PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
In the tragedy of the commons the grass gets overgrazed because it is a shared limited resource. In the same way a doctor would be overused because the health care he provides is a shared limited resource.
The Battle Begins
- Thread starter PearlWatson
- Start date
In the tragedy of the commons the grass gets overgrazed because it is a shared limited resource. In the same way a doctor would be overused because the health care he provides is a shared limited resource.
I think you're exemplifying this at a very basic level, to make an argument that you think is better than it actually is.
It's like you think that by having a public education system where class sizes are 30 compared to 20, that the extra 10 kids will kill all 30.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Not true. All of the members of the vast right wing conspiracy are very proud of me.
I think you do more damage to the liberals cause than KOC Begone because you reinforce certain stereotypes.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
If a teacher has 30 rather than 20 children to teach the kids in the larger class certainly get less of her personal attention (shared limited resource).
The teacher in my example was male. I am offended by your ignorance of a dual gendered profession.
False.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
She was female because all teachers would be kindergarten teachers...no higher education or specialty subjects would be studied
Now you're discriminating against all male kindergarten teachers...
just keep digging bub
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
discriminating against pedophiles...oh the humanity.
I'll have you know... *insert enlightening retort*
Subjective does not mean "disagrees with Millsapa".
I understand that is what you meant. However, the difference is that there is a limit to how much grass can grow, because there is only so much land, while no such limit exists on the number of doctors.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
That ain't what you said.
Under socialized medicine kids with dreams no longer want to be doctors since the state kills their earning potential in specializing.
Show me any statistic, article, prophecy, or bathroom grafitti, which proves that is a true statement.
Check the numbers in France or UK or Sweden if you have to.
I think any demand lowered by killing earning potential, and I'll admit it's a semi-logical assumption if you think doctors are only in it for the money (I don't), could be offset by lowering the cost of medical school. Hence lowering the risk.
Doctors will still live really comfortable lives. They will just live in mansions, rather then on estates. Their daughters will get a mustang for their 16th, rather than a Porsch. It's a hard life, but it's probably worth the result.
Kids with dreams worry about the difference in earning potential between specialists and general practitioners?
Not to mention the Joker's point.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
I sense some class envy.
The U.S. has a shortage of general practitioners and general surgeons because the doctors choose the most lucrative specialties. It is about the money especially for the best and the brightest.
When you talk about dropping the cost of medical school you also drop the demand for those willing to teach at medical schools. Also the power to drop the cost of medical school, or subsidize it would just grow the power of the government even further.
WHOA?!
I'm guessing you have a) little to no experience with higher education, b) are unaware of the cost-drivers in higher education, and c) don't realize what percentage of tuition is returned to faculty, especially at elite institutions attended by the "best and brightest."
Not all students attending medical school attend elite institutions.
I would say no, it's objective fairness. All people are inherently free. In order to take that freedom away someone must initiate the use of force against them to make them act in a way that they don't want to act and that is against thier self-interest. If that's subjective moralitiy, fine. My moral code goes far beyond just letting people do what they want, but politically and philosophically the only thing I want is to be allowed to be who I want to be and act the way I want as long as it doesn't involve hurting others or using force against them. If I can have that I feel I must allow others to enjoy it as I do.
Religious morality that is enforced by law does not allow me to be who I want to be or act the way I want to act, even though I would hurt no one in the process, not even myself (unless you consider the unfortunate fate of my damned soul). It involves the use of force against me to make me act in a way that I consider to be against my own self-interest. Religious morality is also based on faith and the interpreted word of God. I belive that reality is real. Facts are facts. Truth can be known and understood by regular people. Contradictions don't really exist in matters of fact.