|
Post by rmarks1 on May 10, 2019 22:22:10 GMT -5
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2019 8:35:15 GMT -5
And? Are you going to say anything at all about it?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 11, 2019 14:09:51 GMT -5
And? Are you going to say anything at all about it?
Doesn't the article say it all?
Another triumph for bureaucracy.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2019 15:59:16 GMT -5
Sorry, I thought you were trying to make an argument for or against something.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 11, 2019 19:18:09 GMT -5
Sorry, I thought you were trying to make an argument for or against something.
No argument this time. Only another interesting case of the disasters caused by large, cumbersome bureaucracies.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2019 10:36:14 GMT -5
Good point. We should abolish governments.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 12, 2019 14:16:25 GMT -5
Good point. We should abolish governments.
No. That's Anarchism and Anarchism doesn't work. Governments should be strictly limited to their basic functions of preventing fraud and the initiation of force.
In a private healthcare system, the providers would carry insurance. The insurance companies, to minimize their own losses, would have investigated any sudden rise in the death rate. Knowing this, the hospitals would be more careful themselves so as not to loose their insurance coverage.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2019 23:51:28 GMT -5
Good point. We should abolish governments. No. That's Anarchism and Anarchism doesn't work. How would you know? It has never been tried.
Anarchism is the only logical conclusion to your premise that government is inherently evil and incompetent.
Who is going to limit them? God? The Free Market? Why would an insurance company investigate something that's not their problem? In a government, wrongful deaths would be an issue for the police and the justice system.
|
|
|
Post by faskew on May 13, 2019 8:10:42 GMT -5
Bob wrote: >In a private healthcare system, the providers would carry insurance. The insurance companies, to minimize their own losses, would have investigated any sudden rise in the death rate. Knowing this, the hospitals would be more careful themselves so as not to loose their insurance coverage.
---We've had exactly the same sort of thing happen here in the US and neither the hospitals nor the insurance companies were concerned and allowed the killings to go on for years. Several factors involved, such as maybe only killing patients who were close to death anyway. Also know of one person in my area who was doing Munchhausen by Proxy at a hospital - making patients sick so she could swoop in and save them at the last minute. Although she was often too late. Again, took many years for her to be caught.
---Anyway, your description is certainly what should happen here, but, for whatever reasons, there have been several cases where it didn't. I suppose it may be because patient deaths don't actually cost the insurance companies money unless the hospital is proved to be at fault. And it can be very easy to hide a murder in a hospital such that there is no obvious blame. And it can be very, very difficult to prove that a hospital did something wrong, even when that's what happened.
---A few days ago we had a case here where a "compounding" pharmacy (a place where they mix drugs on site) gave a patient some meds that were literally 54,000 times the correct dosage. Fortunately, the patient didn't die, but the event got attention and it turns out that the "compounding" pharmacy has done this sort of thing several times before, has had several warnings from government agencies, but was still allowed to stay in business. Worst side of both the free market and bureaucracy. 8-<
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 13, 2019 11:45:20 GMT -5
No. That's Anarchism and Anarchism doesn't work. How would you know? It has never been tried. Wrong. Anarchy has been tried many times. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communitiesAs usual, you make an assertion without bothering to offer even a shred of proof.🙄 No. The limits come from a Constitution that can only be changed by a large majority of the people. Complex Question Fallacy. If insurance companies didn't keep close watch on the hospitals they covered, the companies could easily be driven out of business by massive claims. Yes. And it only took the German police and justice system over a decade to catch this mass murderer giving him plenty of time to kill again and again. Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 13, 2019 11:54:53 GMT -5
Bob wrote: >In a private healthcare system, the providers would carry insurance. The insurance companies, to minimize their own losses, would have investigated any sudden rise in the death rate. Knowing this, the hospitals would be more careful themselves so as not to loose their insurance coverage. ---We've had exactly the same sort of thing happen here in the US and neither the hospitals nor the insurance companies were concerned and allowed the killings to go on for years. Several factors involved, such as maybe only killing patients who were close to death anyway. Also know of one person in my area who was doing Munchhausen by Proxy at a hospital - making patients sick so she could swoop in and save them at the last minute. Although she was often too late. Again, took many years for her to be caught. ---Anyway, your description is certainly what should happen here, but, for whatever reasons, there have been several cases where it didn't. I suppose it may be because patient deaths don't actually cost the insurance companies money unless the hospital is proved to be at fault. And it can be very easy to hide a murder in a hospital such that there is no obvious blame. And it can be very, very difficult to prove that a hospital did something wrong, even when that's what happened. ---A few days ago we had a case here where a "compounding" pharmacy (a place where they mix drugs on site) gave a patient some meds that were literally 54,000 times the correct dosage. Fortunately, the patient didn't die, but the event got attention and it turns out that the "compounding" pharmacy has done this sort of thing several times before, has had several warnings from government agencies, but was still allowed to stay in business. Worst side of both the free market and bureaucracy. 8-<
The German case is different. There was plenty of evidence but the hospitals chose to cover it up.
As for the Free Market, a functioning Free Market depends on a government that enforces laws against fraud and the initiation of force. That includes Reckless Endangerment as in your example of the pharmacy.
It was the government that wasn't doing its part here.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2019 13:54:14 GMT -5
How would you know? It has never been tried. Wrong. Anarchy has been tried many times. And every single time Anarchists have been massacred by statists. You know, you are always welcome to elaborate on your actual political positions in an open and honest fashion, instead of doing this stupid song and dance. If you believe that government is good and competent, you are welcome to say so openly. And this COnstitution protects from government overreach... how, exactly? You are still asserting something that you have no evidence for. And therefore Germany needs to abolish its justice system and replace it with a more efficient system of private justice?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2019 13:56:02 GMT -5
Bob wrote: >In a private healthcare system, the providers would carry insurance. The insurance companies, to minimize their own losses, would have investigated any sudden rise in the death rate. Knowing this, the hospitals would be more careful themselves so as not to loose their insurance coverage. ---We've had exactly the same sort of thing happen here in the US and neither the hospitals nor the insurance companies were concerned and allowed the killings to go on for years. Several factors involved, such as maybe only killing patients who were close to death anyway. Also know of one person in my area who was doing Munchhausen by Proxy at a hospital - making patients sick so she could swoop in and save them at the last minute. Although she was often too late. Again, took many years for her to be caught. ---Anyway, your description is certainly what should happen here, but, for whatever reasons, there have been several cases where it didn't. I suppose it may be because patient deaths don't actually cost the insurance companies money unless the hospital is proved to be at fault. And it can be very easy to hide a murder in a hospital such that there is no obvious blame. And it can be very, very difficult to prove that a hospital did something wrong, even when that's what happened. ---A few days ago we had a case here where a "compounding" pharmacy (a place where they mix drugs on site) gave a patient some meds that were literally 54,000 times the correct dosage. Fortunately, the patient didn't die, but the event got attention and it turns out that the "compounding" pharmacy has done this sort of thing several times before, has had several warnings from government agencies, but was still allowed to stay in business. Worst side of both the free market and bureaucracy. 8-< The German case is different. There was plenty of evidence but the hospitals chose to cover it up. As for the Free Market, a functioning Free Market depends on a government that enforces laws against fraud and the initiation of force. That includes Reckless Endangerment as in your example of the pharmacy. What if the government screws up and doesn't do its job, like in all the cases Fred mentioned?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 13, 2019 14:01:51 GMT -5
The German case is different. There was plenty of evidence but the hospitals chose to cover it up. As for the Free Market, a functioning Free Market depends on a government that enforces laws against fraud and the initiation of force. That includes Reckless Endangerment as in your example of the pharmacy. What if the government screws up and doesn't do its job, like in all the cases Fred mentioned?
So you agree with my arguments that the government shouldn't do too much because it screws up!
Maybe if the government didn't have so many jobs to do, it could concentrating on doing a good job in the few areas where it is necessary.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 13, 2019 14:19:42 GMT -5
Wrong. Anarchy has been tried many times. And every single time Anarchists have been massacred by statists. Wrong. I gave a link listing many times when Anarchy has been tried. Please read that list before you say that they have been massacred "every single time." I point out that you make assertions without offering even a shred of proof...and you respond with another claim without offering a shred of proof. As usual, you didn't bother to quote what I actually said because I never said that. Government tends to be inefficient. Therefore it makes sense to limit government functions to the absolute minimum. It's done a pretty decent job in the USA so far. And it's still going. No evidence for your Complex Question Fallacy? But the evidence is right there in your own post. As for the rest, insurance companies do keep track of their policyholders. Here is one example: www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2014/06/19/wearable-tech-health-insurance/#3f8ef68a18bdNope. I never said that or even implied it. Protecting public safety is one of the few legitimate functions of government. Germany just screwed it up, that's all.
A limited government would have fewer things to do and therefore fewer chances to screw up.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by faskew on May 13, 2019 15:50:03 GMT -5
>The German case is different. There was plenty of evidence but the hospitals chose to cover it up. ---They do that here, too. The hospitals don’t want the bad PR so they move suspicious people out. Back in my day, they used to change someone’s schedule, night for day or whatever, generally bug them, and get them to quit and go work somewhere else. And never, never tell the new employer that there might be a problem.
>As for the Free Market, a functioning Free Market depends on a government that enforces laws against fraud and the initiation of force. That includes Reckless Endangerment as in your example of the pharmacy. It was the government that wasn't doing its part here. ---Indeed, but the Republican overlords of Texas are huge Free Market/anti-government fans, so they don’t support regulatory agencies with funds, people, or policies. Thus it’s very easy for things to slip through the cracks because there aren’t enough inspectors around to actually check everything that needs to be checked and they often don’t have the authority to do anything about stuff they do find. There are several Texas agencies that can only “request” bad businesses to change their ways and can’t fine them or shut them down. And they might be sued if they tried to notify the public to beware.
Like I said, worst of both worlds – bad government AND bad free market. 8-<
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 13, 2019 19:10:38 GMT -5
>The German case is different. There was plenty of evidence but the hospitals chose to cover it up. ---They do that here, too. The hospitals don’t want the bad PR so they move suspicious people out. Back in my day, they used to change someone’s schedule, night for day or whatever, generally bug them, and get them to quit and go work somewhere else. And never, never tell the new employer that there might be a problem. >As for the Free Market, a functioning Free Market depends on a government that enforces laws against fraud and the initiation of force. That includes Reckless Endangerment as in your example of the pharmacy. It was the government that wasn't doing its part here. ---Indeed, but the Republican overlords of Texas are huge Free Market/anti-government fans, so they don’t support regulatory agencies with funds, people, or policies. Thus it’s very easy for things to slip through the cracks because there aren’t enough inspectors around to actually check everything that needs to be checked and they often don’t have the authority to do anything about stuff they do find. There are several Texas agencies that can only “request” bad businesses to change their ways and can’t fine them or shut them down. And they might be sued if they tried to notify the public to beware. Like I said, worst of both worlds – bad government AND bad free market. 8-<
Fred, for the Free Market to work well, the government has to do its job. And the one job government should have is to prevent fraud and the initiation of force.
It sounds like the government of Texas isn't doing its job.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by faskew on May 14, 2019 7:51:25 GMT -5
Indeed. Because businesses bribe legislators to not protect citizens in the name of a "free market". Basically, it's the crony capitalism that we speak of so often. Businesses claim that regulations are socialist and hurt business, then, when regulations are removed or weakened, businesses endanger their customers to get more profit. But it's not just Texas. Look at all the many, many businesses in the US that have sickened, crippled or killed their customers in the past few years. From contaminated food and medicine to machines that kill. It's everywhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2019 11:46:53 GMT -5
What if the government screws up and doesn't do its job, like in all the cases Fred mentioned? So you agree with my arguments that the government shouldn't do too much because it screws up! Maybe if the government didn't have so many jobs to do, it could concentrating on doing a good job in the few areas where it is necessary. Bob
I made no such claim. I did, however, ask you a question that you haven't answered. Very good, Bob, your first piece of evidence in this discussion! Now you only need to demonstrate that insurance companies investigate causes of death on part of their policyholders! And a government that doesn't exist has no chance to screw up. Therefore, the best government is one that doesn't exist. QED.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2019 11:55:14 GMT -5
Indeed. Because businesses bribe legislators to not protect citizens in the name of a "free market". Basically, it's the crony capitalism that we speak of so often. Businesses claim that regulations are socialist and hurt business, then, when regulations are removed or weakened, businesses endanger their customers to get more profit. But it's not just Texas. Look at all the many, many businesses in the US that have sickened, crippled or killed their customers in the past few years. From contaminated food and medicine to machines that kill. It's everywhere. The absurd thing here is that Bob seems to believe that the same businesses that bribe legislators to tailor laws to their business model are going to be very concerned about the welfare of their customers, when doing the opposite has no negative repercussions whatsoever.
But whenever businesses are caught doing crimes, you only get ever more people like Bob who complain that society isn't dependent enough on private businesses yet.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 14, 2019 14:11:18 GMT -5
So you agree with my arguments that the government shouldn't do too much because it screws up! Maybe if the government didn't have so many jobs to do, it could concentrating on doing a good job in the few areas where it is necessary. Bob I made no such claim. I did, however, ask you a question that you haven't answered. Easy answer. If the government has less to do, it has less chance to screw up. Very good, Bob, your first piece of evidence in this discussion! Now you only need to demonstrate that insurance companies investigate causes of death on part of their policyholders![/quote] Are you joking? Insurance companies are constantly collecting data on the causes and frequency of death. In the long run, that saves them money. Ever hear of Insurance Actuarys? bizfluent.com/info-8118949-insurance-actuary.htmlwww.insuranceworkforce.com/blog/jobseekers/insurance-actuary/"How many people are currently employed as an Actuaries in the United States? There are approximately 19700 people employed as an Actuaries. studentscholarships.org/professions/499/employed/actuaries.php#sthash.Q3iaMcfO.dpbsOf course one of the things actuarys do is investigate causes and frequency of death. By that logic, dead people don't have accidents. So the best way to avoid accidents is to be dead. Reducing government duties to the bare minimum will reduce screw ups while also preventing Anarchy. Your aren't advocating Anarchy, are you? Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 14, 2019 14:12:39 GMT -5
Indeed. Because businesses bribe legislators to not protect citizens in the name of a "free market". Basically, it's the crony capitalism that we speak of so often. Businesses claim that regulations are socialist and hurt business, then, when regulations are removed or weakened, businesses endanger their customers to get more profit. But it's not just Texas. Look at all the many, many businesses in the US that have sickened, crippled or killed their customers in the past few years. From contaminated food and medicine to machines that kill. It's everywhere.
Sue the bastards!
Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 14, 2019 14:20:15 GMT -5
Indeed. Because businesses bribe legislators to not protect citizens in the name of a "free market". Basically, it's the crony capitalism that we speak of so often. Businesses claim that regulations are socialist and hurt business, then, when regulations are removed or weakened, businesses endanger their customers to get more profit. But it's not just Texas. Look at all the many, many businesses in the US that have sickened, crippled or killed their customers in the past few years. From contaminated food and medicine to machines that kill. It's everywhere. The absurd thing here is that Bob seems to believe that the same businesses that bribe legislators to tailor laws to their business model are going to be very concerned about the welfare of their customers, when doing the opposite has no negative repercussions whatsoever. Do you have any direct quotes from my posts where I said that? Don't bother searching for them. There are none. I never said any such thing. One of the purposes of government is to prevent Fraud and Reckless Endangerment. A government that doesn't do that is not doing its job and should be replaced. Once again, you have no direct quotes from my posts. That's because I never said that either. A government that doesn't prosecute businesses that commit fraud or who endanger their customers is simply not doing its job. Bob
|
|
|
Post by faskew on May 15, 2019 13:36:25 GMT -5
>Sue the bastards! ---Teas is also one of the states that tries to limit lawsuits and the amounts that people can sure for. Again, all in the name of a free market when the reality is bought legislators. Sigh.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 15, 2019 13:41:44 GMT -5
>Sue the bastards! ---Teas is also one of the states that tries to limit lawsuits and the amounts that people can sure for. Again, all in the name of a free market when the reality is bought legislators. Sigh. They limit lawsuits? And Texas calls itself a "free market" state?
If there is no way to redress grievances, how is that different from a tyranny?
Bob
|
|
|
Post by faskew on May 16, 2019 7:04:21 GMT -5
What our Republican overlords in Texas mean by "free market" is that businesses own the government, and the main competition is between businesses throwing their puppets at each other to get the laws that help them and hurt their competitors. 8-<
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 16, 2019 11:44:30 GMT -5
What our Republican overlords in Texas mean by "free market" is that businesses own the government, and the main competition is between businesses throwing their puppets at each other to get the laws that help them and hurt their competitors. 8-< Actually Fred, there is another name for that: Fascism. No dictatorial leader yet in Texas, but the second definition seems to fit. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2019 11:52:38 GMT -5
"Fascism", also known as, "leftist college students".
As we can see these leftist HitlerStalins have already taken away freedom from Texas.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 16, 2019 14:18:14 GMT -5
"Fascism", also known as, "leftist college students". As we can see these leftist HitlerStalins have already taken away freedom from Texas.
When did I ever claim that leftist college students are the only threat to democracy?
At least the rich bastards in charge of Texas haven't taken away freedom of speech...yet.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by faskew on May 17, 2019 13:20:38 GMT -5
Well, they're trying. 8->
The lege only meets every 2 years and they're about to be done for this session in a couple of weeks. The evangelical right has a disproportionate amount of power, due to gerrymandering, and they're trying to ram some laws through at the last minute. One concern Chick-fil-A. The city of San Antonio told Chick-fil-A that couldn't open up a shop in the San Antonia airport. Two reasons: (1) being owned by evangelicals, they are closed on Sundays. (2) the owners donate a lot of money to anti-LGBT efforts.
The Texas lege is trying to pass a law that no government agency, like a city, can punish a business for its religious beliefs. Which sounds OK until you consider - what if it were a Satanist chicken place that wanted to open in the airport? Obviously that could not be allowed. So basically the lege wants to pass laws that protect evangelical business only. If this one passes, I hope some Satanists or somebody test it out by requesting all sorts of things that will freak the evangelicals out. LOL
|
|