Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

If doctors = slaves under socialized medicine

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 5:21:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Then what are public defenders, or private attorneys that are forced to take a client, called?
If there is a difference, what is it?
My work here is, finally, done.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2015 10:33:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 5:21:22 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Then what are public defenders, or private attorneys that are forced to take a client, called?
If there is a difference, what is it?

Neither doctors, nor public defenders, nor private attorneys that are forced to take on case are slaves. They ALL get paid for their services; slaves don't. They are all able to move to another profession / employer of their choice / country; slaves can't. They can't be "sold" to another master; slaves can. They are not tied to one employer for life; slaves are.
AdamEsk
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 12:10:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 5:21:22 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Then what are public defenders, or private attorneys that are forced to take a client, called?
If there is a difference, what is it?

Public defenders can refuse a case
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 2:37:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 12:10:05 AM, AdamEsk wrote:
At 8/12/2015 5:21:22 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Then what are public defenders, or private attorneys that are forced to take a client, called?
If there is a difference, what is it?

Public defenders can refuse a case

I don't think they can without a conflict of interest.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 2:37:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 10:33:25 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 8/12/2015 5:21:22 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Then what are public defenders, or private attorneys that are forced to take a client, called?
If there is a difference, what is it?

Neither doctors, nor public defenders, nor private attorneys that are forced to take on case are slaves. They ALL get paid for their services; slaves don't. They are all able to move to another profession / employer of their choice / country; slaves can't. They can't be "sold" to another master; slaves can. They are not tied to one employer for life; slaves are.

That's great, but it doesn't address the OP.
My work here is, finally, done.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 3:18:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 2:37:54 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/12/2015 10:33:25 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 8/12/2015 5:21:22 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Then what are public defenders, or private attorneys that are forced to take a client, called?
If there is a difference, what is it?

Neither doctors, nor public defenders, nor private attorneys that are forced to take on case are slaves. They ALL get paid for their services; slaves don't. They are all able to move to another profession / employer of their choice / country; slaves can't. They can't be "sold" to another master; slaves can. They are not tied to one employer for life; slaves are.

That's great, but it doesn't address the OP.

OK. let's try it this way:

Then what are public defenders, or private attorneys that are forced to take a client, called?

They are called public defenders and private attorneys. And doctors are called doctors.

If there is a difference, what is it?

There isn't any difference.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 1:31:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 3:18:37 AM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 8/13/2015 2:37:54 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/12/2015 10:33:25 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 8/12/2015 5:21:22 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Then what are public defenders, or private attorneys that are forced to take a client, called?
If there is a difference, what is it?

Neither doctors, nor public defenders, nor private attorneys that are forced to take on case are slaves. They ALL get paid for their services; slaves don't. They are all able to move to another profession / employer of their choice / country; slaves can't. They can't be "sold" to another master; slaves can. They are not tied to one employer for life; slaves are.

That's great, but it doesn't address the OP.

OK. let's try it this way:

It's great that you are making your opinion known on the matter, but do you notice the word "if" in the title of the OP? That means the question I want answered presupposes the validity of the title's statement, and I want to reconcile the two legal matters with those that believe the statement.

In other words, I want people who think that socialized medicine/healthcare being a right enslaves doctors (which we both know is hyperbole for effect) to tell me what they think about public defenders, and explain how public defenders are not slaves.

Thus, saying neither are slaves isn't addressing the OP, nor the purpose of the thread.
Your views on this issue have been noted, and you've said them in other threads, so they are not needed here.
My work here is, finally, done.
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 1:58:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 1:31:28 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/13/2015 3:18:37 AM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 8/13/2015 2:37:54 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/12/2015 10:33:25 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 8/12/2015 5:21:22 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Then what are public defenders, or private attorneys that are forced to take a client, called?
If there is a difference, what is it?

Neither doctors, nor public defenders, nor private attorneys that are forced to take on case are slaves. They ALL get paid for their services; slaves don't. They are all able to move to another profession / employer of their choice / country; slaves can't. They can't be "sold" to another master; slaves can. They are not tied to one employer for life; slaves are.

That's great, but it doesn't address the OP.

OK. let's try it this way:

It's great that you are making your opinion known on the matter, but do you notice the word "if" in the title of the OP? That means the question I want answered presupposes the validity of the title's statement, and I want to reconcile the two legal matters with those that believe the statement.

In other words, I want people who think that socialized medicine/healthcare being a right enslaves doctors (which we both know is hyperbole for effect) to tell me what they think about public defenders, and explain how public defenders are not slaves.

Thus, saying neither are slaves isn't addressing the OP, nor the purpose of the thread.
Your views on this issue have been noted, and you've said them in other threads, so they are not needed here.

With that clarification of what your intent was with this thread, I will say that there is no difference. IF doctors are slaves in socialized medicine then public defenders are also slaves.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 2:01:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 1:58:45 PM, JMcKinley wrote:

With that clarification of what your intent was with this thread, I will say that there is no difference. IF doctors are slaves in socialized medicine then public defenders are also slaves.

Do you think people who think the former think the latter, though?
I think the former (yes, it's hyperbole), but the latter gives me pause.
My work here is, finally, done.
lamerde
Posts: 1,416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 2:06:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 2:01:12 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/13/2015 1:58:45 PM, JMcKinley wrote:

With that clarification of what your intent was with this thread, I will say that there is no difference. IF doctors are slaves in socialized medicine then public defenders are also slaves.

Do you think people who think the former think the latter, though?
I think the former (yes, it's hyperbole), but the latter gives me pause.

I'm curious why you think doctors are slaves in socialized medicine? Do you mean something like the Canadian health care system?
Why I ignore YYW:
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Calling someone a bitch multiple times while claiming you're taking the high road is an art form, I suppose: http://www.debate.org...
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 2:19:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 1:31:28 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/13/2015 3:18:37 AM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 8/13/2015 2:37:54 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/12/2015 10:33:25 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 8/12/2015 5:21:22 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Then what are public defenders, or private attorneys that are forced to take a client, called?
If there is a difference, what is it?

Neither doctors, nor public defenders, nor private attorneys that are forced to take on case are slaves. They ALL get paid for their services; slaves don't. They are all able to move to another profession / employer of their choice / country; slaves can't. They can't be "sold" to another master; slaves can. They are not tied to one employer for life; slaves are.

That's great, but it doesn't address the OP.

OK. let's try it this way:

It's great that you are making your opinion known on the matter, but do you notice the word "if" in the title of the OP? That means the question I want answered presupposes the validity of the title's statement, and I want to reconcile the two legal matters with those that believe the statement.

In other words, I want people who think that socialized medicine/healthcare being a right enslaves doctors (which we both know is hyperbole for effect) to tell me what they think about public defenders, and explain how public defenders are not slaves.

Thus, saying neither are slaves isn't addressing the OP, nor the purpose of the thread.
Your views on this issue have been noted, and you've said them in other threads, so they are not needed here.

So, you are saying you only want people that agree with you that doctors are slaves?
Your presupposition is wrong.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 2:24:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 2:19:44 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:

So, you are saying you only want people that agree with you that doctors are slaves?
Your presupposition is wrong.

I am saying I want people who agree with the presupposition to defend or attack public defenders.
My work here is, finally, done.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 2:36:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 2:24:53 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/13/2015 2:19:44 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:

So, you are saying you only want people that agree with you that doctors are slaves?
Your presupposition is wrong.

I am saying I want people who agree with the presupposition to defend or attack public defenders.

Public defenders are paid a salary. They are free to quit their position as public defenders and go into private practice (which most of them eventually do). A slave can do neither. So, how could one possible say public defenders are slaves?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 2:47:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 2:06:10 PM, lamerde wrote:
At 8/13/2015 2:01:12 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/13/2015 1:58:45 PM, JMcKinley wrote:

With that clarification of what your intent was with this thread, I will say that there is no difference. IF doctors are slaves in socialized medicine then public defenders are also slaves.

Do you think people who think the former think the latter, though?
I think the former (yes, it's hyperbole), but the latter gives me pause.

I'm curious why you think doctors are slaves in socialized medicine? Do you mean something like the Canadian health care system?

First, understand it is hyperbole. They are not actual slaves, as they are paid and can go home.
In a nation where healthcare is a right one of two things must happen:
1. A doctor loses his ability to charge as he wishes, since a person who cannot/does not pay has the right to my services, or
2. Loses the ability to operate as he chooses by opening up his own practice (in the event that all doctors are paid by the state)

This requires the doctor to lose his autonomy simply because of his occupation and submit to either the patient or his boss, hence the "slave" angle. But, as wsou007 points out, it is his choice to become a doctor and play by those rules. I challenge those rules as being fair, but, this runs into conflict with a public defender rules, hence my question.
My work here is, finally, done.
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 2:55:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 2:01:12 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

Do you think people who think the former think the latter, though?
I think the former (yes, it's hyperbole), but the latter gives me pause.

People who think the former is true had better think the latter is true, else I would say they are suffering from cognitive dissonance. In both cases, the employee is limited in their decision making while performing their job duties.

Requiring doctors to treat all patients without discrimination is the same as requiring a lawyer to represent all clients without discrimination.

Neither are slaves in my opinion. Demanding job requirements do not amount to slavery. We all trade off certain freedoms in order to acquire the benefits of our jobs.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 2:57:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 2:36:19 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 8/13/2015 2:24:53 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/13/2015 2:19:44 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:

So, you are saying you only want people that agree with you that doctors are slaves?
Your presupposition is wrong.

I am saying I want people who agree with the presupposition to defend or attack public defenders.

Public defenders are paid a salary. They are free to quit their position as public defenders and go into private practice (which most of them eventually do). A slave can do neither. So, how could one possible say public defenders are slaves?

The nuanced point of the whole issue is that one is forced to serve others, for no pay. I choose to be a doctor, but then, you can force me to perform services and then not pay me for said services. In that aspect, they are a slave. How is this so hard to understand?

And, if you remember Ilovesitarmusic's thread about healthcare being a right, I asked Geolaurette8 this very question, which he did not respond. This is a thread for that question.
My work here is, finally, done.
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 3:02:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 2:47:32 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/13/2015 2:06:10 PM, lamerde wrote:
At 8/13/2015 2:01:12 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/13/2015 1:58:45 PM, JMcKinley wrote:

With that clarification of what your intent was with this thread, I will say that there is no difference. IF doctors are slaves in socialized medicine then public defenders are also slaves.

Do you think people who think the former think the latter, though?
I think the former (yes, it's hyperbole), but the latter gives me pause.

I'm curious why you think doctors are slaves in socialized medicine? Do you mean something like the Canadian health care system?

First, understand it is hyperbole. They are not actual slaves, as they are paid and can go home.
In a nation where healthcare is a right one of two things must happen:
1. A doctor loses his ability to charge as he wishes, since a person who cannot/does not pay has the right to my services, or
2. Loses the ability to operate as he chooses by opening up his own practice (in the event that all doctors are paid by the state)

This requires the doctor to lose his autonomy simply because of his occupation and submit to either the patient or his boss, hence the "slave" angle. But, as wsou007 points out, it is his choice to become a doctor and play by those rules. I challenge those rules as being fair, but, this runs into conflict with a public defender rules, hence my question.

This is why in the Canadian system, we treat our socialized healthcare as government funded insurance. This way the doctors get paid the same as they would for patients who were paying cash or with other insurance. Although the government does regulate some prices I believe such as the cost of a checkup.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 3:06:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 2:55:54 PM, JMcKinley wrote:
At 8/13/2015 2:01:12 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

Do you think people who think the former think the latter, though?
I think the former (yes, it's hyperbole), but the latter gives me pause.

People who think the former is true had better think the latter is true, else I would say they are suffering from cognitive dissonance. In both cases, the employee is limited in their decision making while performing their job duties.

Requiring doctors to treat all patients without discrimination is the same as requiring a lawyer to represent all clients without discrimination.

I'm not sure I agree here, though.
Some people become public defenders specifically, and others do do pro bono work. These would not be the same, since the express intent of the former's job is to be a public defender, and the latter's client is represented for some reason.
But, imagine if there was a shortage of public defenders (or none). Private attorneys would be forced to represent clients, presumably without pay. However, that is how our system works, and the lawyers know this. So, because of that, I am not sure if the cognitive dissonance exists. Unlike doctors, a trial needs two lawyers (or, at least sides), and one side is at a huge disadvantage without one.

Neither are slaves in my opinion. Demanding job requirements do not amount to slavery. We all trade off certain freedoms in order to acquire the benefits of our jobs.
Yeah, but if healthcare is a right, then your job can land you doing services for free, or if socialized, services for fees that are too low. You lose your ability to contract, just like a slave, which is why that is the analogy.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 3:11:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 3:02:09 PM, JMcKinley wrote:

This is why in the Canadian system, we treat our socialized healthcare as government funded insurance. This way the doctors get paid the same as they would for patients who were paying cash or with other insurance. Although the government does regulate some prices I believe such as the cost of a checkup.

Are you Canadian? If so, are there private doctors? Can they refuse patients?
In America, we have Medicare, which is socialized medicine for the elderly, although no one wants to call it that. I have heard that Medicare will only pay 1/3 of the billed amount, which is why some practices refuse Medicare. (this also jacks up the price for everyone, but that is a separate issue)
And, while insurance companies make contracts with practices, I don't think the government does, it just says this is what is happening. Can the doctors refuse that amount and the patient?
My work here is, finally, done.
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 3:58:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 3:11:13 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/13/2015 3:02:09 PM, JMcKinley wrote:

This is why in the Canadian system, we treat our socialized healthcare as government funded insurance. This way the doctors get paid the same as they would for patients who were paying cash or with other insurance. Although the government does regulate some prices I believe such as the cost of a checkup.

Are you Canadian? If so, are there private doctors? Can they refuse patients?
In America, we have Medicare, which is socialized medicine for the elderly, although no one wants to call it that. I have heard that Medicare will only pay 1/3 of the billed amount, which is why some practices refuse Medicare. (this also jacks up the price for everyone, but that is a separate issue)
And, while insurance companies make contracts with practices, I don't think the government does, it just says this is what is happening. Can the doctors refuse that amount and the patient?

There are private doctors. A great many of them. They can refuse patients but they are limited somewhat in this regard. This link is relevant to Ontario (Healthcare is regulated by the provinces with insurance provided in large part by the federal government), but things are mostly the same across the country.

http://www.cpso.on.ca...

Also if you're interested here is some more info:
http://www.cpso.on.ca...
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 4:04:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 3:11:13 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/13/2015 3:02:09 PM, JMcKinley wrote:

This is why in the Canadian system, we treat our socialized healthcare as government funded insurance. This way the doctors get paid the same as they would for patients who were paying cash or with other insurance. Although the government does regulate some prices I believe such as the cost of a checkup.

Are you Canadian? If so, are there private doctors? Can they refuse patients?
In America, we have Medicare, which is socialized medicine for the elderly, although no one wants to call it that. I have heard that Medicare will only pay 1/3 of the billed amount, which is why some practices refuse Medicare. (this also jacks up the price for everyone, but that is a separate issue)
And, while insurance companies make contracts with practices, I don't think the government does, it just says this is what is happening. Can the doctors refuse that amount and the patient?



It is my understanding that they can refuse patients. I know of many doctors who do not accept Medicare patients.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 4:04:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 3:58:54 PM, JMcKinley wrote:

There are private doctors. A great many of them. They can refuse patients but they are limited somewhat in this regard. This link is relevant to Ontario (Healthcare is regulated by the provinces with insurance provided in large part by the federal government), but things are mostly the same across the country.

http://www.cpso.on.ca...


Also if you're interested here is some more info:
http://www.cpso.on.ca...

Thanks, I'll look at those later.
Is healthcare considered a right in Canada? Do rights mean the same thing as they do in the USA?
My work here is, finally, done.
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 5:50:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 2:47:32 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Loses the ability to operate as he chooses by opening up his own practice (in the event that all doctors are paid by the state)
I think this is principally where the problem lies; most countries with Nationalized Universal Healthcare Systems don't necessarily forbid this. I know that at least Canada, doesn't, anyways. I go to a private practice for my healthcare (I'm Canadian), because my parents can afford it, and prefer it.

The creation of private practices is deincentivized, yes, because there is an alternative that is "free" (well, not free, but one that you're already likely paying for in taxes anyway) available; but it doesn't necessarily bind *all* doctors to anything. I don't think there are any countries that have socialized medicine that also outlaw or straight-up forbid private practices or hospitals. Private Hospitals are probably a little bit different in how they work, but I know they exist here, too. There's a Jewish General Hospital in Montreal.

So, no, socialized medicine doesn't inherently force someone to take a client if they want to become a Doctor - only if they're a Doctor that's actually employed by the state. I guess the same thing logically applies to attorneys who are employed by the state. I'm not entirely well-knowledgeable on the issue of private attorneys being forced to take a client, but I guess I can see where you're coming from, if you're an attorney and are opposed to it. Why is it necessarily a bad thing?
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 6:09:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 4:04:46 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/13/2015 3:58:54 PM, JMcKinley wrote:

There are private doctors. A great many of them. They can refuse patients but they are limited somewhat in this regard. This link is relevant to Ontario (Healthcare is regulated by the provinces with insurance provided in large part by the federal government), but things are mostly the same across the country.

http://www.cpso.on.ca...


Also if you're interested here is some more info:
http://www.cpso.on.ca...

Thanks, I'll look at those later.
Is healthcare considered a right in Canada? Do rights mean the same thing as they do in the USA?

No its not a right. Its not protected by our constitution. But it is a privilege provided to everyone by law. Future governments could do away with it with some simple legislation if they wanted to. Although I don't think many Canadians would be happy about it. Our healthcare system is expensive but to my knowledge most Canadians consider it worth the cost.

Yes rights mean the same thing here.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 6:25:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 5:21:22 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Then what are public defenders, or private attorneys that are forced to take a client, called?
If there is a difference, what is it?

Is this a serious argument being made by someone? Being employed by the government is no more slavery than being employed privately.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 8:46:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 6:25:05 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 8/12/2015 5:21:22 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Then what are public defenders, or private attorneys that are forced to take a client, called?
If there is a difference, what is it?

Is this a serious argument being made by someone? Being employed by the government is no more slavery than being employed privately.

No, it's not a serious argument. The OP'er just thinks it is.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 9:11:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Canada does not have a right to healthcare, nor are their doctors slaves. Just because medicine is socialized does not give a citizen the right to a MRI on demand.

Canadian Doctors are allowed to refuse services, and ration non-life threatening elective surgeries as they see fit.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2015 10:45:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/13/2015 2:06:10 PM, lamerde wrote:
At 8/13/2015 2:01:12 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/13/2015 1:58:45 PM, JMcKinley wrote:

With that clarification of what your intent was with this thread, I will say that there is no difference. IF doctors are slaves in socialized medicine then public defenders are also slaves.

Do you think people who think the former think the latter, though?
I think the former (yes, it's hyperbole), but the latter gives me pause.

I'm curious why you think doctors are slaves in socialized medicine? Do you mean something like the Canadian health care system?

They are slowly chipping away at doctors' conscience rights.

https://www.lifesitenews.com...
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 12:51:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 5:21:22 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Then what are public defenders, or private attorneys that are forced to take a client, called?
If there is a difference, what is it?

- From an ethical perspective, there is very little difference between labor/employment & slavery in its broad sense. There are just too many similarities to account for. For almost any given aspect of labor/employment, there exist some form of slavery that accommodates it.

- Often, when most people think about slavery, especially westerners, they immediately imagine the worst of it. Slavery is a very broad practice. Some forms of slavery are in fact better than most forms of labor. & some of the worst cases of labor are comparable to some of the worst cases of slavery.

- I generally prefer to discuss the content of the terms rather than their labels. Labels, although useful in politics, are generally misleading. Slavery may be a scary word for the modern man, but its content is of much more importance.

- Finally, I think unless the machine replaces entirely human beings, there will always be some form of servitude & slavery involved in society. It may not be called that, but it would certainly look like it.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Midnight1131
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 1:09:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/12/2015 5:21:22 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
If there is a difference, what is it?

There's no difference. Both can refuse to work.
#GaryJohnson2016
#TaxationisTheft
#TheftisTaxation