe for an instant that a Republican controlled federal government would maintain cutting checks for abortion, do you? And what about medical marijuana? As I said earlier, its best chance to get covered by insurance is in the private market.
No, they might not. But then NO private insurer covers them now so...how is this even an argument?
Private insurers cover abortions. And are more likely to cover medical marijuana in the future then the federal government is.
But abortions are legal. Marijuana is not save but for the most erratic circumstances in certain states, and that is not going to change any time soon.
In the past 15 years or so, marijuana has become legal in 16 states. So, when you say 'that is not going to change any time soon' I have to wonder how you are so certain that a 17th or 18th state won't be added to that list.
I see where you are coming from, but to the best of my knowledge, in none of those states is it available for recreational use. I doubt it will be used for fun in any other states either.
But we're talking about health care, not recreational use. The concern is whether it will be covered more quickly by private insurance carriers than by federal medical coverage programs.

A fair point. I guess I got a little sidetracked.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:

You will do what I tell you to do, when I tell you to do it, or I will take this sharpened stick that I nicknamed "System" and administer it to your gut.

.

That's hardly 'unstated'.

It is the fact that you used the word 'unstated' that I thought you were confusing culture with government.

Well, certainly, some form of power structure needs to emerge the second there arises any form of disagreement between the ostensibly cooperating parties.

I would argue, however, that culture is practically impossible absent government.


Scott Betts wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:

You will do what I tell you to do, when I tell you to do it, or I will take this sharpened stick that I nicknamed "System" and administer it to your gut.

.

That's hardly 'unstated'.

It is the fact that you used the word 'unstated' that I thought you were confusing culture with government.

Well, certainly, some form of power structure needs to emerge the second there arises any form of disagreement between the ostensibly cooperating parties.

I would argue, however, that culture is practically impossible absent government.

I can point to several examples of culture existing without government. Take any hunter gatherer band.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:

You will do what I tell you to do, when I tell you to do it, or I will take this sharpened stick that I nicknamed "System" and administer it to your gut.

.

That's hardly 'unstated'.

It is the fact that you used the word 'unstated' that I thought you were confusing culture with government.

Well, certainly, some form of power structure needs to emerge the second there arises any form of disagreement between the ostensibly cooperating parties.

I would argue, however, that culture is practically impossible absent government.

I can point to several examples of culture existing without government. Take any hunter gatherer band.

Even something as simple as a group of tribal elders whose words hold sway over the wandering tribe qualifies as government.


Very off topic. While I differ on many opinions of DD he is right that there are societies that have no government in in the context which Scott Betts and Ciretose refer to. An Individual or class of individuals using force to cause compliance.
In my observations government less societies are either one of two types. Collectivist whom exclude individuals whom persist in authoritative behaviours or anarchists whom disband around such a social disruptive individual to coalesce elsewhere.


Scott Betts wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:

You will do what I tell you to do, when I tell you to do it, or I will take this sharpened stick that I nicknamed "System" and administer it to your gut.

.

That's hardly 'unstated'.

It is the fact that you used the word 'unstated' that I thought you were confusing culture with government.

Well, certainly, some form of power structure needs to emerge the second there arises any form of disagreement between the ostensibly cooperating parties.

I would argue, however, that culture is practically impossible absent government.

I can point to several examples of culture existing without government. Take any hunter gatherer band.
Even something as simple as a group of tribal elders whose words hold sway over the wandering tribe qualifies as government.

A band doesn't have anything as sophisticated as tribal elders.


But I do think this is getting way off topic because whether health care is paid by the government or insurgence companies both in effect are very much exerting governance over our person.

Liberty's Edge

Metamorphosis wrote:

Very off topic. While I differ on many opinions of DD he is right that there are societies that have no government in in the context which Scott Betts and Ciretose refer to. An Individual or class of individuals using force to cause compliance.

In my observations government less societies are either one of two types. Collectivist whom exclude individuals whom persist in authoritative behaviours or anarchists whom disband around such a social disruptive individual to coalesce elsewhere.

Citation please?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Metamorphosis wrote:
But I do think this is getting way off topic because whether health care is paid by the government or insurgence companies both in effect are very much exerting governance over our person.

I think it is very much on topic. Darkwing's reasoning seems to be that the "evil" government can be trusted less than the free market.

One has a goal of re-election, one has a goal of profit. Neither is altruistic, but at least one is somewhat accountable to those to whom it is providing the service.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Not every group engages in prestige avoidance. But one thing I think is kinda interesting about that sort of dynamic is the potlatch. When someone gains a significant amount of wealth relative to others, they will destroy that wealth in order to maintain social harmony. If they gave it away, their culture would demand that the people they gave it to would have to respond with giving stuff back and that could be ruinous to some of them.

Yes, Prof. LaPorte, that sexy minx, made a great big deal about the potlatch. Of course, thinking back, she always got really mad when people used the word "tribal," which I've already done. And I'm not sure where pastoralists fit into this ad reductio absurdum presentation of Marxist anthropology, but I'm sure we can jam them in somewhere.


Freehold DM wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
But we're talking about health care, not recreational use. The concern is whether it will be covered more quickly by private insurance carriers than by federal medical coverage programs.
A fair point. I guess I got a little sidetracked.

But recreational use is health care!!


Oh, and btw: threads that stay on topic suck.


ciretose wrote:
Metamorphosis wrote:
But I do think this is getting way off topic because whether health care is paid by the government or insurgence companies both in effect are very much exerting governance over our person.

I think it is very much on topic. Darkwing's reasoning seems to be that the "evil" government can be trusted less than the free market.

One has a goal of re-election, one has a goal of profit. Neither is altruistic, but at least one is somewhat accountable to those to whom it is providing the service.

My reasoning is that if a business does things we don't approve of, then we can take go to one of their competitors. But, an election has never fixed the underlying problems with the federal government


Darkwing Duck wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Metamorphosis wrote:
But I do think this is getting way off topic because whether health care is paid by the government or insurgence companies both in effect are very much exerting governance over our person.

I think it is very much on topic. Darkwing's reasoning seems to be that the "evil" government can be trusted less than the free market.

One has a goal of re-election, one has a goal of profit. Neither is altruistic, but at least one is somewhat accountable to those to whom it is providing the service.

My reasoning is that if a business does things we don't approve of, then we can take go to one of their competitors. But, an election has never fixed the underlying problems with the federal government

When has switching patron businesses ever fixed the underlying problems with capitalism?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darkwing Duck wrote:
My reasoning is that if a business does things we don't approve of, then we can take go to one of their competitors.

How often is that actually an option with healthcare? By the time they f#%# you over, you are so sick no other company will take your business do to your existing conditions.

Liberty's Edge

Darkwing Duck wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Metamorphosis wrote:
But I do think this is getting way off topic because whether health care is paid by the government or insurgence companies both in effect are very much exerting governance over our person.

I think it is very much on topic. Darkwing's reasoning seems to be that the "evil" government can be trusted less than the free market.

One has a goal of re-election, one has a goal of profit. Neither is altruistic, but at least one is somewhat accountable to those to whom it is providing the service.

My reasoning is that if a business does things we don't approve of, then we can take go to one of their competitors. But, an election has never fixed the underlying problems with the federal government

Unless the insurer drops coverage because you aren't profitable and no other insurance will cover you.

Or you can't afford it, because only sick people enroll making premiums to high for it to actually function as insurance.

And of course, monopolies never happen.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Metamorphosis wrote:
But I do think this is getting way off topic because whether health care is paid by the government or insurgence companies both in effect are very much exerting governance over our person.

I think it is very much on topic. Darkwing's reasoning seems to be that the "evil" government can be trusted less than the free market.

One has a goal of re-election, one has a goal of profit. Neither is altruistic, but at least one is somewhat accountable to those to whom it is providing the service.

My reasoning is that if a business does things we don't approve of, then we can take go to one of their competitors. But, an election has never fixed the underlying problems with the federal government

By this reasoning, they are ALREADY in competition, and thus as perfect as they will ever be. In fact, all businesses that are in any form of competition must have been honed to perfection by the free market. And, like, firms never collude, even informally, to keep prices down.

Look, if I can sit here and figure out the ways that firms can circumvent the free market and increase their own profits then THEY already have and have put it into action. The market IS the problem, not the solution, because you can't force anyone to compete.


meatrace wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Metamorphosis wrote:
But I do think this is getting way off topic because whether health care is paid by the government or insurgence companies both in effect are very much exerting governance over our person.

I think it is very much on topic. Darkwing's reasoning seems to be that the "evil" government can be trusted less than the free market.

One has a goal of re-election, one has a goal of profit. Neither is altruistic, but at least one is somewhat accountable to those to whom it is providing the service.

My reasoning is that if a business does things we don't approve of, then we can take go to one of their competitors. But, an election has never fixed the underlying problems with the federal government

By this reasoning, they are ALREADY in competition, and thus as perfect as they will ever be. In fact, all businesses that are in any form of competition must have been honed to perfection by the free market. And, like, firms never collude, even informally, to keep prices down.

Look, if I can sit here and figure out the ways that firms can circumvent the free market and increase their own profits then THEY already have and have put it into action. The market IS the problem, not the solution, because you can't force anyone to compete.

That makes absolutely no sense. You realize that, right? Have you ever heard of barriers to entry and barriers to exit? The free market doesn't assume that all businesses are perfect.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
That makes absolutely no sense. You realize that, right? Have you ever heard of barriers to entry and barriers to exit? The free market doesn't assume that all businesses are perfect.

That's the point of my post, mang.

You're saying that the market will solve things. It isn't solving them NOW. The markets are faulty and wholly inadequate to solving the problems that arise through their own externalities.

I'll just ask now, since you argue a whole lot but never make any positive statements about how you think it should be: what do YOU think is the best solution to the abhorrent lack of health care in this country? What do YOU think should be done, and what is the best system for health care?


meatrace wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
That makes absolutely no sense. You realize that, right? Have you ever heard of barriers to entry and barriers to exit? The free market doesn't assume that all businesses are perfect.

That's the point of my post, mang.

You're saying that the market will solve things. It isn't solving them NOW. The markets are faulty and wholly inadequate to solving the problems that arise through their own externalities.

I'll just ask now, since you argue a whole lot but never make any positive statements about how you think it should be: what do YOU think is the best solution to the abhorrent lack of health care in this country? What do YOU think should be done, and what is the best system for health care?

I already mentioned upthread that I kind of like the whole 'Northern Exposure' approach. Basically, a community (or business or organization) pays a person's way through medical school in return for that person offering medical care for cheap to that community. There's no need for the government to get involved (other than in tort law). Its all free market.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darkwing Duck wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
That makes absolutely no sense. You realize that, right? Have you ever heard of barriers to entry and barriers to exit? The free market doesn't assume that all businesses are perfect.

That's the point of my post, mang.

You're saying that the market will solve things. It isn't solving them NOW. The markets are faulty and wholly inadequate to solving the problems that arise through their own externalities.

I'll just ask now, since you argue a whole lot but never make any positive statements about how you think it should be: what do YOU think is the best solution to the abhorrent lack of health care in this country? What do YOU think should be done, and what is the best system for health care?

I already mentioned upthread that I kind of like the whole 'Northern Exposure' approach. Basically, a community (or business or organization) pays a person's way through medical school in return for that person offering medical care for cheap to that community. There's no need for the government to get involved (other than in tort law). Its all free market.

That sounds less like a free market and more like communism.

Liberty's Edge

Irontruth wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
That makes absolutely no sense. You realize that, right? Have you ever heard of barriers to entry and barriers to exit? The free market doesn't assume that all businesses are perfect.

That's the point of my post, mang.

You're saying that the market will solve things. It isn't solving them NOW. The markets are faulty and wholly inadequate to solving the problems that arise through their own externalities.

I'll just ask now, since you argue a whole lot but never make any positive statements about how you think it should be: what do YOU think is the best solution to the abhorrent lack of health care in this country? What do YOU think should be done, and what is the best system for health care?

I already mentioned upthread that I kind of like the whole 'Northern Exposure' approach. Basically, a community (or business or organization) pays a person's way through medical school in return for that person offering medical care for cheap to that community. There's no need for the government to get involved (other than in tort law). Its all free market.
That sounds less like a free market and more like communism.

Also, it depends on tax incentives. And publicly funded universities. And subsidies...

Nope, no government at all there...


Irontruth wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
That makes absolutely no sense. You realize that, right? Have you ever heard of barriers to entry and barriers to exit? The free market doesn't assume that all businesses are perfect.

That's the point of my post, mang.

You're saying that the market will solve things. It isn't solving them NOW. The markets are faulty and wholly inadequate to solving the problems that arise through their own externalities.

I'll just ask now, since you argue a whole lot but never make any positive statements about how you think it should be: what do YOU think is the best solution to the abhorrent lack of health care in this country? What do YOU think should be done, and what is the best system for health care?

I already mentioned upthread that I kind of like the whole 'Northern Exposure' approach. Basically, a community (or business or organization) pays a person's way through medical school in return for that person offering medical care for cheap to that community. There's no need for the government to get involved (other than in tort law). Its all free market.
That sounds less like a free market and more like communism.

It can function quite well without government engaged in anything but tort law. That is how I'd prefer it. Government should be involved in nothing more than that.


ciretose wrote:


Also, it depends on tax incentives. And publicly funded universities. And subsidies...

Nope, no government at all there...

Serious question. Why would it require any of those things?


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
I already mentioned upthread that I kind of like the whole 'Northern Exposure' approach. Basically, a community (or business or organization) pays a person's way through medical school in return for that person offering medical care for cheap to that community. There's no need for the government to get involved (other than in tort law). Its all free market.
That sounds less like a free market and more like communism.
It can function quite well without government engaged in anything but tort law. That is how I'd prefer it. Government should be involved in nothing more than that.

So this "community" that's going to pay the person's way through medical school, how does it do that? How does it organize itself to raise the money, determine who gets the scholarship, how long they have to serve, etc, etc. Maybe they could vote on it? Collect some money from everyone in town to fund it?

Geez. That sounds kind of like a government, doesn't it?

And besides that: How do they get access to the (expensive) specialist care, that isn't often enough to justify having a doctor waiting? How do they handle expensive prescriptions? Hi-tech medical equipment?


I'm not talking about poor rural communities on the outskirts of civilization, I'm talking about your neighbor or mine that can't afford health care at these exorbitant prices. If they can't afford health insurance, or their employer doesn't provide it, how can they chip in to "buy" some country doc? And what is that country doctor going to do when you need a heart transplant, or chemotherapy, or anything more complicated than an ingrown toenail really?

Basically what I'm saying is that your "plan" is a non-starter. It doesn't pass the most cursory of examinations.

Next?


thejeff wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
I already mentioned upthread that I kind of like the whole 'Northern Exposure' approach. Basically, a community (or business or organization) pays a person's way through medical school in return for that person offering medical care for cheap to that community. There's no need for the government to get involved (other than in tort law). Its all free market.
That sounds less like a free market and more like communism.
It can function quite well without government engaged in anything but tort law. That is how I'd prefer it. Government should be involved in nothing more than that.

So this "community" that's going to pay the person's way through medical school, how does it do that? How does it organize itself to raise the money, determine who gets the scholarship, how long they have to serve, etc, etc. Maybe they could vote on it? Collect some money from everyone in town to fund it?

Geez. That sounds kind of like a government, doesn't it?

And besides that: How do they get access to the (expensive) specialist care, that isn't often enough to justify having a doctor waiting? How do they handle expensive prescriptions? Hi-tech medical equipment?

When I'm posting about lack of government involvement, I'm posting about lack of -federal- government involvement.


meatrace wrote:

I'm not talking about poor rural communities on the outskirts of civilization, I'm talking about your neighbor or mine that can't afford health care at these exorbitant prices. If they can't afford health insurance, or their employer doesn't provide it, how can they chip in to "buy" some country doc? And what is that country doctor going to do when you need a heart transplant, or chemotherapy, or anything more complicated than an ingrown toenail really?

Basically what I'm saying is that your "plan" is a non-starter. It doesn't pass the most cursory of examinations.

Next?

There's nothing preventing the community from having the same sort of arrangement with a heart doctor or brain surgeon in addition to a general practitioner. Or, for smaller communities, many such communities can have a collective agreement for a brain surgeon.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
meatrace wrote:

I'm not talking about poor rural communities on the outskirts of civilization, I'm talking about your neighbor or mine that can't afford health care at these exorbitant prices. If they can't afford health insurance, or their employer doesn't provide it, how can they chip in to "buy" some country doc? And what is that country doctor going to do when you need a heart transplant, or chemotherapy, or anything more complicated than an ingrown toenail really?

Basically what I'm saying is that your "plan" is a non-starter. It doesn't pass the most cursory of examinations.

Next?

There's nothing preventing the community from having the same sort of arrangement with a heart doctor or brain surgeon in addition to a general practitioner. Or, for smaller communities, many such communities can have a collective agreement for a brain surgeon.

Other than, you know, THEY'RE POOR! How exactly can they afford a brain surgeon who makes close to a million a year when they're on foodstamps?


Darkwing Duck wrote:


When I'm posting about lack of government involvement, I'm posting about lack of -federal- government involvement.

Oh you're not talking about state or local governments.

Okay. Well then what happens is that the states or municipalities who have more revenue are better able to provide these scholarships to doctors, thus the states and towns where rich people live and contribute will have a competitive advantage over the poor states and towns. And still you have the problem where the poorest of people get no medical care.

I'm telling you, markets won't fix this problem. Markets CAN'T fix this problem because markets CAUSED this problem.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Darkwing Duck wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Metamorphosis wrote:
But I do think this is getting way off topic because whether health care is paid by the government or insurgence companies both in effect are very much exerting governance over our person.

I think it is very much on topic. Darkwing's reasoning seems to be that the "evil" government can be trusted less than the free market.

One has a goal of re-election, one has a goal of profit. Neither is altruistic, but at least one is somewhat accountable to those to whom it is providing the service.

My reasoning is that if a business does things we don't approve of, then we can take go to one of their competitors. But, an election has never fixed the underlying problems with the federal government

Right, because the choice between whatever health care my employer provides (if I'm lucky) or nothing at all is a great way for market forces to affect insurance companies.

If the free market could magically take care of all the issues, they'd be fixed already. But free market only works when you have multiple viable choices.


I think the more I study game theory the more I come to understand the corporate strategies that underline the health care industry. It also gives me insight into precisely why (if not how) markets will continue to fail until and unless GOVERNMENT, at least, forces them to internalize their externalities.

@DD: I know you keep insisting that socialized medicine can't or won't work here, but seeing as how awesome it is elsewhere, why don't we try it before we jump to conclusions?

Liberty's Edge

Darkwing Duck wrote:
ciretose wrote:


Also, it depends on tax incentives. And publicly funded universities. And subsidies...

Nope, no government at all there...

Serious question. Why would it require any of those things?

Because otherwise you need to have a business that is large enough to pay for a physician, including all of his education (you would need to pay for a private college if publicly funded ones didn't exist, as well as his private education, indirectly in salary to make it financially viable for him to invest those 18 or so years from primary through med school).

in addition to it's core business. And not just one physician, since there are many different fields of health care, but several physicians to be able to meet all of the needs of the various employees you are trying to keep healthy to perform the primary tasks of your business.

And you also need to make sure the ancillary support systems of your business exist and are able to meet employees needs. They need to buy food, clothing, have power and electricity...your core business presumably isn't all of these things...so you are going to have to go in with other businesses to pay for these things, to make it financially viable for all. Because no single business could or would be able or willing to create this type of long term investment, particularly when the Dr could just up at die at any time and waste a huge investment.

So perhaps you create a trade union, which has a president and a board of directors, and you pay into this trade union...

Oh wait, I've functionally created a government haven't I?

Oops.


Ciretose! Didn't you see, the goalposts have moved. He TOTALLY only meant *federal* government when he said government.

Liberty's Edge

meatrace wrote:
Ciretose! Didn't you see, the goalposts have moved. He TOTALLY only meant *federal* government when he said government.

I am hoping he realized that regardless, a large outside bureaucratic system will need to be created to have the systems in place to produce the outcomes he wants.

It is a matter of lesser evils, not lack of evils. The magical market forces only work within the context of a larger set of systems that allow them to work, in the same way the railroad only goes where there are tracks.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
I already mentioned upthread that I kind of like the whole 'Northern Exposure' approach. Basically, a community (or business or organization) pays a person's way through medical school in return for that person offering medical care for cheap to that community. There's no need for the government to get involved (other than in tort law). Its all free market.
That sounds less like a free market and more like communism.
It can function quite well without government engaged in anything but tort law. That is how I'd prefer it. Government should be involved in nothing more than that.

So this "community" that's going to pay the person's way through medical school, how does it do that? How does it organize itself to raise the money, determine who gets the scholarship, how long they have to serve, etc, etc. Maybe they could vote on it? Collect some money from everyone in town to fund it?

Geez. That sounds kind of like a government, doesn't it?

And besides that: How do they get access to the (expensive) specialist care, that isn't often enough to justify having a doctor waiting? How do they handle expensive prescriptions? Hi-tech medical equipment?

When I'm posting about lack of government involvement, I'm posting about lack of -federal- government involvement.

You still haven't convinced me that this is a free market idea. It sounds like communism.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Even something as simple as a group of tribal elders whose words hold sway over the wandering tribe qualifies as government.

The problem with pedantic semantics is that as soon as you agree to play, you've already lost.

;-)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Even something as simple as a group of tribal elders whose words hold sway over the wandering tribe qualifies as government.

The problem with pedantic semantics is that as soon as you agree to play, you've already lost.

;-)

We're arguing on the internet. We were never close to winning to begin with.


ciretose wrote:
Metamorphosis wrote:

Very off topic. While I differ on many opinions of DD he is right that there are societies that have no government in in the context which Scott Betts and Ciretose refer to. An Individual or class of individuals using force to cause compliance.

In my observations government less societies are either one of two types. Collectivist whom exclude individuals whom persist in authoritative behaviours or anarchists whom disband around such a social disruptive individual to coalesce elsewhere.
Citation please?

Well as DD said essentially any band society had no leader with more then consensual authority. So there were at least hundreds at one time. For example most subartic and artic natives of my country. A couple peoples whom immediately spring to mind would be the semai, and paliyans.


Cuba has a really good health care system. We should be more like them.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Metamorphosis wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Metamorphosis wrote:

Very off topic. While I differ on many opinions of DD he is right that there are societies that have no government in in the context which Scott Betts and Ciretose refer to. An Individual or class of individuals using force to cause compliance.

In my observations government less societies are either one of two types. Collectivist whom exclude individuals whom persist in authoritative behaviours or anarchists whom disband around such a social disruptive individual to coalesce elsewhere.
Citation please?
Well as DD said essentially any band society had no leader with more then consensual authority. So there were at least hundreds at one time. For example most subartic and artic natives of my country. A couple peoples whom immediately spring to mind would be the semai, and paliyans.

From wikipedia

"Disputes in the Semai community are resolved by holding a becharaa, or public assembly, at the headman's house. This assembly may last for days and involves thorough discussion of the causes, motivations and resolution of the dispute by disputants and the whole community, ending with the headman charging either or both of the disputants not to repeat their behavior lest it endanger the community. The Semai have a saying that "there are more reasons to fear a dispute than a tiger."

Sounds like a government to me.


ciretose wrote:
Metamorphosis wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Metamorphosis wrote:

Very off topic. While I differ on many opinions of DD he is right that there are societies that have no government in in the context which Scott Betts and Ciretose refer to. An Individual or class of individuals using force to cause compliance.

In my observations government less societies are either one of two types. Collectivist whom exclude individuals whom persist in authoritative behaviours or anarchists whom disband around such a social disruptive individual to coalesce elsewhere.
Citation please?
Well as DD said essentially any band society had no leader with more then consensual authority. So there were at least hundreds at one time. For example most subartic and artic natives of my country. A couple peoples whom immediately spring to mind would be the semai, and paliyans.

From wikipedia

"Disputes in the Semai community are resolved by holding a becharaa, or public assembly, at the headman's house. This assembly may last for days and involves thorough discussion of the causes, motivations and resolution of the dispute by disputants and the whole community, ending with the headman charging either or both of the disputants not to repeat their behavior lest it endanger the community. The Semai have a saying that "there are more reasons to fear a dispute than a tiger."

Sounds like a government to me.

I never said that they didn’t have respected individuals, what I did say is that no one individual or class of individuals had the ability to force non consequential decisions on someone. Can you really claim to understand them in two seconds of google fu that it took to find something that seemed to support your hypothesis. Unfortunate this is exactly the reason I was reluctant to comment.

For example you never attempted to know them well enough to realized that headman don’t exist in semai society that it was just a convenient term of reference, that such houses are communal property and that the headman they are referring to is a temporary mediator chosen because of mutual respect the individuals have in him. And indeed the very basis of this mutual trust is that the individual is known for not seeking authority which is the quickest way to loose respect in semai and be ignored. Also note the outcome is a verb warning with no consequence because no one has that authority.
I provided these examples to hope that you were genuinely interested in exploring the possibility of societies without authority and what could be learned from the example they offer.
I am not glib and am timid much like the semai so I will leave this discussion to other people.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Metamorphosis wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Metamorphosis wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Metamorphosis wrote:

Very off topic. While I differ on many opinions of DD he is right that there are societies that have no government in in the context which Scott Betts and Ciretose refer to. An Individual or class of individuals using force to cause compliance.

In my observations government less societies are either one of two types. Collectivist whom exclude individuals whom persist in authoritative behaviours or anarchists whom disband around such a social disruptive individual to coalesce elsewhere.
Citation please?
Well as DD said essentially any band society had no leader with more then consensual authority. So there were at least hundreds at one time. For example most subartic and artic natives of my country. A couple peoples whom immediately spring to mind would be the semai, and paliyans.

From wikipedia

"Disputes in the Semai community are resolved by holding a becharaa, or public assembly, at the headman's house. This assembly may last for days and involves thorough discussion of the causes, motivations and resolution of the dispute by disputants and the whole community, ending with the headman charging either or both of the disputants not to repeat their behavior lest it endanger the community. The Semai have a saying that "there are more reasons to fear a dispute than a tiger."

Sounds like a government to me.

I never said that they didn’t have respected individuals, what I did say is that no one individual or class of individuals had the ability to force non consequential decisions on someone. Can you really claim to understand them in two seconds of google fu that it took to find something that seemed to support your hypothesis.

You cited them, not me. I asked for examples and the first example you gave me basically has a public assembly.

Selecting a mediator is government. It is deferring to a collective decision. There is no group that exists for any period of time that doesn't have a government, period. Without a government, society does not function.

This isn't a bad thing. In fact it is a great thing. It is why we have all of the things we have, from roads to hospitals to the computer we are each currently using and the network connecting it.

Government is a group of people organizing for the greater good. All human systems will be flawed and corrupt, as we are selfish monkeys at root, but government is the only one that has purely altruistic intent (if only for those under it's purview, subject to the corruption that comes with any power...)


Metamorphosis wrote:
I provided these examples to hope that you were genuinely interested in exploring the possibility of societies without authority and what could be learned from the example they offer.

Now, this is an interesting idea. You see, there literally is no such thing as a society without authority.

Human societies come in many different flavors. They vary wildly. In fact, they run such a wide gamut of structure, culture, makeup, and outlook that there is absolutely nothing that you can say they all have in common, culturally.

Except for one thing: Respect for one's elders.

I had the privilege of studying under Dr. Valerie Jenness while in school for the duration of her course on deviance (happily, she also presided over my commencement). Dr. Jenness has the distinction of having - literally - co-written the definition of deviance. One of the most memorable classes I had was where she asked us to name a cultural trait shared by every society - one thing that no society on earth would consider strange or deviant. Everyone thought they had an answer. One by one, she listened to the students and gave them immediate counterexamples of societies that did not conform to the trait in question. At the end of her pop poll, no one had come up with the correct response - that every culture, every human society carries a fundamental cultural respect for the generation that came before. They all defer to the wisdom and authority of their elders. Every single one.

Even if you remove all formal structure of authority from your cultural system, you're still left with the informal authority and disproportionate influence granted the older generation. And, in societies that lack the formalities of codified government, such authority serves as the only recognized governing body in its stead.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Darkwing Duck wrote:
A band doesn't have anything as sophisticated as tribal elders.

Hey, DD. Here is some of your own medicine.

Can you cite us a band of hunters gatherers with roughly the same (+/- 10%) population and territory as the USA ?

If not, why do you think the way some cavemen lived and organized themselves is relevant in a debate about something as sophisticated as healthcare ?

EDIT: dismissing comparison with other first world countries on the sole basis is completely bogus, just a convenient way to dismiss data you don't like. If France, Germany, UK, etc. could build a complete healthcare system back in the forties, at a time when they were smoking ruins, financially strapped, how could the USA not manage to do the same thing at their economic height? The federal government is way MORE integrated and efficient than the European Union ; it's only the political willingness to enact a single payer system which is lacking.

EDIT2: @DD: I wasn't aware than our african migrants (the main source of immigration here, followed closely by asiatics) came from first world countries. The numbers I provided you (and which you can still look after on the EUROSTAT Internet site) excluded intra-UE flows. That also means Poland.

A polish guy working in France would be entitled to the french SS. Why not? He contributes to it, by a small slice taken from his salary (0,75 % for healthcare only, not including retirement, unemployment, etc.; other incomes get taxed too). If he is a tourist, he still get treatment, billed to Poland (thanks to UE integration). If he is a bum, he still gets emergency treatment for humanitarian reasons, billed on our taxes. We can take it.

As I, he could choose any hospital or MD he wants. He would carry a Vitale card, some sort of chip-encrypted credit card given by the SS carrying his whole health file, accessible only by medical personnel. Instant access to past exams, known antecedants, ongoing treatments, etc. Serves also as a billing card for medical needs : just hand it over and grab your prescriptions, keep your wallet in your pocket unless you are buying for-comfort drugs (cough syrups, nice honey pills, that sort of things).

I am quite healthy, an apendicectomy being my worst health problem so far, but knowing than I can go down with cancer tomorrow and not worrying about how I could gather enough money to survive it is worth every penny I ever paid.


I don't want to get nailed in any kind of anti-DD crossfire, but I would like more discussion of happy hippie hedonism among the hunter-gatherers and horticulturalists, please.

I didn't know anything about the Semai before links above, but what little I read about them indicates that their society doesn't look anything like libertarianism, as imagined by either its proponents or its detractors. Nor one guy with a big stick.


Everybody's got all day to pontificate about Jesus and Yahweh, but nobody knows shiznit about hunter-gatherers.

:(


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I don't want to get nailed in any kind of anti-DD crossfire, but I would like more discussion of happy hippie hedonism among the hunter-gatherers and horticulturalists, please.

I didn't know anything about the Semai before links above, but what little I read about them indicates that their society doesn't look anything like libertarianism, as imagined by either its proponents or its detractors. Nor one guy with a big stick.

Of course, exalted leader.

I'm not saying that discussing the neolithical way of life isn't interesting by itself (it is), just that linking it to a healthcare debate is irrelevant.

Someone (DD? Too lazy to check) implied that the USA as an hyperpower doesn't need single payer healthcare, as previous hyperpowers (the roman empire, victorian England) hadn't such a thing. Most spurious argument ever : I guess that by the same reasoning the USA don't need computers, MBTs and unmanned drones either. Progress also happen in social matters.


Smarnil le couard wrote:
I'm not saying that discussing the neolithical way of life isn't interesting by itself (it is), just that linking it to a healthcare debate is irrelevant.

There's only so many times and in so many typefaces that I can say

"Workers revolution for free health care," Comrade Le Couard, and I get bored.

Also, on-topicness is for ninnies!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Ciretose! Didn't you see, the goalposts have moved. He TOTALLY only meant *federal* government when he said government.

I am hoping he realized that regardless, a large outside bureaucratic system will need to be created to have the systems in place to produce the outcomes he wants.

It is a matter of lesser evils, not lack of evils. The magical market forces only work within the context of a larger set of systems that allow them to work, in the same way the railroad only goes where there are tracks.

Ciretose he's relying on the 'invisible hand of the free market' and magical market forces -- at this point we aren't talking about economics, philosophy or government, we are talking about religion at best and supernatural bunk at worse.

Once a person's position is reduced to 'forces that are invisible and impossible to fully understand' they are done, there isn't anything further to discuss because they have no rational or actual process to be critiqued.

201 to 250 of 352 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Whistleblowers and Obama Health Care All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.