Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Socialize Dem Toilets

Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2009 10:33:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
C/Ped from: http://www.lewrockwell.com...

How to Make Using the Restroom as Expensive and Inconvenient as Getting a Physical
by Todd Steinberg

I don't think healthcare is too expensive, I think other goods and services are priced too low. If using the toilet cost as much as a physical, then people would remark on the reasonable cost of healthcare. Therefore, we should create a system that vastly raises the price of going to the restroom. Here is my plan:

Use Only the Best Toilets
: Toilet prices range from modest to ultra-expensive. The very best in home and commercial toilets is the Toto Neorest 600. Upon approach, the lid automatically opens and the air purifier activates. The built-in washer and dryer make toilet paper optional. Six seconds after leaving the commode's sensor zone, it flushes and lowers the seat and lid. With the touch of a button, you can warm the seat, change the water temperature, and perform a "Cyclone flush" if needed. At nearly $5,000 apiece, this is the highest-quality toilet available and thus, the one that's best suited for every American's rear end.

We pass various pieces of legislation that call for the gradual elimination of the substandard toilets and their replacement with the superior model. Obviously, seniors and people below the poverty line would qualify for free toilets, all others must pay for their own or have their employers include it as part of their compensation package. There are approximately 350 million private and public toilets in the United States. That comes out to $1.75 trillion before installation, but I'm optimistic that we'd receive a discount on such a big order. Either way, you're looking at the horizon of what will be a multi-trillion dollar recession-proof industry. Investors anyone?

Only the Best Toilet Makers and Technicians: Using the bathroom plays a pivotal role in the life of every American, therefore we'd only want the best companies to fashion the toilets. The makers of the Neorest 600 can't fulfill such a large order, so they will need to license the manufacture of their design to qualified companies. Each state legislature should make the qualifications so stringent and exacting that only the best companies could bid on the project. Since these thrones use the latest in toilet tech, only highly trained technicians may install and repair your commode. They must go through a few hundred hours of training at schools your state legislatures have deemed appropriate. The number of schools and seats available must be kept at a minimum lest you flood the labor market and push wages down. Combine high wages with the high cost of goods, and you'll have families reeling when they are beset with so much as a faulty flapper. The elite toilet repairman class is too few in number to make house calls, so if your toilet is clogged you will need to make an appointment for the following morning and find a way to bring it to the shop.

The Outcome:

After a few years of this system, we will see a vast increase in the number of middle-class Americans who can no longer afford a decent bathroom. Some families band together and buy a timeshare toilet, but others will have no choice but to go in the streets. Imagine that! America... the most industrialized nation in the world, and still there are people who don't have a comfortable place to eliminate bodily wastes. With a world like that, do you think people will complain about the cost of healthcare?

The Solution:

If my plan were implemented, it would undoubtedly become a hot-button issue in the next presidential election. Government is in the right place and has the right resources to ensure that every American has a decent place to go to the bathroom, and for free. Having a $5,000 toilet in the house is a right, not a privilege.

Voters will be looking for answers, so we must correctly place blame. Under no circumstances can we let people know that the aforementioned policies artificially limited the supply of labor and goods, which precipitated the astronomical rise in prices. We can easily place blame on the toilet manufactures, the toilet installers, or the training institutes even though their every move has been dictated by a complex code of laws that was supposed to keep everything under control in the first place. Government can easily convince the public that it has the ability to bring prices down, even if it means nationalizing parts of the toilet and bathroom industry. The government can even justify oversight on diapers since babies who don't use the toilet are indirectly affecting the industry. Toilet paper too can be managed, perhaps rationed, with exceptions given to those with irritable bowel syndrome, who would be allowed to get a permit by visiting the Department of Toilets and standing in a very long line.

After blame has been sufficiently passed, then it is up to Congress to hammer out a 2,000-page piece of legislation that further controls the toilet industry and ultimately makes it more expensive and inconvenient. It will be penned in English, but the bill will not make sense. Congress will raise taxes, borrow money, and pass strict laws, but amazingly prices will go up and availability will go down. By then, people will all have forgotten about healthcare and will demand even more government involvement to control the spiraling costs of toilets.

Problem solved.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2009 9:19:17 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
The only flaw in this satire is that there isn't a government endorsed monopoly in the toilet building industry and those that make the toilets don't have to have 10 years of internship in order to make a toilet legally.

We can only have the best toilet makers.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2009 9:21:07 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Which is why we make a government endoresed monopoly in the toilet industry.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2009 9:33:50 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
The sad part is, if the first several steps ever happen, the last one WILL happen. I can just see it. People'd take that shìt (pun) VERY, VERY seriously. If we lived in that world, I could just see people going

ITS THE FAULT OF THE FREE MARKET, WE NEED TO SOCIALIZE TO HELP THE POOR GET THEIR TOILETS

Or PervRat going

Are you against me and my wife taking a shìt?

And every other socialist going

Deregulate? I know I'm saying the poor need toilets, but they need quality toilets! What if the poor buy a toilet and it breaks on them? Are you advocating that people should get ceramic shards stuck up their àsses? I didn't think so. EVERYONE needs HIGH quality toilets.

I can just see it coming.

If it happens, I said it here first.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2009 10:16:45 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Problem: The health insurance reform bill is setting out to monopolise on the health are industry.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2009 10:17:06 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/28/2009 10:16:45 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Problem: The health insurance reform bill isn't setting out to monopolise on the health are industry.

Srsly Fix'd
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2009 10:29:46 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/28/2009 10:17:06 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/28/2009 10:16:45 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Problem: The health insurance reform bill isn't setting out to monopolise on the health are industry.

Srsly Fix'd

Probably because it's already been monopolized. It's called the AMA.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2009 1:07:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/28/2009 10:29:46 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/28/2009 10:17:06 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/28/2009 10:16:45 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Problem: The health insurance reform bill isn't setting out to monopolise on the health are industry.

Srsly Fix'd

Probably because it's already been monopolized. It's called the AMA.

Do they decide to which doctor you go?
So prove me wrong, then.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2009 1:13:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/28/2009 1:07:52 PM, regebro wrote:
At 8/28/2009 10:29:46 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/28/2009 10:17:06 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/28/2009 10:16:45 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Problem: The health insurance reform bill isn't setting out to monopolise on the health are industry.

Srsly Fix'd

Probably because it's already been monopolized. It's called the AMA.

Do they decide to which doctor you go?

Not a requisite to have a monopoly on the industry.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2009 2:19:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/28/2009 1:13:42 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/28/2009 1:07:52 PM, regebro wrote:
At 8/28/2009 10:29:46 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/28/2009 10:17:06 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/28/2009 10:16:45 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Problem: The health insurance reform bill isn't setting out to monopolise on the health are industry.

Srsly Fix'd

Probably because it's already been monopolized. It's called the AMA.

Do they decide to which doctor you go?

Not a requisite to have a monopoly on the industry.

Exactly. The AMA is the most powerful union in the United States. It is an effective labour monopoly, and the result is that there are restrictions on entering and competing in the healthcare market. The government has been lobbied into an expensive, non-competitive healthcare system.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2009 2:21:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/28/2009 2:19:27 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/28/2009 1:13:42 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/28/2009 1:07:52 PM, regebro wrote:
At 8/28/2009 10:29:46 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/28/2009 10:17:06 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/28/2009 10:16:45 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Problem: The health insurance reform bill isn't setting out to monopolise on the health are industry.

Srsly Fix'd

Probably because it's already been monopolized. It's called the AMA.

Do they decide to which doctor you go?

Not a requisite to have a monopoly on the industry.

Exactly. The AMA is the most powerful union in the United States. It is an effective labour monopoly, and the result is that there are restrictions on entering and competing in the healthcare market. The government has been lobbied into an expensive, non-competitive healthcare system.

Right, but AMA isn't government healthcare.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2009 2:38:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/28/2009 2:21:18 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/28/2009 2:19:27 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/28/2009 1:13:42 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/28/2009 1:07:52 PM, regebro wrote:
At 8/28/2009 10:29:46 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/28/2009 10:17:06 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/28/2009 10:16:45 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Problem: The health insurance reform bill isn't setting out to monopolise on the health are industry.

Srsly Fix'd

Probably because it's already been monopolized. It's called the AMA.

Do they decide to which doctor you go?

Not a requisite to have a monopoly on the industry.

Exactly. The AMA is the most powerful union in the United States. It is an effective labour monopoly, and the result is that there are restrictions on entering and competing in the healthcare market. The government has been lobbied into an expensive, non-competitive healthcare system.

Right, but AMA isn't government healthcare.

It's monopoly. Government healthcare is monopsony in that respect.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2009 2:41:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/28/2009 2:21:18 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/28/2009 2:19:27 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/28/2009 1:13:42 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/28/2009 1:07:52 PM, regebro wrote:
At 8/28/2009 10:29:46 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/28/2009 10:17:06 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/28/2009 10:16:45 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Problem: The health insurance reform bill isn't setting out to monopolise on the health are industry.

Srsly Fix'd

Probably because it's already been monopolized. It's called the AMA.

Do they decide to which doctor you go?

Not a requisite to have a monopoly on the industry.

Exactly. The AMA is the most powerful union in the United States. It is an effective labour monopoly, and the result is that there are restrictions on entering and competing in the healthcare market. The government has been lobbied into an expensive, non-competitive healthcare system.

Right, but AMA isn't government healthcare.

If it was possible for me to own all the oil on earth, I have a monopoly on fossil fuels, regardless of the actual gas stations.

If it was possible for me to dictate what cannot be said on the internet, I have a monopoly on the internet, regardless of the ISP's or server owners.

If it was possible for me to say who gets to be a cook, I have a monopoly on cooks, regardless of restaurant or buffet owners.

I never argued that the current healthcare reform bill was going to monopolize the healthcare industry. My argument was that the industry has already been monopolized, and I added that it does not require a business in that specific industry in order to have a monopoly on that industry.

The AMA gets to say who gets to be a doctor.
Ergo, they have a monopoly on the healthcare industry.
The AMA is a government enforced union.
The AMA is a government entity.
Ergo, we already have socialized health care.

Perhaps not as socialized as some, but socialized nonetheless.

What we have here is definitely not a private healthcare industry.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 3:45:34 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/28/2009 2:41:27 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/28/2009 2:21:18 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/28/2009 2:19:27 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/28/2009 1:13:42 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/28/2009 1:07:52 PM, regebro wrote:
At 8/28/2009 10:29:46 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/28/2009 10:17:06 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/28/2009 10:16:45 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Problem: The health insurance reform bill isn't setting out to monopolise on the health are industry.

Srsly Fix'd

Probably because it's already been monopolized. It's called the AMA.

Do they decide to which doctor you go?

Not a requisite to have a monopoly on the industry.

Exactly. The AMA is the most powerful union in the United States. It is an effective labour monopoly, and the result is that there are restrictions on entering and competing in the healthcare market. The government has been lobbied into an expensive, non-competitive healthcare system.

Right, but AMA isn't government healthcare.

If it was possible for me to own all the oil on earth, I have a monopoly on fossil fuels, regardless of the actual gas stations.

If it was possible for me to dictate what cannot be said on the internet, I have a monopoly on the internet, regardless of the ISP's or server owners.

If it was possible for me to say who gets to be a cook, I have a monopoly on cooks, regardless of restaurant or buffet owners.

I never argued that the current healthcare reform bill was going to monopolize the healthcare industry. My argument was that the industry has already been monopolized, and I added that it does not require a business in that specific industry in order to have a monopoly on that industry.

The AMA gets to say who gets to be a doctor.
Ergo, they have a monopoly on the healthcare industry.
The AMA is a government enforced union.
The AMA is a government entity.
Ergo, we already have socialized health care.

Perhaps not as socialized as some, but socialized nonetheless.

What we have here is definitely not a private healthcare industry.

I own a company that checks all oil to check it's purity. Do I have a monopoly on the Oil industry?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 4:16:46 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/28/2009 1:13:42 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Not a requisite to have a monopoly on the industry.

How is it a monopoly of there is competition?
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 4:20:14 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/28/2009 2:19:27 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Exactly. The AMA is the most powerful union in the United States. It is an effective labour monopoly, and the result is that there are restrictions on entering and competing in the healthcare market. The government has been lobbied into an expensive, non-competitive healthcare system.

That is not "exactly". It's like claiming there is a monopoly on the taxi business because you need to have a taxi drivers license. That is not a monopoly.

Restrictions, yes. And maybe those restrictions are too great, I wouldn't know. But it's not a monopoly.
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 4:25:19 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/28/2009 2:38:57 PM, wjmelements wrote:
It's monopoly. Government healthcare is monopsony in that respect.

No, it is not a monopoly.

And Monopsony means there is only one buyer. That only happens in health care in one situation: Where the government has a monopoly on providing health care, but tends to put out the running and administration of the health care on private companies with tenders. But that situation is *also* an monopoly, because there is only one provider: The government, and many customers: those needing health care.

Socialized healthcare, where only the government provides health care, is a monopoly. AMA is not a monopoly. Public health insurance is neither a monopoly nor a monopsony, as you have many providers and many customers.

There. That should cover the relevant issues and end the confusion. :-)
So prove me wrong, then.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 9:45:53 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2009 3:45:34 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/28/2009 2:41:27 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/28/2009 2:21:18 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/28/2009 2:19:27 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/28/2009 1:13:42 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/28/2009 1:07:52 PM, regebro wrote:
At 8/28/2009 10:29:46 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/28/2009 10:17:06 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/28/2009 10:16:45 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Problem: The health insurance reform bill isn't setting out to monopolise on the health are industry.

Srsly Fix'd

Probably because it's already been monopolized. It's called the AMA.

Do they decide to which doctor you go?

Not a requisite to have a monopoly on the industry.

Exactly. The AMA is the most powerful union in the United States. It is an effective labour monopoly, and the result is that there are restrictions on entering and competing in the healthcare market. The government has been lobbied into an expensive, non-competitive healthcare system.

Right, but AMA isn't government healthcare.

If it was possible for me to own all the oil on earth, I have a monopoly on fossil fuels, regardless of the actual gas stations.

If it was possible for me to dictate what cannot be said on the internet, I have a monopoly on the internet, regardless of the ISP's or server owners.

If it was possible for me to say who gets to be a cook, I have a monopoly on cooks, regardless of restaurant or buffet owners.

I never argued that the current healthcare reform bill was going to monopolize the healthcare industry. My argument was that the industry has already been monopolized, and I added that it does not require a business in that specific industry in order to have a monopoly on that industry.

The AMA gets to say who gets to be a doctor.
Ergo, they have a monopoly on the healthcare industry.
The AMA is a government enforced union.
The AMA is a government entity.
Ergo, we already have socialized health care.

Perhaps not as socialized as some, but socialized nonetheless.

What we have here is definitely not a private healthcare industry.

I own a company that checks all oil to check it's purity. Do I have a monopoly on the Oil industry?

If you get to say what oil can or can't be sold across the entire industry, yeah, you do.

At 8/29/2009 4:16:46 AM, regebro wrote:
At 8/28/2009 1:13:42 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Not a requisite to have a monopoly on the industry.

How is it a monopoly of there is competition?

Competition to license doctors? Hmm.......

Nope, only the AMA is doing it.

At 8/29/2009 4:20:14 AM, regebro wrote:
At 8/28/2009 2:19:27 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Exactly. The AMA is the most powerful union in the United States. It is an effective labour monopoly, and the result is that there are restrictions on entering and competing in the healthcare market. The government has been lobbied into an expensive, non-competitive healthcare system.

That is not "exactly". It's like claiming there is a monopoly on the taxi business because you need to have a taxi drivers license. That is not a monopoly.

Restrictions, yes. And maybe those restrictions are too great, I wouldn't know. But it's not a monopoly.

What is the word for it, then?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 10:46:44 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2009 9:45:53 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/29/2009 3:45:34 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/28/2009 2:41:27 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/28/2009 2:21:18 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/28/2009 2:19:27 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/28/2009 1:13:42 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/28/2009 1:07:52 PM, regebro wrote:
At 8/28/2009 10:29:46 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/28/2009 10:17:06 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/28/2009 10:16:45 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Problem: The health insurance reform bill isn't setting out to monopolise on the health are industry.

Srsly Fix'd

Probably because it's already been monopolized. It's called the AMA.

Do they decide to which doctor you go?

Not a requisite to have a monopoly on the industry.

Exactly. The AMA is the most powerful union in the United States. It is an effective labour monopoly, and the result is that there are restrictions on entering and competing in the healthcare market. The government has been lobbied into an expensive, non-competitive healthcare system.

Right, but AMA isn't government healthcare.

If it was possible for me to own all the oil on earth, I have a monopoly on fossil fuels, regardless of the actual gas stations.

If it was possible for me to dictate what cannot be said on the internet, I have a monopoly on the internet, regardless of the ISP's or server owners.

If it was possible for me to say who gets to be a cook, I have a monopoly on cooks, regardless of restaurant or buffet owners.

I never argued that the current healthcare reform bill was going to monopolize the healthcare industry. My argument was that the industry has already been monopolized, and I added that it does not require a business in that specific industry in order to have a monopoly on that industry.

The AMA gets to say who gets to be a doctor.
Ergo, they have a monopoly on the healthcare industry.
The AMA is a government enforced union.
The AMA is a government entity.
Ergo, we already have socialized health care.

Perhaps not as socialized as some, but socialized nonetheless.

What we have here is definitely not a private healthcare industry.

I own a company that checks all oil to check it's purity. Do I have a monopoly on the Oil industry?

If you get to say what oil can or can't be sold across the entire industry, yeah, you do.

In this sense a monopoly by one company/union is required. Example:

A Union (AMA) has a monopoly over who can and can't be a doctor.They provide strict guidelines and the doctors we get are professional.

Both Corporation A and Corporation B have the ability decide who can and can't be a Doctor. There's a flaw here:

- If they don't have the same guidelines, we get different doctors, some worse off than others simply because they went through Corp. A rather than Corp B.

- Corp B. could reduce it's requirements and get more applications, thus more money. This however lowers the quality of doctors severely.

Ergo, a monopoly is required.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 11:07:25 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2009 10:46:44 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
In this sense a monopoly by one company/union is required. Example:

A Union (AMA) has a monopoly over who can and can't be a doctor.They provide strict guidelines and the doctors we get are professional.
Uht. Well, I'll respond to this in a moment.

Both Corporation A and Corporation B have the ability decide who can and can't be a Doctor. There's a flaw here:

- If they don't have the same guidelines, we get different doctors, some worse off than others simply because they went through Corp. A rather than Corp B.

- Corp B. could reduce it's requirements and get more applications, thus more money. This however lowers the quality of doctors severely.

Ergo, a monopoly is required.

Hmm, sounds like a format.
Both Corporation A and Corporation B have the ability decide who can and can't be build toilets. There's a flaw here:

- If they don't have the same guidelines, we get different toilets, some worse off than others simply because they went through Corp. A rather than Corp B.

- Corp B could use cheaper materials and get more orders, thus more money. This however lowers the quality of the toilet severely.

Ergo, a monopoly is required.

Wait, what?

Who said everyone required high quality toilets?

Who said everyone required high quality doctors? And this is assuming that the AMA actually gives us high quality doctors; the argument against monopolies is always that it can raise the prices at any time, lower the quality at any time, and screw over the consumer. As the AMA is a monopoly, that's what it can do about doctors at any time - close a medical school, the value of doctors go up. Lower the requirements, the quality of doctors goes down. It can do whatever it wants. But let's assume AMA necessarily gives us high quality doctors, just to be "fair".

So many things that the AMA requires a doctor to do in their private offices could be done by a high school dropout at Wal-Mart. Oh, I have a sore throat? Let's take a swab. Oh, it looks like there's a bacterial infection, here's some antibiotics. I mean really. Do you need a decade of training to get that done? Let's be serious. For sure, things like surgeries should be done by a trained doctor - but that's not a reason to jack up the prices on all the other parts of the medical industry as well.

Which is what the AMA does.
Because it has a monopoly.
That no one asked for.
Except the AMA.
Who wanted a monopoly so they could earn more money.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Panzersharkcat
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 11:33:41 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2009 10:46:44 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

In this sense a monopoly by one company/union is required. Example:

A Union (AMA) has a monopoly over who can and can't be a doctor.They provide strict guidelines and the doctors we get are professional.

Both Corporation A and Corporation B have the ability decide who can and can't be a Doctor. There's a flaw here:

- If they don't have the same guidelines, we get different doctors, some worse off than others simply because they went through Corp. A rather than Corp B.

- Corp B. could reduce it's requirements and get more applications, thus more money. This however lowers the quality of doctors severely.

Ergo, a monopoly is required.

This is fallacious as it assumes consumers -- hell, the owners of hospitals -- are total idiots who can't figure out which licensing firms are trustworthy.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 11:45:58 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2009 11:33:41 AM, Panzersharkcat wrote:
At 8/29/2009 10:46:44 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

In this sense a monopoly by one company/union is required. Example:

A Union (AMA) has a monopoly over who can and can't be a doctor.They provide strict guidelines and the doctors we get are professional.

Both Corporation A and Corporation B have the ability decide who can and can't be a Doctor. There's a flaw here:

- If they don't have the same guidelines, we get different doctors, some worse off than others simply because they went through Corp. A rather than Corp B.

- Corp B. could reduce it's requirements and get more applications, thus more money. This however lowers the quality of doctors severely.

Ergo, a monopoly is required.

This is fallacious as it assumes consumers -- hell, the owners of hospitals -- are total idiots who can't figure out which licensing firms are trustworthy.

On that note, it is in the consumers and hospitals' direct interests to choose good doctors / research licensing firms. Consumers because it's their health, and hospitals because it's their money. A detached government monopolized licenser has no incentive to make their doctors high quality, as they can already get whatever they want, either through subsidies (I'm not sure if the AMA is also government-funded) or simply by restricting the supply of doctors.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?