Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:
These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.
However, as I said, if preventative care is low cost and not abused, it can reduce costs.
There are variables to consider here: how much it costs to administer the preventive measure, how effective the preventive measure is in preventing the condition, whether preventing the condition results in the patient surviving longer, thus having even more time to consume healthcare resources for other medical conditions. OF COURSE, allowing sick people to die is a cheaper option. Not treating people with costly conditions to begin with is also cheaper. But this is where we run into ethical issues.
Apparently, many people in this thread find such a discussion to be a "red herring." My, how they'd change their minds if their health problems and lives were in question. So often, people only apply their "ubermensch" mentalities to others. Of course, people with that mentality are either healthy at the time, or do not yet realize their own need for care.
“In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.” -Napoleon
-Eliminating- 3rd-party payment will reduce costs and improve quality of care by forcing providers to compete for the pool of customers who only have $X to spend.
However....It DOES naturally follow that by forcing others to prvovide medical treatment to somoene who cannot pay, that the life of that someone -is- more valuable than the labor that produced the wealth that is then taken to provide for that same someone.
So... According to you...the life of person who cannot pay > the right of someone else to retain the fruits of their labor.
Please - support that position.
I am wrong on neither.Also, one cannot separate the question posed in the OP from an ethical discussion. So-you're wrong on both accounts.
You are trying to discuss a position of a judgement of value of a person in respose to a post that you did not otherwise address in an effort to avoid the substance of said post - which you have still not addressed. Thus, red herring.
Last edited by PzKfW IVe; 09-15-11 at 02:41 PM.
-You- brought up the idea of judging the value of on person over another. I merely applied what you said to the 'must provide treatment' argument, which does exactly that. Thus, it was NOT a non sequitur from YOUR response.but then turn around apply the exact opposite, and claim that it isn't a logical fallacy?
And... you have STILL not responded to the actual point I made in my post - thus, you continue the red herring.
Last edited by PzKfW IVe; 09-15-11 at 02:55 PM.