US Doctor Shortage to Improve Under New Laws

chuck schmidt said:

You didn't respond on point. If all people who were denied had breached their contract this would not have happened.

Click to expand...

So you are saying more people should have breached their contract? Not sure what you are saying...

chuck schmidt said:

No, because they could buy justice and choose victims selectively.

Click to expand...

So you think it was a conspiracy involving the judicial branch?

chuck schmidt said:

Yes, they did. Routinely.

Click to expand...

If that were the case, people could have sued and won. But they didn't. Again, unless you think it is a conspiracy involving the judicial branch, this is simply not true.

chuck schmidt said:

That is not what I said. I said that in an organized society you must pay taxes. You can get away without paying taxes by living alone totally separated from organized society. In that case the Internet is not accessible to you. It would still exist. My Internet statement has nothing to do with government. It has to do with living in an organized society. Organized societies require governments. Governments must be supported by taxes. Take the time to read it.

Click to expand...

Organized society does not need government. This is where we are not going to agree and that is why we keep revolving around this topic without agreeing to anything. I believe that people are still going to be taught morals and ethics by parents, schools, etc. and that would allow for an organized society. Today's law abiding citizen is not just going to become a murderer over night if there were no government to enforce an organized society because in my opinion his own values would still drive an organized society either way. Society tends to create rules and justice even without a government. Since I do not believe government is needed for organized society, I also do not believe taxes are needed for organized society. I know you aren't going to agree, but to each his own, I suppose.

I believe some tax should exist because I do believe in government, although organized society can exist either way. I just find it would be better under a limited government system than no government system.

chuck schmidt said:

Then dispute my positions. Concisely I mean. :giggle:

Click to expand...

On healthcare? Why would i want to?

I like having universal healthcare. I don't think healthcare should be a privilege, for only the rich to afford - they who actually require it far less. It is the lower classes that have shockingly poorer life expectancy, standard of living, nutrition, etc.

I was just commenting on the nature of the debate on this thread.

No need for the sarcasm Chuck- it isn't helping your argument and it isn't hurting mine.

When it comes to lawsuits, it really is not an absurd notion that someone would have tried to fight it if it really wasn't a breach of contract. Every other sector in the market has been able to resolve issues through the courts and for some reason you think health care can't be the same. Also, everyone doesn't have to sue alone- class action is always a possibility. On top of that, it only takes one big loss for insurance companies to rethink their own models to prevent other such cases.

As for your explanations- your rhetoric was just confusing. You said they chose victims selectively, although in reality the "victims" had still signed those contracts. The core basis of our current legal system is in property rights and contracts and if you just want to disregard that, then perhaps it is you that is out of touch with reality. It is possible that I misunderstood what you were saying, which is why I asked for explanation. If you don't want to explain it, so be it.

As for organized society being possible in anarchy, that does not mean government can't still be beneficial. I am just saying government is not the only way to bring about organized society.

Of course there is interpretation in law. That only helps my suggestion on lawsuits. Yet, even with interpretation, the insurance companies often won because even with interpretation and the vagueness of the law, courts often found that the insurance companies were in fact justified as per their contracts. From case law to interpretation the insurance companies had won in courts. That is exactly what the Obama administration and many supporters of this mandate wanted to change. I understand that you find that unfair but when courts time and time again didn't, you have to think that perhaps these "victims" signed something they didn't actually adhere to or understand.

I don't see how my responses are "trolling" when we are just going back and forth in an intellectual debate. Trolling, as defined by wikipedia (good enough for these purposes) is:

a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion

Click to expand...

As for being ad nauseum, I would say the same about you. Honestly, I think we both were at times because some of the topics were repeated.

chuck schmidt said:

Your thought process is typical of a hard science student. You assume that all it takes to prosecute a successful lawsuit is a worthy case and that all people are situated at all times and places to do so.

You presume that the only interpretation of a contract that is permissible is what you think you would understand from a simple reading. You have been told but do not acknowledge that the courts can and do read in concepts such as unconscionability and equity, as well as well developed case law that states how and when those contracts must actually be interpreted.

You suggest that the concept of property rights is solely within what you understand by a literal reading and ignore explanations not accompanied by lengthy descriptions. You accuse unnamed and unidentified victims of somehow being at fault.

You deny you are an anarchist then manage to squeeze the word into every post as though this is a sophomoric political science paper.

I have nothing more to offer. Apart from ridiculing your posts I see no further options because I am at the point of simply repeating myself ad nauseum. Because you have asserted that you are not trolling I am taking you at your word and moving on.

See you in another thread.

Click to expand...

Chuck, your above posting is more or less what one would call an ad hominem attack, which basically means arguing against the person instead of the proposition that was made by the person. It does not make for a very good debate.

The phrase ad hominem argument (often called an ad hominem attack) comes from the Latin "at the person". It also sometimes applies to any argument that centres on emotive (specifically irrelevant emotions) rather than rational or logical appeal. It occurs when people who are unable to attack the argument itself resort to attacking the person making it.

Click to expand...

Source: http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Ad_hominem