Bitcoin Forum
December 02, 2016, 06:24:14 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: "You've got two, he's got none, give him one!" - Redistribution of Health  (Read 6953 times)
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2011, 08:21:19 PM
 #81

No, the good prices and good service only come after the monopoly ends. "charge what the market will bear" only applies when there is a market. if you're the only one, you can charge whatever you want.

Clearly bullshit. A new drug needs to be marketed and sold. If you overcharge people won't buy. There's nobody out there forcing you to buy. Just say no. When enough people say no to a price it will drop until enough say yes. Simple as that. I thought you understood how the market works.
You don't think there's a market for a better cancer drug, or vaccine, or antibiotics? You sell on that market and you charge what it will bear.

And the sustainable price is much higher if you're the only one. It's even higher if people aren't forced to pay that cost themselves (insurance). It's even higher if that insurance is state subsidized. So, if you're for robbing the poor to give to the rich, keep arguing that point.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480703054
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480703054

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480703054
Reply with quote  #2

1480703054
Report to moderator
1480703054
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480703054

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480703054
Reply with quote  #2

1480703054
Report to moderator
1480703054
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480703054

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480703054
Reply with quote  #2

1480703054
Report to moderator
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
July 09, 2011, 08:30:08 PM
 #82

No, the good prices and good service only come after the monopoly ends. "charge what the market will bear" only applies when there is a market. if you're the only one, you can charge whatever you want.

Clearly bullshit. A new drug needs to be marketed and sold. If you overcharge people won't buy. There's nobody out there forcing you to buy. Just say no. When enough people say no to a price it will drop until enough say yes. Simple as that. I thought you understood how the market works.
You don't think there's a market for a better cancer drug, or vaccine, or antibiotics? You sell on that market and you charge what it will bear.

And the sustainable price is much higher if you're the only one. It's even higher if people aren't forced to pay that cost themselves (insurance). It's even higher if that insurance is state subsidized. So, if you're for robbing the poor to give to the rich, keep arguing that point.

All 4 sentences in your reply are false Shocked



myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2011, 08:31:26 PM
 #83

No, the good prices and good service only come after the monopoly ends. "charge what the market will bear" only applies when there is a market. if you're the only one, you can charge whatever you want.

Clearly bullshit. A new drug needs to be marketed and sold. If you overcharge people won't buy. There's nobody out there forcing you to buy. Just say no. When enough people say no to a price it will drop until enough say yes. Simple as that. I thought you understood how the market works.
You don't think there's a market for a better cancer drug, or vaccine, or antibiotics? You sell on that market and you charge what it will bear.

And the sustainable price is much higher if you're the only one. It's even higher if people aren't forced to pay that cost themselves (insurance). It's even higher if that insurance is state subsidized. So, if you're for robbing the poor to give to the rich, keep arguing that point.

All 4 sentences in your reply are false Shocked

Then disprove even one.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
July 09, 2011, 08:44:55 PM
 #84

No, the good prices and good service only come after the monopoly ends. "charge what the market will bear" only applies when there is a market. if you're the only one, you can charge whatever you want.

Clearly bullshit. A new drug needs to be marketed and sold. If you overcharge people won't buy. There's nobody out there forcing you to buy. Just say no. When enough people say no to a price it will drop until enough say yes. Simple as that. I thought you understood how the market works.
You don't think there's a market for a better cancer drug, or vaccine, or antibiotics? You sell on that market and you charge what it will bear.

And the sustainable price is much higher if you're the only one. It's even higher if people aren't forced to pay that cost themselves (insurance). It's even higher if that insurance is state subsidized. So, if you're for robbing the poor to give to the rich, keep arguing that point.

All 4 sentences in your reply are false Shocked

Then disprove even one.

If you have a single provider of health care, such as the NHS here in the UK, you can purchase in bulk and get the best price.

Thats your first sentence shown false.  By a real world example.

Because the drugs are bought in bulk from taxes, it costs uses nothing at the point of delivery.  Thats your second sentence shown false.  Again by what happens in real life.

Private insurance exists in the UK and it costs MORE than the NHS.  Thats your third sentence gone.

Controlling costs does not hurt the poor at all.  How could it?  Thats your fourth.

Seriously, yesterday you made nice logical arguments.   This is like "make something up and if anyone disagrees make more stuff up" Have you been on drugs today?

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2011, 08:55:45 PM
 #85

If you have a single provider of health care, such as the NHS here in the UK, you can purchase in bulk and get the best price.

Thats your first sentence shown false.  By a real world example.

Because the drugs are bought in bulk from taxes, it costs uses nothing at the point of delivery.  Thats your second sentence shown false.  Again by what happens in real life.

Private insurance exists in the UK and it costs MORE than the NHS.  Thats your third sentence gone.

Controlling costs does not hurt the poor at all.  How could it?  Thats your fourth.

Seriously, yesterday you made nice logical arguments.   This is like "make something up and if anyone disagrees make more stuff up" Have you been on drugs today?

Yesterday you argued that competition reduced the price of something. Today you argue it doesn't. Which is it?

Bulk buying reduces the cost, but it reduces it from an inflated maximum. Bulk buying is also perfectly possible, no matter the number of drug companies offering meds. Nice try, but, no.

Buying drugs via taxes proves my fourth sentence. Thank you.

Private insurance costs more than the NHS because the NHS is state subsidized, and thus payed for by other people. See the fourth sentence.

And you're not controlling the price of the drugs at all, you're controlling the visible cost. There's a lot more hidden..

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
July 10, 2011, 12:08:02 AM
 #86

And the sustainable price is much higher if you're the only one. It's even higher if people aren't forced to pay that cost themselves (insurance). It's even higher if that insurance is state subsidized. So, if you're for robbing the poor to give to the rich, keep arguing that point.
But you're not the only one. There are many other companies out there who compete with you. They have to research their own drug, but they can compete if they want. They even get a monopoly on their own substance. If they charge more than their competitors they have to prove additional value. And when the research cost has been covered they can sell just above production cost, to keep competition out.

I think we can agree on one thing though. US health system sucks. Virtually every country in Europe have lower drug costs than the US, more accessible health care and lower cost for the state. You need to fix it. Have you tried single payer system? Works in Europe.
 

Ponzi me: http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=588
Thanks to the anonymous person who doubled my BTC wealth by sending 0.02 BTC to: 1BSGbFq4G8r3uckpdeQMhP55ScCJwbvNnG
jgraham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


<Pretentious and poorly thought out latin phrase>


View Profile
July 10, 2011, 01:02:37 AM
 #87

Anyone want to volunteer what exactly this idea is "logically consistent" with?

Sure, I'll bite: The removal of monopoly services and replacement with market services is logically consistent with the Non-agression Priciple, which is the guiding principle for both the libertarian and Voluntaryist viewpoints.

Fair enough.

Out of curiosity.  If I could demonstrate to you that in any and all circumstances that the outcomes of strictly adhering to this principle would be, by every non-trivial metric lesser than at least one alternative.   Would you decide that this principle isn't worth following?

I'm rather good with Linux.  If you're having problems with your mining rig I'll help you out remotely for 0.05.  You can also propose a flat-rate for some particular task.  PM me for details.
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 10, 2011, 01:06:38 AM
 #88

Out of curiosity.  If I could demonstrate to you that in any and all circumstances that the outcomes of strictly adhering to this principle would be, by every non-trivial metric lesser than at least one alternative.   Would you decide that this principle isn't worth following?

Fiat justitia ruat caelum.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 10, 2011, 01:17:47 AM
 #89

Out of curiosity.  If I could demonstrate to you that in any and all circumstances that the outcomes of strictly adhering to this principle would be, by every non-trivial metric lesser than at least one alternative.   Would you decide that this principle isn't worth following?

Fiat justitia ruat caelum.

+1 If that is the price we pay for not running our society on pain and suffering, so be it.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
jgraham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


<Pretentious and poorly thought out latin phrase>


View Profile
July 10, 2011, 01:25:32 AM
 #90

Out of curiosity.  If I could demonstrate to you that in any and all circumstances that the outcomes of strictly adhering to this principle would be, by every non-trivial metric lesser than at least one alternative.   Would you decide that this principle isn't worth following?

Fiat justitia ruat caelum.
Ergo justitia non virtuis!

I'm rather good with Linux.  If you're having problems with your mining rig I'll help you out remotely for 0.05.  You can also propose a flat-rate for some particular task.  PM me for details.
jgraham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


<Pretentious and poorly thought out latin phrase>


View Profile
July 10, 2011, 01:27:38 AM
 #91

Out of curiosity.  If I could demonstrate to you that in any and all circumstances that the outcomes of strictly adhering to this principle would be, by every non-trivial metric lesser than at least one alternative.   Would you decide that this principle isn't worth following?

Fiat justitia ruat caelum.

+1 If that is the price we pay for not running our society on pain and suffering, so be it.
Wouldn't pain and suffering be non-trivial metrics?

I'm rather good with Linux.  If you're having problems with your mining rig I'll help you out remotely for 0.05.  You can also propose a flat-rate for some particular task.  PM me for details.
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 10, 2011, 01:32:15 AM
 #92

Wouldn't pain and suffering be non-trivial metrics?

There are no units of pain. Imagine if you said that your toothache hurts 48% than your headache. That would be absurd. Now imagine if I said, my toothache hurts 48% more than your headache. You can't even quantify your own pain much less quantify pain between two subjects.
jgraham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


<Pretentious and poorly thought out latin phrase>


View Profile
July 10, 2011, 01:37:21 AM
 #93

Wouldn't pain and suffering be non-trivial metrics?

There are no units of pain. Imagine if you said that your toothache hurts 48% than your headache. That would be absurd.

In medicine, pain metrics are used all the time.  So in fact you can say that stimulus X is more painful than stimulus Y.  Studies on analgesics and palliative care use them.  Your confusion lies in the fact that they are ordinal not ratio.

I'm rather good with Linux.  If you're having problems with your mining rig I'll help you out remotely for 0.05.  You can also propose a flat-rate for some particular task.  PM me for details.
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 10, 2011, 01:43:04 AM
 #94

So in fact you can say that stimulus X is more painful than stimulus Y.

I didn't say you couldn't do that. That's not quantification. That's ranking. You can rank pain but you can't quantify it. Do you understand the difference between ordinality and cardinality?
jgraham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


<Pretentious and poorly thought out latin phrase>


View Profile
July 10, 2011, 01:49:41 AM
 #95

So in fact you can say that stimulus X is more painful than stimulus Y.

I didn't say you couldn't do that. That's not quantification. That's ranking.
Correct. you performed ignoratio elenchi.  I just brought the discussion back on track.
A rank is still a metric - it's just an ordinal metric.  Which is all I argued.  Everyone is in less pain.

Quote
You can rank pain but you can't quantify it.

Alex I'm going to go with an "implied argument from ignorance" here (should have called you on that earlier for your own good!  Grin)
So yes cardinality is beside the point and quantification is only relevant when you define it to mean "cardinality".   That said, it's true I can't tell you how to assign a cardinal value to pain but that's light-years from demonstrating that pain can not be measured with a unit.  

Quote
Do you understand the difference between ordinality and cardinality?
Apparently so!

I'm glad we had this talk!

I'm rather good with Linux.  If you're having problems with your mining rig I'll help you out remotely for 0.05.  You can also propose a flat-rate for some particular task.  PM me for details.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 10, 2011, 02:05:59 AM
 #96

Out of curiosity.  If I could demonstrate to you that in any and all circumstances that the outcomes of strictly adhering to this principle would be, by every non-trivial metric lesser than at least one alternative.   Would you decide that this principle isn't worth following?

Fiat justitia ruat caelum.

+1 If that is the price we pay for not running our society on pain and suffering, so be it.
Wouldn't pain and suffering be non-trivial metrics?

Then you could not show me that the outcomes would be worse on every metric.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
jgraham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


<Pretentious and poorly thought out latin phrase>


View Profile
July 10, 2011, 02:12:36 AM
 #97

Out of curiosity.  If I could demonstrate to you that in any and all circumstances that the outcomes of strictly adhering to this principle would be, by every non-trivial metric lesser than at least one alternative.   Would you decide that this principle isn't worth following?

Fiat justitia ruat caelum.

+1 If that is the price we pay for not running our society on pain and suffering, so be it.
Wouldn't pain and suffering be non-trivial metrics?

Then you could not show me that the outcomes would be worse on every metric.

I only said non-trivial metrics...and you're not exactly answering my question.

I'm rather good with Linux.  If you're having problems with your mining rig I'll help you out remotely for 0.05.  You can also propose a flat-rate for some particular task.  PM me for details.
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 10, 2011, 02:27:06 AM
 #98

That said, it's true I can't tell you how to assign a cardinal value to pain but that's light-years from demonstrating that pain can not be measured with a unit.

If you can't assign a cardinal value to something then it can't be quantified. A unit is a quantity. Therefore, anything that can't be assigned a cardinal value can't be measured with a unit. Like I said, you can rank subjective things but that's apparently all you wanted to assert anyways so I'm not sure why you're going out of your way to prove something you're clearly wrong about.

jgraham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


<Pretentious and poorly thought out latin phrase>


View Profile
July 10, 2011, 02:35:00 AM
 #99

That said, it's true I can't tell you how to assign a cardinal value to pain but that's light-years from demonstrating that pain can not be measured with a unit.

If you can't assign a cardinal value to something then it can't be quantified. A unit is a quantity. Therefore, anything that can't be assigned a cardinal value can't be measured with a unit.

Yes, only when you define "quantity" to mean only "cardinal value".  Just like you did there.  However "quantity" doesn't have to refer to "cardinal value".   Also as my Sifu would say:"Your confusion lies in your pronoun".

Quote
Like I said, you can rank subjective things but that's apparently all you wanted to assert anyways

Correction, that's all I did assert.

Quote
so I'm not sure why you're going out of your way to prove something you're clearly wrong about.
My thoughts exactly.

I'm rather good with Linux.  If you're having problems with your mining rig I'll help you out remotely for 0.05.  You can also propose a flat-rate for some particular task.  PM me for details.
Sannyasi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 455



View Profile WWW
July 10, 2011, 02:37:56 AM
 #100

i'll give a kidney only to people i know and care about. if there is ever a law forcing you to give one away i'll happily murder a few semi-random people to offset the kidneys usefulness

1DxP5iL6hN5Gd3cwmDz9uFSntW8ALBQaGK

http://gamerkeys.net/common/home.htm <- the best place to get games!

my portfoio: http://windowsofamind.com
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!