How to reduce health care prices 80% in 2 easy steps:

[James972]

you don't want question what you believe to be an unquestionable true, "[/I].
.

For 8th time: I have already questioned conservatism , if you have a Socratic question to ask that will expose conservatism's untruth ask it, or admit you cant. Shall we go for 9 ??

 

[James972]

Bare in mind that I have not established any truth but only presented arguments for a point of view,.

Ok so at the moment you lack the IQ to establish what is true; so you have to start from the beginning. Here are 5 simple questions. Do you know what conservatism is? What? Are you a conservative? Why? Why not?

 

[James972]

)if so why so afraid to present evidence that I have refuted Plato??
I just showed you that I did already. .

where????
Here is where you refuted Plato:.............................................

you fill in where the dots are. Do you understand?

 

[C R O I X]

if you commit murder the court wants to find the truth about whether you did it!!!!

Socrates engaged in questioning of his students in an unending search for truth. He sought to get to the foundations of his students' and colleagues' views by asking continual questions until a contradiction was exposed, thus proving the fallacy of the initial assumption. This became known as the Socratic Method, and may be Socrates' most enduring contribution to philosophy.

The court is only interested knowing if the suspect accusation is true or not, as well as interpret the law. The court itself does not investigate any crime in order to find out somebody did or not. If the suspect can prove he didn't commit the crime, the court is not going to look for whom committed the crime, the court will only close the case. If the suspect didn't committed the crime but can not prove it, the court will not look forwards to find more information to find the truth about the crime, the court will condemn the suspect. Courts only mediate disputes and interpret the laws.

"The Socratic Method" you commenced has nothing to do with how you talk here.
Socratic Methoc is first:
- Collaborative engagement to what the interlocutor says. Meaning that the one who is asking does not say "wrong" or have a pre-opinion to defend as you are doing. It is only based on questions and when the one who is answering contradict what was said by himself on previous questions, then the contradicted hypothesis is eliminated.
- The question is pure about the subject of the talk and not about judging the one who is answering as you are doing.

So if you want to actually use such method you first have to avoid express your own opinions, you have to point contradiction among what I have said in order to eliminate the contradicted hypothesis and accept the hypothesis that has no contradiction among what I have said. In other words, the "truth" has to be found by my own while I answer the question and not by you telling me "wrong" and trying to push what you believe to be the truth. Otherwise it has nothing to do with The Socratic Method.

I already did question them and learned that they are correct. If you think they are incorrect say why. A long goof ball rant is not saying why. See, you are totally crushed in 1% of the words you need!

Just as I said, you belive you have the unshakable truth and because of that you don't want question your own believes, and not tolerate others to question what you believe.
I already said why I think what you say is incorrect but again, you will never read, considerate and think about any questioning while you believe to have all the truth.
You will call any questioning as goof ball rant, even Adam Smith quotes, even Platos quotes, even the Iron Cage theory and anything that question your unshakable believe.

For 8th time: I have already questioned conservatism , if you have a Socratic question to ask that will expose conservatism's untruth ask it, or admit you cant. Shall we go for 9 ??

I have no intention on expose conservatism untruth.
I have no Socratic question and so you. All I have is Dialectics and rhetoric

Now you talk about Socrates who was against emotional debate. Meaning he was against the talk like you do, trying to convince others believing you have the truth, being against anything and anyone who question your believe, and tagging people call them names and associate to groups as attempt to denigrate the one who does not agree with your truth.

Ok so at the moment you lack the IQ to establish what is true; so you have to start from the beginning. Here are 5 simple questions. Do you know what conservatism is? What? Are you a conservative? Why? Why not?

It is way too off topic that just confirm what I say on the paragraph above.
Again, you have nothing to say about the topic subject and the following subjects you brought up.

 

[C R O I X]

where????
Here is where you refuted Plato:.............................................

you fill in where the dots are. Do you understand?

Ok, once again:

you mean the only significant issue in human history is not freedom versus govt as Plato and Aristotle thought? So then what is it????

Have you ever read The Republic from Plato?

"freedom is for Plato a true value, democracy involves the danger of excessive freedom, of doing as one likes, which leads to anarchy. Secondly, equality, related to the belief that everyone has the right and equal capacity to rule, brings to politics all kinds of power-seeking individuals, motivated by personal gain rather than public good. Democracy is thus highly corruptible. It opens gates to demagogues, potential dictators, and can thus lead to tyranny. Hence, although it may not be applicable to modern liberal democracies, Plato’s main charge against the democracy he knows from the ancient Greek political practice is that it is unstable, leading from anarchy to tyranny, and that it lacks leaders with proper skill and morals. Democracy depends on chance and must be mixed with competent leadership (501b)."
Plato: Political Philosophy | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Plato is also the Philosopher who said Gov. have to control what kind of music and other arts people should make and enjoy, and defended gov. laws that guarantee the right of people slave others nationalities.

And I have already answered your question to you.



Reason why Plato says people have to be governed by strong and prepared leadership and not democracy alone. For plato too much freedom is bad.

Our question is not whether I have read Republic but whether the only significant issue in human history is freedom versus govt as Plato and Aristotle thought? If not what is it.

So you want talk about Plato and Aristotle thoughts about freedom and gov. without putting their thoughts in consideration and calling their thoughts as "long meadering rant".

And than you make the same question that was just answered with Smith and Plato thoughts, and you tell such thoughts are wrong.

The thing is, you don't actually want talk about anything. You have your idealistic point of view that you follow by faith and have used no argument or explanation about what you say a part from idealistic "powerful words" faith. You sometimes use empty accusatory adjectives trying to discredit what was said because you have nothing else to say other to just disagree for the disagreement sake, and after that asking questions that was just answered.You want talk about Adam Smith and Plato point of view to support your "powerful words" faith while you reject their point of view when brought to you. And you keep doing that because you have absolutely nothing to talk about other than just preach powerful worlds used as argument for your pure faith on such "powerful words".

Nobody is waist your time but yourself. All you have to do is to say that you disagree because you have your believes ("powerful words") and full stop. Because there is nothing else to talk about.

don't want to talk about them but rather know what the issue in human history is if not freedom versus govt and Plato as Aristotle explained. Did you think it coincidental that in every election in America the issue is freedom (Republican) versus govt ( Democrat) ? Do you understand now?

You see how you make no sense and keep avoiding talkings that you bring up to avoid the previous talk you had brought up.






Now about Adam Smith:

Yes, it is also what Adam smith said.

Now, profit and competition are two different things (as I have explained) that Adam smith approached. He says greed is a bad thing driven by profit, it is malevolent. But greed in a free market competition turns to be good and this is the invisible hand. Because driven by greed business will try to offer the best product or price and service than their competitors in order to obtain higher capital accumulation (capitalism).

This is why monopoly is bad, because the drive for profit without competition there is no invisible hand.

wrong of course Adam Smith was a champion of capitalism. Now do you understand?

 

[OldFatGuy]

reducing prices 80% is not a solution?

Throwing a number out into the omniverse resolves nothing. Yours isn't a solution, it doesn't even pass muster as an illusion.

 

[OldFatGuy]

if you commit murder the court wants to find the truth about whether you did it!!!!\

The court wants to clear the calendar. The court has no other desires. It is impartial. Judges are judged by administrative judges on the basis of how quickly they clear their calendars, and how many complaints they hear from both prosecuting and defense attorneys in criminal courts, the same for litigating attorneys in civil matters, along with the number of appeals.

 

[James972]

The court wants to clear the calendar. The court has no other desires..

that would make them evil which is mostly not the case.

 

[James972]

Judges are judged by administrative judges on the basis of how quickly they clear their calendars,.

wrong of course. A judge would be quickly fired for, say, not allowing an atty to call as many witnesses as he wanted, in order to clear the judges calendar.

 

[OldFatGuy]

that would make them evil which is mostly not the case.

It doesn't make the court evil, it makes the court impartial and fair. No one wants to hear Judge Roy Bean say "We'll give you a fair trial, and then fine and hang you." That's evil.

 

[OldFatGuy]

wrong of course. A judge would be quickly fired for, say, not allowing an atty to call as many witnesses as he wanted, in order to clear the judges calendar.

In US courts, judges do not have the discretion to quantify the number of witnesses called by either attorney. It is in the spirit of justice to hear all pertinent witnesses. Subsequent to a motion by an opposing attorney, a judge can dismiss the testimony of a witness, but not of his or own volition, except in extreme moments when opposing counsel severely fails to meet the needs of his or her client. I suggest you spend some time observing real time hearings and trials. You'll find judges rule independently mostly on form, inclusive of etiquette. i.e. A judge I was friendly with for many years favorite pretrial instruction to attorneys was, "if you can say it in 4 words, then don't say it in 20 words to waste the court's time."

 

[Critter7r]

nobody is talking about unrestrained freedom, obviously. you changed the subject without seeing it.

So you're advocating for socialism.

You simply disagree about the extent of that socialism.

You're welcome.

 

[James972]

So you're advocating for socialism.
.

if so please present an example or admit you cant.

 

[James972]

In US courts, judges do not have the discretion to quantify the number of witnesses called by either attorney. "

right, so trials can go on forever and judges can often do nothing to clear their calendars.

 

[James972]

"if you can say it in 4 words, then don't say it in 20 words to waste the court's time."

so? obviously there is some concern with the efficiency of the system? And???

 

[DVSentinel]

1) have people shop with their own money or vouchers and keep what they don't spend
2) have providers compete on basis of price and quality

wrong....

step 1) allow hospitals to deny non-paying, non-insured.
step 2) stop the us from paying for every other countries drugs and healthcare advancements.

 

[Critter7r]

if so please present an example or admit you cant.

The absence of socialism is anarchy. You said that nobody is advocating for anarchy. I assume you include yourself in "nobody". Ergo, you're advocating for socialism, just (possibly) less socialism than someone else.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

 

[James972]

The absence of socialism is anarchy.

100% wrong of course. Socialism is when govt owns the commanding heights ie the big industries. In the absence of socialism you can have capitalism for example. Now do you understand?

 

[James972]

.

step 1) allow hospitals to deny non-paying, non-insured.
.

well, we really don't want people dying at emergency room doors

 

[James972]

step 2) stop the us from paying for every other countries drugs and healthcare advancements.

not sure about that one. Yes, drug companies, for example, charge Americans more because we are richer but if they didn't they'd probably have less revenue for research or if they charged Europe full freight they'd probably have less revenue too. I'm sure they work it out to get maximum revenue for themselves which is ok.

but your suggestions are relatively trivial compared to op suggestion advocating full on switch to essentials of capitalism

 

[DVSentinel]

well, we really don't want people dying at emergency room doors

Better that, than everyone dying when the system collapses......or goes socialist and degrades to dark age lvls.

 

[DVSentinel]

not sure about that one. Yes, drug companies, for example, charge Americans more because we are richer but if they didn't they'd probably have less revenue for research or if they charged Europe full freight they'd probably have less revenue too. I'm sure they work it out to get maximum revenue for themselves which is ok.

but your suggestions are relatively trivial compared to op suggestion advocating full on switch to essentials of capitalism

or when the drugs dry up, then the socialist systems will privatize and europe and parts of asia will have to pay their fair share.....

the suggestion doesn't really advocate for switching to the "essentials of capitalism"......that being if you don't earn it for yourself, then you don't get it.....having others forced to pay for you is never capitalism, it's socialism....and slavery!

 

[Critter7r]

100% wrong of course. Socialism is when govt owns the commanding heights ie the big industries. In the absence of socialism you can have capitalism for example. Now do you understand?

Capitalism without regulation is anarchy. Regulation is a form of socialism.

You're still advocating for a form of socialism.

But let's keep this up, it's uber productive.

 

[James972]

. Regulation is a form of socialism.
.

gibberish!! both capitalism and socialism require govt regulations and control, but they are different words for different economic ideas.

 

[James972]

Better that, than everyone dying when the system collapses......or goes socialist and degrades to dark age lvls.

well system is not going to collapse any time soon so not a worry. In any case we won't let people die outside ER doors. It would be heartless. Better to have as much capitalism as possible without some people dying at ER doors. Debtors prison would be better idea than letting them die. Do you understand?