Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
The ultimate end of nanny state health care
Posted by: McQ on Friday, September 14, 2007

I say "ultimate end" because it simply follows if the state and those who represent it feel they are the final arbiters of your health care and how and under what conditions it will be provided, the following comes at no surprise at all:
A man with a broken ankle is facing a lifetime of pain because a Health Service hospital has refused to treat him unless he gives up smoking.

John Nuttall, 57, needs surgery to set the ankle which he broke in three places two years ago because it did not mend naturally with a plaster cast.

Doctors at the Royal Cornwall Hospital in Truro have refused to operate because they say his heavy smoking would reduce the chance of healing, and there is a risk of complications which could lead to amputation.

They have told him they will treat him only if he gives up smoking. But the former builder has been unable to break his habit and is now resigned to coping with the injury as he cannot afford private treatment.

He is in constant pain from the grating of the broken bones against each other and has been prescribed daily doses of morphine.
Meanwhile the nanny's say:
A spokesman for the hospital trust said: "Smoking has a very big influence on the outcome of this type of surgery, and the healing process would be hindered significantly."
Or, shorter version, "if he won't do it our way, "screw 'em".
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
How does smoking affect your damned bones and ankle?!!?
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
But the important point is that socialized medicine is fair. Unless you smoke or otherwise displease the government.

And if the government likes you, you might get special care. Like Castro, when he had that doctor following him during that walk, or protest, or whatever it was. I take it he is really liked by the government in Cuba.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Well, there’s an easy compromise available here: Mr. Nuttall should agree to be euthanized and treatment will be made available immediately.

I’m a great believer that "universal" health care believers ain’t seen nothin’ until they see the American version. Now that’s going to be a system where the profoundly sick will get the kind of treatment they deserve. You can’t have the sick mucking up the record of new wave care, that would be very upsetting to the healthy.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
It seems like socialized health care is incompatible with the hippocratic oath.
 
Written By: FisherOfMen
URL: http://
It seems like socialized health care is incompatible with the Hippocratic oath.
hehe well pointed
 
Written By: josh b
URL: http://
FisherOfMen writes:
It seems like socialized health care is incompatible with the hippocratic oath.
Hush. Mustn’t call it "socialized health care." It’s universal health care now. Just like global warming is now climate change, just in case the temperature drops.

Universal simply mean that everyone gets it, right up the ass.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Yea what are the odds that smoking will interfere with the healing process of a broken ankle? I would guess they would be low odds. Like... low enough to be equal to anything else happening on Earth as a possible cause.

No don’t worry about that filthy smoker, just give him a gallon of morphine everyday.
 
Written By: jows
URL: http://
I don’t know what this has to do with the medicine being socialized. This is about a (rather pugnacious) set of doctor, who may or may not be making an appropriate call with regard to the risks from a surgery — I don’t see the bureaucracy being involved here, just doctors.
 
Written By: Mithras
URL: http://harnly.net
I don’t know what this has to do with the medicine being socialized. This is about a (rather pugnacious) set of doctor, who may or may not be making an appropriate call with regard to the risks from a surgery — I don’t see the bureaucracy being involved here, just doctors.
Really? So why hasn’t he been treated elsewhere? Why haven’t other doctors come forward and volunteered to treat him?

It would seem the "rather pugnacious" doctors have at least the tacit backing of the system.

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I want to go to public school because I’m paying for it, but I want to go naked because clothese make me itchy.

They won’t let me... Nanny state, Nanny state!

I am sure that GB or the US for that matter, could decide to have universal coverage that had no caveats whatsoever, well, except that one caveat about having to pay for care with no caveats.

His problem is that he just hasn’t worked hard enough to afford private care that would not have any caveats.

Me, I found a private school that if pay them enough, not only can I go naked, but all the teachers are naked too!!! Of course I still have to pay for public school as well.

I understand the POV here, you hate the idea of national healthcare, and anything that shows is warts is fodder, but the reality is that if it were in place, it would be the libertarians that would be shouting the loudest about not wanting to pay for people to be incautious, and they’ll go back to posting stories about social medicine covering the expenses to of triple transgenderspecies self impregnation DVD’s.

I wish elements of the healthcare industry didn’t do such a fantastic job of taking advantage of the money the government had already been putting in the system, but hey, it’s capitalism, and that’s their job.

Cap





 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
it would be the libertarians that would be shouting the loudest about not wanting to pay for people to be incautious
Your damn right. How could we not?
 
Written By: josh b
URL: http://
His problem is that he just hasn’t worked hard enough to afford private care that would not have any caveats.
Great ... so his alternative is how much superior than if he were here?

Heck, at least here, he might get charity.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
...it would be the libertarians that would be shouting the loudest about not wanting to pay for people to be incautious ...

LOL!

Have another beer, Cap.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I wish elements of the healthcare industry didn’t do such a fantastic job of taking advantage of the money the government had already been putting in the system,but hey, it’s capitalism, and that’s their job.
HUH!!!
 
Written By: tom scott
URL: http://
Heck, at least here, he might get charity.

I think charity is available in the UK. But most charity organizations seem to be run by types would approve of the non smoking line, and would turn him down.

"if he won’t do it our way, "screw ’em

Aren’t screws often used to hold broken bones together? You may want to rephrase that phrase.

On the serious level: there is actually a link between smoking and osteoporosis, so the no-smoking line does have a basis in fact, and is more (in this case) than just an anti-smoker policy inflicted on the unfortunate—smoking can keep bones from healing. But it is a good condemnation of British health care that Mr.Nuttall is apparently confined to to one set of doctors and one hospital.

(And—more a quibble than anything else—enforced suicide would be the ultimate end. This is merely one more step on the way there.)
 
Written By: kishnevi
URL: http://
I wish elements of the healthcare industry didn’t do such a fantastic job of taking advantage of the money the government had already been putting in the system, but hey, it’s capitalism, and that’s their job.
For years the AMA fought tooth and nail against national health care because they didn’t want their members enslaved like, say, school teachers. But then a few years ago it finally occurred to them that if American health care were nationalized, it would be the AMA that would get to run it, so now they’re all for it. I’m not sure you can call it capitalism though.

yours/
peter.
 
Written By: peter jackson
URL: www.liberalcapitalist.com
...it would be the libertarians that would be shouting the loudest about not wanting to pay for people to be incautious ...

LOL!
If you kept the transgenderspecies self-impregnation bit in the snip the LOL would have made more sense, but are you seriously disagreeing with this, or just laughing at the admittedly circular logic of it all?

It’s kind of like GWB sending troops into combat and then saying that you have to support his mission because troops are in combat. Well, DUH!
HUH!!!
Private businesses selling to the government or to people who are paying by way of government subsidies is capitalism.

Think Lockheed or Halliburton.

The problem is that private businesses are great at pushing the price as high as it can go (it’s their job) and the government is not so great at keeping prices as low as they can be.

Any questions?
Have another beer, Cap.
I have been working on a 300 page RFP response for 3 weeks, culminating in about 20 hours straight of spreadsheet madness that I just finished about 5 minutes ago.

I am ready for a one man kegger!!!

Cap

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
I have been working on a 300 page RFP response for 3 weeks, culminating in about 20 hours straight of spreadsheet madness that I just finished about 5 minutes ago.

I am ready for a one man kegger!!!
Oh man, I would be too ... go for it!
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"He is in constant pain from the grating of the broken bones against each other and has been prescribed daily doses of morphine"

Just wait until they decide that he is in danger of becoming addicted and stop prescribing the morphine.

"his is about a (rather pugnacious) set of doctor, who may or may not be making an appropriate call with regard to the risks from a surgery — I don’t see the bureaucracy being involved here, just doctors."

The doctors are employees of the National Health Service, which makes the rules. The doctors are just following orders.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Yea what are the odds that smoking will interfere with the healing process of a broken ankle? I would guess they would be low odds. Like... low enough to be equal to anything else happening on Earth as a possible cause.
I was wondering this myself, and until I read the following, I would not have thought that smoking would make enough difference to be a blip on a graph. Apparently I was wrong...
A study by the Northwestern University Medical School in Chicago was performed on 54 patients who underwent surgery for a wrist injury.

Of these patients, 95% of the non-smokers healed completely, but only 68% of the smokers. The same study showed that smokers’ fractures took two months longer to heal.
I am not remotely qualified to say whether it’s practical to make the guy quit smoking in order to operate, but if these numbers hold up, a 32% of smokers who get these operations just don’t heal. That’s amazing.

I should probably either quit motocross riding and skateboarding, or smoking.

Hmm...
The doctors are employees of the National Health Service, which makes the rules. The doctors are just following orders.
Most likely.

However, when this guy broke his ankle in the first place, they would have done this immediately as emergency surgery, smoker or not. As it was he refused the surgery and he turned this in elective surgery.

I agree it’s easy to call that a bureacratic decision, and perhaps rightly so, but WTF, can you imagine having your ankle broken in three places and being told it needs surgery and refusing it? This element may seem irrelvant, but it’s not. Elective surgery can certainly be treated differently than emergency surgery, and you have define elective surgery somehow... so a surgery that someone elected NOT to have would certainly seem to qualify.

And beside, he only has to stop smoking for a month.

Not that quitting smoking while your stoned on morphine with a crushed ankle makes for an optimum quit date.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
"timeactual"

What does this name mean?

Every time I see it, I think of a Stephen King short story called "Everything’s Eventual"

Does it have something to do with processing time?

Just curious.
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Get ready.

Here it comes.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
"Oh man, I would be too ... go for it!

That’s adorably cute, Bruce. Very collegial.

In the meantime: how the hell can you let that jackass get away with his mutilation of the concept of "capitalism"?

I know damned well that you know better than that.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
No kiddin’, Martin.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Oh man, I would be too ... go for it!
Thanks Bruce, I did!
In the meantime: how the hell can you let that jackass get away with his mutilation of the concept of "capitalism"?
Wait a second... we may have a breakthrough here.

Are companies that sell stuff to the government, or to people for whom the government funds NOT capitalists?

Are these companies NOT capitalist enterprises...

Lockheed Martin Corp. $4,848,878,000 1

2 Northrop Grumman Corp. $3,508,169,000 2

3 Science Applications International Corp. $1,992,986,000 4

4 Boeing Co. $1,922,766,000 3

5 Computer Sciences Corp. $1,853,644,000 6

6 Raytheon Co. $1,491,948,000 7

7 General Dynamics Corp. $1,265,555,000 5

8 WorldCom Inc. $772,448,000 12

9 Electronic Data Systems Corp. $660,325,000 11

10 BAE Systems plc $638,692,000 21

11 Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. $636,766,000 9

12 L-3 Communications Corp. $573,630,000 28

13 Dell Computer Corp. $557,677,000 13

14 Anteon International Corp. $555,744,000 17

15 Titan Corp. $514,175,000 14

16 Affiliated Computer Services Inc. $456,915,000 15

17 GTSI Corp. $432,610,000 16

18 IBM Corp. $393,921,000 23

19 CACI International Inc. $388,304,000 18

20 Unisys Corp. $384,744,000 10

21 ITT Industries Inc. $377,012,000 35

22 Veridian Corp. $339,147,000 53

23 Accenture Ltd. $331,010,000 24

24 Motorola Inc. $312,626,000 20

25 Harris Corp. $294,173,000 25

26 ARINC Inc. $277,558,000 26

27 Consolidated Engineering Services Inc. $271,190,000 na

28 Mitre Corp. $266,743,000 na

29 Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. $260,308,000 33

30 Honeywell Inc. $244,334,000 36

31 AT&T Corp. $243,455,000 19

32 SRA International Inc. $243,386,000 31

33 Carlyle Group $233,656,000 45

34 Oracle Corp. $233,134,000 32

35 DigitalNet Inc. $228,021,000 37

36 ManTech International Corp. $225,497,000 29

37 BearingPoint Inc. $225,271,000 30

38 Rockwell Collins Inc. $218,428,000 68

39 Halliburton Co. $212,482,000 na

40 PlanetGov Inc. $212,105,000 27

41 Hewlett Packard Co. $209,933,000 40

42 PEC Solutions Inc. $191,248,000 73

43 Verizon Communications Inc


All I’m saying that if an entity has a dollar to spend, capitalists don’t shy away if the hand that holds the dollar is the government.

Can you tell me how I have "mutilated the concept"?

The funny thing is that a lot of companies who garner the vast majority of their revenues from the government could never even show up on this list, because they contract with private parties, but the government pays the bill.

Are they not capitalists either?

We’ll all use your defintion Beck, just tell us what it is.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
timactual writes:
The doctors are employees of the National Health Service, which makes the rules. The doctors are just following orders.
As things wind down in the UK (and here, too, with a lag time of at most 20 years behind), they’ll eventually have a cutoff age beyond which they basically stop giving serious treatment. In the U.S., this will be pursued with much greater alacrity given our more aggressive ways in getting things done.

The cutoff age will supplement all sorts of other conditional responses based on things like smoking, obesity, drinking, an inclination to have too many children, genetic and congenital conditions or predispositions, poor performance in psychological profiles, etc.

This will be necessary because no matter what "the health care system must work efficiently." As the population ages the number-one treatment will be euthanasia, of both the de facto and de jure varieties.

Only the healthy will be satisfied with "universal" care because, after all, they won’t be needing it, but it will be so reassuring. Plus, you know how troublesome aging parents can be to the happiness of modern living.

Of course, everyone will have to be pre-screened to get into the system in the first place, which will be done in the womb. And for those parents unenlightened enough to refuse abortion of, at first, babies with the gene for Down’s syndrom (e.g.) and, later, babies with the gene for, say, type-one diabetes, abortion will be made mandatory or, in some cases, post-natal care will be carefully rationed in other more fruitful directions.

So, a broad spectrum eugenic screening at the beginning of life and a prompt resort to euthanasia at the end (the Dutch, as always, are in the forefront) will keep the decks nicely swabbed for efficient universal care. Then the important restrictions for dealing with those ’tweeners who smoke, get fat, drink, etc. will add greater effectiveness.

You see, the importance of universal care is such that the truly sick, the potentially sick, and the old will have to be removed so that system can function as it was meant to.

And, by the way, we’re already well into the "therapeutic abortions" at the beginning and the "do not resucitate" kindness at the end here in the U.S. The margins and situations in which both are employed will be carefully and fully expanded right up to the point where the marker between health care and the lethal injections of capital punishment will be a distinction with only a ceremonial difference.

"Not with a bang, but a whimper."
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
That’s adorably cute, Bruce. Very collegial.

In the meantime: how the hell can you let that jackass get away with his mutilation of the concept of "capitalism"?

I know damned well that you know better than that.
That’s why this blog has a comment section. If you feel inclined to keep him from "get[ting] away with" it, you’re free to do so.

So why don’t you?

You’re also invited to quit telling me what I should or shouldn’t say here.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"So why don’t you?"

I have.

I could use the bloody help. That’s all.

Forget it.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
I could use the bloody help. That’s all.
Really?

Well sometimes "help" comes in the form of laughing off the ridiculous.
LOL!

Have another beer, Cap.
Apparently you missed that.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
" As it was he refused the surgery and he turned this in elective surgery"

Would it have healed any better if the surgery had been done immediately? Why was his smoking not an issue then?

" Initially he refused surgery because he had caught MRSA at a different hospital four years earlier, and was terrified of history repeating itself."

Sounds reasonable to me. He was presented with two treatment options, he chose the non-surgical one first. I don’t think this makes further treatment ’elective’. If I have, God forbid, MRSA and choose to treat it initially with antibiotics instead of immediate amputation, does that mean that, if the antibiotics don’t work and it is spreading uncontrollably, amputation is elective surgery?


"What does this name mean?"

It’s timactual, not timeactual. When I first got on the internet and commented on a blog, I used ’tim’ and assumed that I was the only tim in the universe. Someone else posted a comment signed ’tim’ which I didn’t agree with and I thought, in my ignorance and arrogance, that someone was impersonating me. I hysterically protested that there was an evil SOB impersonating me, the actual tim, and used timactual. It turned out that the other ’tim’ had been posting there for over a year, and that I was, in effect, the evil impersonating SOB. Most embarrassing. I have used ’timactual’ ever since. Why change? I could have used ’tinytim’, I suppose, but why give ammunition to my many detractors.

**************************

"As things wind down in the UK (and here, too, with a lag time of at most 20 years behind), they’ll eventually have a cutoff age beyond which they basically stop giving serious treatment."

I read somewhere a few years ago that Germany stopped giving kidney dialysis to anyone over the age of 72. The Dutch, I also read, seem to encourage voluntary euthanasia entirely too enthusiastically and without due regard to bureacratic requirements such as informed consent of the actual patient. Since I am approaching that age all too rapidly, I am reconsidering my travel itinerary.


 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Any number of gimps around here could do that, Bruce. If I want to read two-cent twits who’ll wave a cocktail umbrella in the face of such crap, they’re all over the ’net.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Any number of gimps around here could do that, Bruce. If I want to read two-cent twits who’ll wave a cocktail umbrella in the face of such crap, they’re all over the ’net.
I have to expore this strategy.

Let me see if I can flesh it out.

1. Find someone who’s views I disagree with.
2. Call them a name and make an unfounded assertion about their comments.
3. When they respond, ignore their response and again throw out a gratuitous insult.
4. Eventually just make a comment about having no desire to engage with some ridiculously stupid.

5. Engage some other person that you disagree with, rinse, and repeat.

You’re no daisy, you’re no daisy at all.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
"How does smoking affect your damned bones and ankle?!!? "

The same way global warming causes earthquakes.

Since the nannies are all non-smokers, it should be absolutely NO PROBLEM to remove baseball bat barrels from their asses, right?

(BTW, Captin Sarcastic — you win the prize for most bandwidth wasted just running your "mouth" with absolutely nothing to say)

 
Written By: Sharpshooter
URL: http://
Who is that person posing as Scott Erb, and what did he do with the body?
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
No, Billy, you must give Captain Sarcastic credit for at least one thing. He has nothing near the pretension of Herr Doktor Professor Privatdozent Erb.
 
Written By: kishnevi
URL: http://
Who is that person posing as Scott Erb, and what did he do with the body?
Oh did he catch on to your modus sine operandi too?

If you think something is wrong with my assertions, I suggest you do so, even if you think I could not possibly comprehend your response, you should do it for the lurkers, who still don’t even knowing what your whining about.

I said that selling to the goverment (or people who’s tab will be paid by the government) is capitalism.

I would be happy to entertain any dispute you have with this assertion, in fact, I may agree with you.

So say it, just say it, please.

And then we’ll see where the discussion goes.
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
You are saying that selling to a thief is "capitalism".

And you’re bloody stupid: I’ve been around this with you, and I know how and where it goes. It only takes me one bite out of a fecal sandwich to know better than to do it again.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
You are saying that selling to a thief is "capitalism".
That’s what I’m saying. I could be wrong, but if I am, considering the massive numbers of companies, including virtually all of the Fortune 500 companies, then can we even call our economy a capitalist economy at all?

Maybe the only capitalism in this country are "mom and pop’s"?

Or is it incremental, meaning that companies are capitalist only to the extent that they sell to non-governmental entities.

What is a company that accepts food stamps?

What is a company that sells to government employees who are paid with "stolen" money?

I bring all of this up not to play semantic games, but because I believe we are in a corporatist state, and the power of corporations has become so intrinsic in the power of the government that you so despise that they have become the state.
And you’re bloody stupid: I’ve been around this with you, and I know how and where it goes. It only takes me one bite out of a fecal sandwich to know better than to do it again.
4. Eventually just make a comment about having no desire to engage with someone so ridiculously stupid.

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
"I could be wrong,.."
There ain’t no "could" about it.
"Eventually just make a comment about having no desire to engage with someone so ridiculously stupid."
What do you expect, man? Nothing about the ethics or politics of this is even slightly difficult, and you’re playing it like, well, a college professor, or an economist.

I have gone through all of this with you before, and you’re just not worth it.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
I have gone through all of this with you before, and you’re just not worth it.
None of this is about me.

Is the concept worth it?

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
"None of this is about me."
That’s what you think.
"Is the concept worth it?"
It most certainly is, but to grasp it requires positive initiative, and nobody can reach into your head and put it together for you.

I’ve been at this a long time, kid. I always see people like you coming a mile away.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
It most certainly is, but to grasp it requires positive initiative, and nobody can reach into your head and put it together for you.
Billy, you amaze me. You know that dialogue in the blogosphere is more about the views of the people reading the dialogue than it is about the people having the dialogue, so even if you thought you had no chance whatsoever of convincing me of anything, you make the point anyway.
I’ve been at this a long time, kid. I always see people like you coming a mile away.
So it should be easy to make your point with your vast experience, instead, you allow my point to stand and simply insult me.

Why are you so afraid of actually stating your argument as to what is and is not capitalism?

Are you concerned that by your definition of capitalism, you will exclude most of the American economy, and then any arguments you make in the future promoting Laissez-faire policies will actually be a promotion of more freedom for non-capitalist enterprises to act in a non-capitalist manner, which would likely mean movement even farther from a free market economy than we are now?

Think Animal Farm and the pigs, who in that example were the socialist party leaders who made themselves "more equal than others", in the corporatist example, the corporations who use their influence to MAKE LAWS that advantage themselves have made themselves the "more equal pigs".
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
"Why are you so afraid of actually stating your argument as to what is and is not capitalism?"
That is just ridiculous. I am about as "afraid" of that, in your case, as I am of discussing something like the principles of electricity with an infant.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
How does smoking affect your damned bones and ankle?!!?
Fellas, smoking seriously screws with your circulation. Nicotine speeds up the heart, it raises blood pressure, is a vasoconstrictor, and I believe the carbon monoxide is also bad for oxygenating your blood. Healing in your extremities is dependent on good circulation.

If this person deliberately makes his circulation worse, and the trauma of surgery on his foot doesn’t heal and the foot gets gangrenous, that would lead to the amputation they mention.

If his current state of circulatory health will not allow his foot to heal from surgery, then why would these, or any, doctors operate?

Maybe there’s a reason for this other than the inherent evil of socialized medicine.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
In the meantime: how the hell can you let that jackass get away with his mutilation of the concept of "capitalism"?
Without mentioning how, just an unfounded assertion, one that the a whole lot of people who think they are capitalists would disagree with.
"So why don’t you?"

I have.
Really, where, in your head?
You are saying that selling to a thief is "capitalism".

And you’re bloody stupid: I’ve been around this with you, and I know how and where it goes. It only takes me one bite out of a fecal sandwich to know better than to do it again.
Yes, you know you’ll tie yourself in a rhetorical knot, again.
What do you expect, man? Nothing about the ethics or politics of this is even slightly difficult, and you’re playing it like, well, a college professor, or an economist.

I have gone through all of this with you before, and you’re just not worth it.
No, you have never gone around, you have begun the discussion, but shied off and spewed insults before answering answering any of the difficult questions that would have caused your philosophy/religion to become contradictory.
That is just ridiculous. I am about as "afraid" of that, in your case, as I am of discussing something like the principles of electricity with an infant.
You keep saying that. Maybe you’ll convince yourself, if no one else.
I’ve been at this a long time,
You kind of suck at it, maybe you should try something different.

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
"Wah. Billy won’t play with me."

Isn’t it awful?
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
"Wah. Billy won’t play with me."
Nine posts inferring your brilliance and my ignorance, and not one showing it.

You played as I said you would.

You are nothing if not predictable.

Thanks for playing.
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
"Think Animal Farm and the pigs, who in that example were the socialist party leaders who made themselves "more equal than others", in the corporatist example, the corporations who use their influence to MAKE LAWS that advantage themselves have made themselves the "more equal pigs""

And thus Captain Idiotic completely misses the point that it is the very fact that government and business are intertwined that causes the problem in the first place, which is allied to the fact that he doesn’t know (or, more accurately, willfully lobotomizes himself out of the capacity to understand) the difference between corporatism (fascists hate liberal capitalism for the same reasons that the Marxists do) and laissez-faire capitalism.

There’s a reason why corporate heads generally tend to hate the latter and have no trouble -in principle- with government intervention, as long as it raises the cost of entry into their markets while not preventing their operation altogether.
 
Written By: E. Brown
URL: http://
And thus Captain Idiotic completely misses the point
Why would you say I am missing the very point that I am making?
There’s a reason why corporate heads generally tend to hate the latter and have no trouble -in principle- with government intervention, as long as it raises the cost of entry into their markets while not preventing their operation altogether.
Yep, that’s what I’m talking about
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
You said...

"I wish elements of the healthcare industry didn’t do such a fantastic job of taking advantage of the money the government had already been putting in the system, but hey, it’s capitalism..."

Nope, it’s CORPORATISM. The very idea that Billy would have any problem with the elimination of "government health care" (or the WTO or corporate welfare, or [insert intervention here])is ridiculous.

The fact that you cannot and will not differentiate between capitalism and government corporatism marks you as someone unworthy of consideration for discussion.
 
Written By: E. Brown
URL: http://
The fact that you cannot and will not differentiate between capitalism and government corporatism marks you as someone unworthy of consideration for discussion.
Why is it that you assume that I cannot tell the difference?

I have pointed out the difference.

We call our economic model a capitalist model, so it would stand to reason that the entities that make up this model are capitalist enterprises.

But if it’s not (and that’s what I’m arguing here), then dergulation or other laizzes faire suggestions that supposed free marketer’s make, are really just more freedom for non-capitalist enterprises to expand their corporatist enterprises.

When a group of companies in an industry manipulate LAW to their benefit, making entry into their market all but impossible, and then ask for deregulation that does not make entry into the market easier, but gives them a freer hand to exploit their oligopoly, it is not remotely a movement towards the laizzes faire.

Here is a specific example. The oil industry. When Chuck Shumer and John Conyers suggest that the oil industry is an oligopoly that has systematically stagnated refining capabilities to increase profits, laizzes faire supporters call them crazy and defend the oil industry while they blame environmentalists (the useful idiots of oil company profitablity). Virtually all of the major oil companies have had internal memo’s exposed showing their desire to reduce refining capacity in order to increase their margins, and then for 25 years no new refineries are put online and over a hundred are taken offline.

If these are NOT capitalist enterprises, then why should they be defended like this...
It is just a sickening thing to watch him (Shumer) pandering to the stupidity of voters in the United States, with their historical grasp on a par with sixth-graders. He actually wants federal goons to investigate whether oil companies "are purposely underinvesting to keep the market tight". Of course, it’s possible that Schumer really believes that this is the case, although it’s impossible for me to see how, given the obvious effects of environmentalism on American refinery capacity over the past thirty years or so. It’s amazing to me that anyone even tries to operate an oil refinery here anymore, although it’s a tribute to the vastness of this country and the people who live here that anyone still does.
How difficult is it to cave to environmentalist concerns with respect to something you DON’T WANT TO BUILD.

If you agree that these companies are Corporatist entities, essentially enmeshed in the government, then it’s crazy to suggest that they need protection FROM the government. THEY ARE THE GOVERNMENT.

So the arguement that if the government (or evironmentalists) let’s them be (laizzes faire) that they would suddenly be capitalist or more capitalist enterprises, is silly.
"I wish elements of the healthcare industry didn’t do such a fantastic job of taking advantage of the money the government had already been putting in the system, but hey, it’s capitalism..."
It’s what we call capitalism, but it’s not capitalism at all, so suggestions that the free market can do a better job on healthcare than the government is a canard, because THERE IS NO FREE MARKET.

Thank you for making the argument that Beck wouldn’t. He may have known where I was going, but for some reason, he just didn’t want the discussion to get there.
you’re playing it like, well, a college professor, or an economist.
Sometimes you have to give folks enough rope.

Cap




 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://

"We call our economic model a capitalist model,...

to disguise the fact that it, since the New Deal, it is a corporatist model with a greater degree of economic freedom, and hence success, than Eurosocialist dirigisme. The only way to -genuinely- increase that freedom is to divorce business from government. You do not increase the success of parasitism by denying parasites a host body.


"so it would stand to reason that the entities that make up this model are capitalist enterprises."


Tis the very nature of chutzpah to murder one’s parents and then beg for mercy on the grounds of being an orphan. To the extent that an "oligopoly" exists, it does so precisely because of the intervention of parasites like Schumer and and Conyers, thus you are, as you always do, conflating capitalism and corporatism.
 
Written By: E. Brown
URL: http://
Ernest, your not using terms correctly. Corporatism refers to government sponsored interest organizations designed for the purpose of interest aggregation and intermediation. The American "model" remains pluralist, the only corporatist systems out there (recognized in the literature) are in Scandinavia, to some extent in Germany (though that’s declined) and there is a debate about other European states. These are democratic corporatist states. In some third world countries there is authoritarian corporatism as well (Peron’s Argentina, Pinochet’s Chile, Mussolini’s Italy, etc.)
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Tis the very nature of chutzpah to murder one’s parents and then beg for mercy on the grounds of being an orphan. To the extent that an "oligopoly" exists, it does so precisely because of the intervention of parasites like Schumer and and Conyers, thus you are, as you always do, conflating capitalism and corporatism.


I am not conflating capitalism and corporatism, I am saying that we have been calling our economic model capitalism, in error, and arguing about government intervention into a free market that doesn’t exist, is, well silly.

Conyers and Shumer didn’t create corporatism, it has been around since before the turn of the last century in America.

They ARE part of the problem, as are all of our so-called representatives who’s political careers are made possible by corporate largesse.

Shumer and Conyers are just beholden to different interests than McConnel and Frist.

I wish you would address my point, that a free market does not exist in America, therefore arguments that the free market can handle anything better than the government is a canard.
Corporatism refers to government sponsored interest organizations designed for the purpose of interest aggregation and intermediation
At a popular level in recent years "corporatism" has been used to mean the promotion of the interests of private corporations in government over the interests of the public.

I don’t mean Mussolini’s Corporatism, I mean the usurpation of power and enmeshing of private business with government to the extent that the free enterprise is neither free, nor enterprising in the classical sense, but rather in the sense that enterprising now includes the manipulation of government and laws to a private interests benefit. That is what we call capitalism in America.

When Walmart bends the will of community political leaders, are they being capitalists, or corporatists. I suggest the latter. But again, people keep calling it capitalism.

Cap

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
At a popular level in recent years "corporatism" has been used to mean the promotion of the interests of private corporations in government over the interests of the public.

I don’t mean Mussolini’s Corporatism, I mean the usurpation of power and enmeshing of private business with government to the extent that the free enterprise is neither free, nor enterprising in the classical sense, but rather in the sense that enterprising now includes the manipulation of government and laws to a private interests benefit. That is what we call capitalism in America.

When Walmart bends the will of community political leaders, are they being capitalists, or corporatists. I suggest the latter. But again, people keep calling it capitalism.
Well, I guess if I have to accept the popular "misuse" of terms like ’liberalism’ I need to do so with "corporatism" too. :-) I agree completely with your description of what passes for capitalism in America. I don’t feel comfortable using "corporatist" because my field has a completely different and very widespread definition of the term, but I see what you mean.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider