Paradise Lost **potential mini spoiler if you intend to read Atlas Shrugged**

[SpontaneousOrder]

Because, by definition, a private company has to take a profit, whereas a State system with an element of compulsion can leverage all sorts of economies of scale. You might want to use that Google thing to discover which is the most cost-effective, the largely state-provided NHS or the US private model.

You might be interested to use that google thing and discover that the federal government spends more per head on healthcare than the NHS does.
You might also notice that limits imposed by the state on the number of people that can train to be doctors, etc, etc.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Vague appeal to hypothetical authority, fallacy No.1.

Which authority is that?

Do read that again, old chap. Medicaire could not exist without the State.

And you said in the same breath it'd cost more if provided by a private company. But whatever - if you misconstructed your sentence it's of no importance.

My personal opinion, or yours, is irrelevant. In a democracy, there will always be Government policies that some disagree with; I see the enshrinement of the principle that a democratic population makes collective provision for treating the sick via a mandatory contribution in its laws as a sign of a decent society. Anyone with an opposing view is free to campaign to abolish or privatise the NHS. Good luck with that.

Straw Man, Fallacy No.2

Are you sure you know what a straw man is?

Cos, based on the Randroids I've met, he nailed it.

I'm not sure how you could identify a Randroid when you don't know Rand.

[pjclarke]

You might be interested to use that google thing and discover that the federal government spends more per head on healthcare than the NHS does.

But do they get better outcomes? Take aim at foot... FIRE.

Yes, the US spends a massive 15% of GDP on healthcare, around 8-9% in the UK. The Federal system covers less than a third of the population - as opposed to 100% of the UK population eligible to use the NHS, so the expenditure per head seems a not very useful number - the rest have to go private or go without (not much 'choice' there).

Comparing the USA, UK and 17 Western countries' efficiency and effectiveness in reducing mortality


I suspect you're trolling now, but what do I know? I am brain damaged.

[pjclarke]

Which authority is that?

Oh, when you appealed to 'Anyone with an ounce of economic understanding', rather than, oh, naming one, or better still making an actual argument, rather than argument by assertion.

That's it, I'm done. G'night.

[SpontaneousOrder]

But do they get better outcomes? Take aim at foot... FIRE.

Yes, the US spends a massive 15% of GDP on healthcare, around 8-9% in the UK. The Federal system covers less than a third of the population - as opposed to 100% of the UK population eligible to use the NHS, so the expenditure per head seems a not very useful number - the rest have to go private or go without (not much 'choice' there).

Comparing the USA, UK and 17 Western countries' efficiency and effectiveness in reducing mortality


I suspect you're trolling now, but what do I know? I am brain damaged.

You're making my point exactly. I posited that government spending makes it more expensive. You alluded to the US health market as if it were a private market.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Oh, when you appealed to 'Anyone with an ounce of economic understanding', rather than, oh, naming one, or better still making an actual argument, rather than argument by assertion.

That's it, I'm done. G'night.

That's not an appeal to authority (especially as i didn't, as you point out, actually cite any authority). That's a suggestion that to think otherwise is not very economically astute.

[pjclarke]

Are you sure you know what a straw man is?

Pretty sure. It is where a party to a debate or argument misrepresents another party's case, because they have no good counter-argument, and so they then proceed to argue against the misrepresentation rather than the actual case being presented.

So a system of State health care, levels of contribution and benefits and other parameters of which are decided by a democratic debate and voted on and passed into law is misrepresented as :

forcing people to pay for what you think is good for them, whether they believe that it's good for them or not? So your personal opinion is the arbiter of the rest of the world's personal subjective value judgements & preferences?

It is a Straw Man because no single individual gets to decide what the contributions are, much less impose his or her values on the 'rest of world', I never made that case, but that is the one you chose to argue. Hey, have fun!

[pjclarke]

I'm not sure how you could identify a Randroid when you don't know Rand.

1. randroid

A follower of Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy, with emphasis on the more cultic aspects of the movement. Often marked by exclusivist rhetoric, dogmatic individualism, and determinedly narcissistic self-praise.

2. randroid

A person of high school age, typically white and invariably born to an upper-class or upper-middle-class family. Will, upon reading Atlas Shrugged at the recomendation of randroid friend, believe their comfortable position in life to be attributed to their own efforts, talents, and imagined superiority, instead of the five to six-figure income of his parent(s).

If interested in politics, randroids make a point of vocally berating any forms of socialism, not thinking twice of saying people who can't get by without some sort of welfare don't deserve to live, within earshot of students who have after-school jobs out of necesity.

The randroid affliction sometimes lasts into college, depending on whether or not the afflicted recieved a trust fund from their parent(s). If so, randroids can be identified at this point by their difficulty in holding things with their hands, due to the near-total absence of friction caused by a lack of anything resembling calluses. If not, they cease being randroids by getting a job and a sense of humor.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Pretty sure. It is where a party to a debate or argument misrepresents another party's case, because they have no good counter-argument, and so they then proceed to argue against the misrepresentation rather than the actual case being presented.

So a system of State health care, levels of contribution and benefits and other parameters of which are decided by a democratic debate and voted on and passed into law is misrepresented as :



It is a Straw Man because no single individual gets to decide what the contributions are, much less impose his or her values on the 'rest of world', I never made that case, but that is the one you chose to argue. Hey, have fun!

Oh... I see. So you object to me saying 'you' as it's not what 'you' think, but what the collective thinks. Although the collective doesn't include those who want no part in it. So we could just replace instances of the word 'you', with 'you and your pals'?

So, even ignoring that display of dum****ery, it's STILL not a straw man as I hadn't even laid any criticism at your proposition, which was that it was some kind of shining beacon of civilisation (or something like that). I merely asked a question in order to clarify what it was that you believed to be so civilised.

Agian:

[SpontaneousOrder]

1. randroid

A follower of Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy, with emphasis on the more cultic aspects of the movement. Often marked by exclusivist rhetoric, dogmatic individualism, and determinedly narcissistic self-praise.

2. randroid

A person of high school age, typically white and invariably born to an upper-class or upper-middle-class family. Will, upon reading Atlas Shrugged at the recomendation of randroid friend, believe their comfortable position in life to be attributed to their own efforts, talents, and imagined superiority, instead of the five to six-figure income of his parent(s).

If interested in politics, randroids make a point of vocally berating any forms of socialism, not thinking twice of saying people who can't get by without some sort of welfare don't deserve to live, within earshot of students who have after-school jobs out of necesity.

The randroid affliction sometimes lasts into college, depending on whether or not the afflicted recieved a trust fund from their parent(s). If so, randroids can be identified at this point by their difficulty in holding things with their hands, due to the near-total absence of friction caused by a lack of anything resembling calluses. If not, they cease being randroids by getting a job and a sense of humor.

1. pjclarke
A proper numpty.




??? What are you trying to say? Use your words like a big boy.