|
jrode oyur last post was almost two months ago to the day. you ignored literally everything said since your last post to go back to spewing walls of text that nobody will read. do you know why you do this jrode? you're a loving coward you can't even face your own bullshit. gently caress you.
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:02 |
|
|
quote:If your friend had access to a free-market surgical center that provided procedures for cancer (tumor excision for one example) and the cost was less than $10,000 I feel fairly confident that she would have been able to get the money needed for such treatment even without access to insurance. i could not get this treatment unless it was far less than that, like, sub 300 dollars right now so once again jrode makes an argument from his fuckin fantasy land because he's a chickenshit cocksucker who can't fuckin face reality
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'll look back and respond to your earlier post that you mentioned. Do it you loving coward. If the Libertarian revolution ever comes you'll be the piss-poor slave who gets beaten for fun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:Benefit societies only function when the economic situation is relatively good. They were drastically reduced in consequence of the Great Depression, because they have no means of coping with a serious economic crisis. Subscriptions coming in must equal or exceed payments out, otherwise they are insolvent and must collapse. The severe depression drastically increased payouts to members in need of aid, and simultaneously drastically reduced the pool of money available to be paid in as subscriptions. Bankruptcy for most of the organizations followed as a mathematical inevitability. Government intervention was and is the only solution--first in the form of welfare to ameliorate the immediate conditions of misery in the population, second in the form of regulatory laws and structures to prevent another economic collapse before it happens. These approaches did not "crowd out" benefit societies, they collapsed and the state was obliged to replace them with a more robust system. I don't see where you have demonstrated that I have claimed that Beito has made any claims in his book that he hasn't. I'm glad you liked the book overall as it shows an open mind. All I've claimed is that if we were to popularize the mutual aid society method of providing charity and social welfare, it would be a significant and substantial contribution to replacing the State-run welfare system that would be phased out in a libertarian society. As I noted, prices for vital services such as healthcare would fall drastically, taxation would be non-existent and the economy would be much healthier overall so the number of people who would need such charitable services would doubtless fall far below the number currently reliant on government welfare.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:19
|
|
). Along the way he's obliged to make some funny contortions. e.g. in describing how the Loyal Order of Moose weathered the Great Depression, he claims that the Order of Moose didn't reduce benefits payments during the Great Depression. This (p. 231) is in the same section that he notes membership fell by over 50% from 541,463 to 265,664 between 1930 and 1935. Think about that for about two seconds. The Moose may not have reduced the value of benefits in themselves but they did MASSIVELY reduce the number of people eligible to receive benefits by shedding members who were in arrears--by shedding, in fact, exactly those members who would be in a position to make benefits claims while retaining those who were still paying their dues and who had much less need to request aid! Beito presents this as a success. To me it seems more like the Order of the Moose survived the depression by triage, that is, they started out as an unusually large and well-funded fraternal order and then when things got tough they gradually purged needy members to avoid having to pay benefits.
|
jrodefeld posted:I'm responding to Caros's posts where he brought up the point that the death of his friend was the primary reason he chose to abandon libertarianism. That doesn't make any sense to me so I am seeking a bit more clarification. Nothing in what I wrote was in the least bit belittling or un-empathetic to the personal tragedy of losing a loved one. It has certainly happened to me, though I am sure I was not as close to any ofSo many posts in response to anything I write are like a projectile vomit of vitriol and hate. This style of "debate" used to be considered a tacit admission of defeat. I understand getting frustrated once in a while but probably 90% of responses to anything I write constitute this sort of substance-less vitriol. Not a good look. "i'm not gonna address anything you say because you're so meaaaaaaaaaan because i won't address anything you say!" gently caress you you basic bitch
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
jrode tell me more about how qatar isnt actually a slave state its actually just union disputes about lack of rights or whatever retarded bullshit you spewed two months ago before everyone took you to task and chased you away again
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Jrodefeld, it's been months now, why haven't you answered the title question?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't see where you have demonstrated that I have claimed that Beito has made any claims in his book that he hasn't. I'm glad you liked the book overall as it shows an open mind. Except, no, they wouldn't, because they would collapse as soon as economic bad times arrive and they all loving collapse due to simple loving math, as the book you're quoting to make this dumbass argument explicitly shows.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
Jrod, is it true that you sell pirated blu rays?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:jrode tell me more about how qatar isnt actually a slave state its actually just union disputes about lack of rights or whatever retarded bullshit you spewed two months ago before everyone took you to task and chased you away again actually, gently caress everything else, let's go back to this. Jrod do you still argue that Qatar isn't a real slave state and is more economically free than the U.S.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
jrode tell me about your business selling fuckin hk martial arts movies that you pirated and custom compiled out of multiple sources and then burned to bluray which is in no way a fuckin retarded business plan
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
jrode tell me about googling ron paul
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
jrode tell me why you're such a piece of poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:All I've claimed is that if we were to popularize the mutual aid society method of providing charity and social welfare, it would be a significant and substantial contribution to replacing the State-run welfare system that would be phased out in a libertarian society. I mean this is a nonsense claim but if this is all you're after, it's irrelevant because no one else has "replacing the State-run welfare system" in the course of building libertopia as their goal because you have nothing backing up your fairy-tale claims (lol that you "noted") about how it will all be better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
If I forged a contract saying you were signed in to unconditional servitude to me, and it was your word against mine and the contract's, how would I be caught? You're in sour grapes because you don't wanna fulfill the contract, I've got the paper with your signature, and my buddy hear swears he saw us agree on it. What's your recourse? What if you did sign it but I altered the terms later in private, so you did sign a contract and Buddy saw? What then? Break the contract? Violate the non-aggression principle? Accept slavery? And as the gap in wealth grows, a rich person can be even more insured against the scheme falling out. How could you possibly have a good system if it enables and defends bad faith if they have the slightest advantage?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
jrode tell me why do fools fall in love
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:actually, gently caress everything else, let's go back to this. As a follow-up, jrod would you accept that foreign workers in Qatar really are slaves if they have to pay income tax?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
Jrod, I think it's not only justified, but an outright moral good to kill anyone involved in the slave trade. If someone firebombed the home of an auctioneer who organized auctions where slaves were bought and sold, I'd ask if the auctioneer lived alone, and if he did then I'd say that arsonist is a hero (and if not, I'd say they are a good person with some failings). If someone had kidnapped and hanged the entire crew of a slave galley during the days of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, I'd say there were a hero. If someone had walked right up to George Washington and shot him in the face simply for the crime for owning a slave, I'd say that assassin is a national hero and we should have a holiday to celebrate that murder. I do not feel there's any level of participation that is so low your murder should be condemned. Maybe if you were only incidentally involved such as a worker at a dock recording the arrival of a slave ship or a government official recording the number of slaves in a state for the census, but anyone who directly profits from slavery, from the carpenter who accepts a contract to repair a known slave ship to the architect that designs the slaves' living quarters, all of them have committed crimes worthy of extrajudicial murder. Whether or not you agree with this world view, do you think it would be consistent for this world view to call for the death of IRS employees who collect and calculate taxes? Why or why not?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:actually, gently caress everything else, let's go back to this. Literally The Worst posted:jrode tell me about your business selling fuckin hk martial arts movies that you pirated and custom compiled out of multiple sources and then burned to bluray Jrod do you use slave labor to make your pirated blurays?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:So Caros, I’d ask you to now, in light of the overwhelming evidence that the healthcare system in the United States over the past fifty years has nothing to do with any proposed libertarian solution, to either admit to making a gross error in thinking that it did when you rejecting your previous libertarian beliefs. Or you are free to elaborate on your reasons for rejecting it but the experience with losing your friend, as emotionally distressing as that no doubt was, provides absolutely no argument against libertarianism whatsoever. Your concession to this fact would mean we are at least making progress. How tasteful!
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
jrode tell me what its like to suck your own dick and how hard is it to talk around it
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:However, let me be a little firm with you for a minute. This is not a subject I take very lightly. There are many people who will go through similar tragedies of losing loved ones because of an inability to access needed drugs (not approved by the FDA or prohibitively expensive), not having insurance or inability to pay the inflated medical costs.  I love how quickly libertarian free market health care arguments come around to letting companies sell you ethylene glycol and opium as cancer treatment and lithium suppositories as wonder-cures. I suppose it is inarguable that the price (and duration, win-win) of chemotherapy would plunge if we replaced it with coca syrup and flavored grain alcohol.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:lol jrod thoroughly demonstrates a lack of understanding of demand elasticity and then accuses people of lack of economic literacy Nope, it's you who has misunderstood my views. I fully understand the reality of demand elasticity but that doesn't explain what you think it does vis a vis the healthcare economy. Yes, you are not going to demand more heart transplants if the price is lower nor will you likely demand fewer if they are higher, until that point where you absolutely cannot find a way to get the money needed for the surgery and resign yourself to death. But much of medicine is elective and demand is very elastic depending on the cost. If the cost is free, or at least hidden for you and outsourced to another third party, you will have the incentive to have routine check-ups more frequently, have excess and unnecessary diagnostic tests like x-rays and MRIs, see chiropractors or message therapists, and many other health treatments. People having nagging injuries, they have various health complaints and they can either suffer through it or do something about it. I have a relative who has a private practice and specializes in medical treatments that aren't usually covered by insurance companies. Most people will not pay out of pocket for any medical treatment, even if that treatment costs only $100 or so. To them, they can get "free" care if their insurance company pays or Medicare pays. There are plenty of people who would do all kinds of medical treatments if the price was lower but choose not to and suffer with a lingering condition. There are exotic, but very effective new treatments for chronic musculoskeletal pain, arthritis and soft tissue injuries such as platelet rich plasma, and soon, various treatments using stem cells. You don't think that peoples demand for such treatments are not elastic based on the price? Since we're trading insults over who actually lacks economic literacy, I have to also point out that many of you don't believe that having a primarily third party payer system drives up the cost of medical care higher than it would otherwise be in a free market. Similarly, I was met with great resistance when I noted that State subsidies and student loans for college have artificially inflated the cost of tuition. If that is not economic illiteracy, I don't know what is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:until that point where you absolutely cannot find a way to get the money needed for the surgery and resign yourself to death. poo poo I can't scrounge $0 together!
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
hey jrod, nobody wants your belief system. The funny thing is they don't even get to the merits of the beliefs, they are just turned off by the people who are always talking about it: freaks like you, racists like Hoppe, misogynists like Molyneux, neo-confederates, wife-beaters and child pornographers. To a man; plus, Mary Ruwart.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Since we're trading insults over who actually lacks economic literacy, I have to also point out that many of you don't believe that having a primarily third party payer system drives up the cost of medical care higher than it would otherwise be in a free market... It's called "awareness of reality" hth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Jrod, is it true that you get most/all of your income from selling bootleg blurays?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
It's impressive that somehow jrod has gotten worse in his time posting here. Verily, the Internet makes you stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:I'm not reading all that. You are the smart one 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:But much of medicine is elective and demand is very elastic depending on the cost. If the cost is free, or at least hidden for you and outsourced to another third party, you will have the incentive to have routine check-ups more frequently, have excess and unnecessary diagnostic tests like x-rays and MRIs, see chiropractors or message therapists, and many other health treatments. This is a minor quibble, but that's not what elective means. An elective surgery is one that can be scheduled in advance (you can elect the date and time) as opposed to an emergency surgery that must be done without delay. It has nothing to do with whether the surgery is necessary or not. Most medically necessary surgeries are elective, that doesn't mean it's okay to just skip them. When you say "much of medicine is elective" that's true, but that's not the same as saying it's optional and you'll be just fine if you don't do it. If you're going to argue that people don't need all this health care they say they want, at least get your terms right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If the cost is free, or at least hidden for you and outsourced to another third party, you will have the incentive to have routine check-ups more frequently, have excess and unnecessary diagnostic tests like x-rays and MRIs, see chiropractors or message therapists, and many other health treatments. This is correct, UHC encourages regular checkups and accepting elective diagnostic tests so that we can catch things like cancer earlier when it is easier and cheaper to treat. It is in my financial interest for more people to get check ups but private insurance sees it as a burden. Thus UHC is in my financial interest. This will not lead to any scenario you invented of someone getting MRIs weekly because they're so fun and free. People naturally don't like going to the doctors and they like paying for extra poo poo even less. But to keep healthcare affordable and effective, we need them to at least once a year come in and do all the optional things. Thus, the most efficient solution is UHC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:. But then men with guns are taking my money to pay for some ni- urban indivdual's millionth for fun MRI. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Nope, it's you who has misunderstood my views. I fully understand the reality of demand elasticity but that doesn't explain what you think it does vis a vis the healthcare economy. Yes, you are not going to demand more heart transplants if the price is lower nor will you likely demand fewer if they are higher, until that point where you absolutely cannot find a way to get the money needed for the surgery and resign yourself to death. But much of medicine is elective and demand is very elastic depending on the cost. If the cost is free, or at least hidden for you and outsourced to another third party, you will have the incentive to have routine check-ups more frequently, have excess and unnecessary diagnostic tests like x-rays and MRIs, see chiropractors or message therapists, and many other health treatments. lol yep you definitely don't understand what elasticity is and why your argument is bogus. Do you seriously not understand the concept of preventative medicine? People getting more frequent checkups is a good thing, you loving retard, because it catches problems earlier and reduces cost. And you're not going to get an MRI unless your doctor says you need one. And anyway, who the gently caress are you to bitch about what a insurance company decides to cover in a private contract with someone else anyway? They'd still be doing all this under a libertarian system. Or do you think hypochondriacs and scam artists will cease to exist your perfect free market? jrodefeld posted:People having nagging injuries, they have various health complaints and they can either suffer through it or do something about it. I have a relative who has a private practice and specializes in medical treatments that aren't usually covered by insurance companies. Most people will not pay out of pocket for any medical treatment, even if that treatment costs only $100 or so. To them, they can get "free" care if their insurance company pays or Medicare pays. There are plenty of people who would do all kinds of medical treatments if the price was lower but choose not to and suffer with a lingering condition. Being forced to suffer constant pain rather than have it relieved because you can't afford treatment doesn't mean you don't still have demand for that treatment dumbass. The demand is still there, it just can't be met because the supply is restricted enough to price them out of the treatment. jrodefeld posted:
Wait, now you're claiming that insurance companies aren't part of a free market? The gently caress?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
If anyone wants a TL;DR of Jrodimus' post:J to the Rode to the Feld posted:Look, Caros, you're stupid, ignorant friend should have known better than to be poor and sick at the same time. In a libertarian paradise her treatment would have been cheaper [citation needed] and if she was still stupid enough to be poor than whatever, gently caress her.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
Jrod, would you kindly address some of these previous criticisms?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Jrodimus Instead of the Matrix of Leadership he has the matrix of horseshit and when Unicron is eating Libertopia he'll open it and a little diarrhea will dribble out on his head.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:the number of people who would need such charitable services would doubtless fall far below the number currently reliant on government welfare. Is this a joke? Did you make a funny? I get it. There will be far fewer people reliant on charity under libertarianism because they'll all be dead! Hahahahahahahaha
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
Wanamingo posted:Jrod, is it true that you sell pirated blu rays? Come on, Jrod. Don't let this turn into the next watermelon fiasco.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:Instead of the Matrix of Leadership he has the matrix of Fixed that for you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:02 |
|
|
Trent posted:Is this a joke? Did you make a funny? Nah man its because the economy will be so much better and "those people" will be motivated to work and *the sound a wet fart makes*
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 02:20
|
|