Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

smooth · 09-15-2004, 03:53 PM

Damnit, Mr. Mephisto, now I have to respond, too.

One of Ustwo's major complaints against guaranteed health care was that the government would not allow lawsuits--that people should be able to sue errant doctors. He claims that since the government would prevent such lawsuits unless it was willing to "feed" the doctors, such a program would be untenable.

He uses this as a reason to support tort reform--reform that will limit lawsuits against doctors.

Can someone please explain how this is logically consistent?

One of Ustwo's second criticisms is based on the notion that the public ought not to have its care 'managed' by a centralized bureaucracy. He argues that the government would determine what kinds of treatments patients can have and the amount it will pay for those treatments.

He offers this as a critique of guaranteed health care. However, is anyone willing to dispute that insurance companies do not behave exactly as he described the government would operate? If so, please post it here for me to read and meditate on.

Ustwo did not address the points I raised in regard to the logical coherence of his argument, instead choosing to impung the intelligence level of the entire TFP community ("I knew this debate would be to advanced for TFP") for not seeing the issues as he understands them.

Rather than unravel the high bar I set here in requesting his clarification of the stated inconsistencies by responding to his remarks that bore no bearing on the points I raised, I will submit additional points of inconsistency within this initial post and wait for someone, anyone, even Ustwo, to address them:

Despite Ustwo's inaccurate description of what occurs during civil suits between citizens and government entities, we can entertain his anecdotal evidence heuristically to examine a deeper logical inconsistency within his statement.

Ustwo argues that he and his wife were unable to sue for damages after she was injured by a post-office driver. First of all, unable to sue whom? It certainly stands to reason that the driver and not the government entity is at fault for the damages. Unless he is saying that his lawsuit, aimed at an entity that bore no direct responsibility for the damages, should have been allowed (thus undermining his own argument for tort reform limiting frivelous lawsuits), his use of this anecdote serves no other purpose than emotional appeal. This is known as an appeal to emotion and is a logical fallacy.

The logical inconsistency his anecdote presents to his fundamental position that government sponsored health care would bar people from suing when necessary becomes apparent once we entertain the effects of the tort reform he touts. If reform were to occur as he desires, and had his wife been injured by a person working for a private entity rather than a person working for the government, he and his wife would be unable to sue the private corporation, as well. His reform platform does not open more doors for people to sue entities--in fact, he argues from a position that opportunities for lawsuits must be limited to reduce the cost of doctors' overhead. Thus, his opposition to government sponsored health care based on the notion that it would result in fewer chances to sue when necessary is inconsistent with his support for a reform package that would similarly limit lawsuits.

Ustwo also claims that market forces are not at work in regards to the price of malpractice insurance. His own statements, however, illustrate how inaccurate that statement is. From his initial post we learned that doctors are leaving various states to operate their businesses in other, less expensive states. This dynamic is an excellent example of how free market forces operate--but I personally refrain from claiming that it 'works.' If Ustwo is upset that people are choosing alternative careers or moving to less expensive states to practice, that is one thing. But he didn't leave it at that; rather, he argued that market forces were not working at regulating the open market. The market is free right now and even Ustwo is upset with the ramifications of the free movement of labor. If anything, this point undermines Ustwo's assertion that the market needs to remain liberalized (i.e., private insurance carriers over government provided health care). His claim that increased regulation via tort reform would facilitate the working of a free market results in yet another logically inconsistent stance.

09-15-2004, 03:53 PM	#5 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	Damnit, Mr. Mephisto, now I have to respond, too. One of Ustwo's major complaints against guaranteed health care was that the government would not allow lawsuits--that people should be able to sue errant doctors. He claims that since the government would prevent such lawsuits unless it was willing to "feed" the doctors, such a program would be untenable. He uses this as a reason to support tort reform--reform that will limit lawsuits against doctors. Can someone please explain how this is logically consistent? One of Ustwo's second criticisms is based on the notion that the public ought not to have its care 'managed' by a centralized bureaucracy. He argues that the government would determine what kinds of treatments patients can have and the amount it will pay for those treatments. He offers this as a critique of guaranteed health care. However, is anyone willing to dispute that insurance companies do not behave exactly as he described the government would operate? If so, please post it here for me to read and meditate on. Ustwo did not address the points I raised in regard to the logical coherence of his argument, instead choosing to impung the intelligence level of the entire TFP community ("I knew this debate would be to advanced for TFP") for not seeing the issues as he understands them. Rather than unravel the high bar I set here in requesting his clarification of the stated inconsistencies by responding to his remarks that bore no bearing on the points I raised, I will submit additional points of inconsistency within this initial post and wait for someone, anyone, even Ustwo, to address them: Despite Ustwo's inaccurate description of what occurs during civil suits between citizens and government entities, we can entertain his anecdotal evidence heuristically to examine a deeper logical inconsistency within his statement. Ustwo argues that he and his wife were unable to sue for damages after she was injured by a post-office driver. First of all, unable to sue whom? It certainly stands to reason that the driver and not the government entity is at fault for the damages. Unless he is saying that his lawsuit, aimed at an entity that bore no direct responsibility for the damages, should have been allowed (thus undermining his own argument for tort reform limiting frivelous lawsuits), his use of this anecdote serves no other purpose than emotional appeal. This is known as an appeal to emotion and is a logical fallacy. The logical inconsistency his anecdote presents to his fundamental position that government sponsored health care would bar people from suing when necessary becomes apparent once we entertain the effects of the tort reform he touts. If reform were to occur as he desires, and had his wife been injured by a person working for a private entity rather than a person working for the government, he and his wife would be unable to sue the private corporation, as well. His reform platform does not open more doors for people to sue entities--in fact, he argues from a position that opportunities for lawsuits must be limited to reduce the cost of doctors' overhead. Thus, his opposition to government sponsored health care based on the notion that it would result in fewer chances to sue when necessary is inconsistent with his support for a reform package that would similarly limit lawsuits. Ustwo also claims that market forces are not at work in regards to the price of malpractice insurance. His own statements, however, illustrate how inaccurate that statement is. From his initial post we learned that doctors are leaving various states to operate their businesses in other, less expensive states. This dynamic is an excellent example of how free market forces operate--but I personally refrain from claiming that it 'works.' If Ustwo is upset that people are choosing alternative careers or moving to less expensive states to practice, that is one thing. But he didn't leave it at that; rather, he argued that market forces were not working at regulating the open market. The market is free right now and even Ustwo is upset with the ramifications of the free movement of labor. If anything, this point undermines Ustwo's assertion that the market needs to remain liberalized (i.e., private insurance carriers over government provided health care). His claim that increased regulation via tort reform would facilitate the working of a free market results in yet another logically inconsistent stance. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman Last edited by smooth; 09-15-2004 at 07:33 PM..