Because you know this will cause controversy

[Einzige]

You know you can't just buy a liver in most places, right?

One ought to be able to.

Interesting. Explain why.

Because I view such a situation as being fundamentally more egalitarian than one in which the State may dictate the terms of organ donation. Don't believe for a minute I think mine is the perfect answer; both mine and the one proffered elsewhere in this thread are basically discriminatory - but mine is an equal-opportunity discrimination. You'll never see me advocating that a drug-addict, or someone engaging in "high-risk sexual behavior" (i.e. homosexuals), etc. be denied the right to an organ transplant. A drug-addict or a homosexual can be born poor, certainly, but so can the most uptight of WASPs.

[Serafina]

Because I view such a situation as being fundamentally more egalitarian than one in which the State may dictate the terms of organ donation. Don't believe for a minute I think mine is the perfect answer; both mine and the one proffered elsewhere in this thread are basically discriminatory - but mine is an equal-opportunity discrimination. You'll never see me advocating that a drug-addict, or someone engaging in "high-risk sexual behavior" (i.e. homosexuals), etc. be denied the right to an organ transplant. A drug-addict or a homosexual can be born poor, certainly, but so can the most uptight of WASPs.

You are still discriminating against the poor in that case.

Medical supplies should be given out on the basis of necessity, NOT due to money.
Basically, you are advocating that a rich person whose liver (or whatever) might still work for a year or two can buy one while a poor person who needs it right now dies because it's unaffordable.

In the end, the current way causes far less deaths then your "idea" - which is more important than your supposed "equality".

[Einzige]

Because I view such a situation as being fundamentally more egalitarian than one in which the State may dictate the terms of organ donation. Don't believe for a minute I think mine is the perfect answer; both mine and the one proffered elsewhere in this thread are basically discriminatory - but mine is an equal-opportunity discrimination. You'll never see me advocating that a drug-addict, or someone engaging in "high-risk sexual behavior" (i.e. homosexuals), etc. be denied the right to an organ transplant. A drug-addict or a homosexual can be born poor, certainly, but so can the most uptight of WASPs.

You are still discriminating against the poor in that case.

Medical supplies should be given out on the basis of necessity, NOT due to money.
Basically, you are advocating that a rich person whose liver (or whatever) might still work for a year or two can buy one while a poor person who needs it right now dies because it's unaffordable.

In the end, the current way causes far less deaths then your "idea" - which is more important than your supposed "equality".

So be it. Just know that I base my view on something other than unreason.

[Serafina]

Because I view such a situation as being fundamentally more egalitarian than one in which the State may dictate the terms of organ donation. Don't believe for a minute I think mine is the perfect answer; both mine and the one proffered elsewhere in this thread are basically discriminatory - but mine is an equal-opportunity discrimination. You'll never see me advocating that a drug-addict, or someone engaging in "high-risk sexual behavior" (i.e. homosexuals), etc. be denied the right to an organ transplant. A drug-addict or a homosexual can be born poor, certainly, but so can the most uptight of WASPs.

You are still discriminating against the poor in that case.

Medical supplies should be given out on the basis of necessity, NOT due to money.
Basically, you are advocating that a rich person whose liver (or whatever) might still work for a year or two can buy one while a poor person who needs it right now dies because it's unaffordable.

In the end, the current way causes far less deaths then your "idea" - which is more important than your supposed "equality".

So be it. Just know that I base my view on something other than unreason.

Yeah, right...so, what is your basis for evaluating the quality of a medical system?
Why do you advocate another basis than "whichever system saves most lives and keeps people more healthy"?

[Einzige]

Yeah, right...so, what is your basis for evaluating the quality of a medical system?
Why do you advocate another basis than "whichever system saves most lives and keeps people more healthy"?

My basis is simple: "that system which saves the maximum number of lives and keeps the most people healthy without unduly discriminating against any individual on any unnecessary basis." I would prefer it, of course, if State-sanctioned organ rationing were wholly efficient and politically workable - but such isn't likely the case. And if it were, at least in the United States, what we'd likely have, as we've always had, is a concerted effort to needlessly discriminate against certain vulnerable persons. Not being a philosophical utilitarian - or, if I am one, I subordinate my utilitarianism to certain other principles - I'd rather the system be unfair one way than the other.

[DudeGuyMan]

I figured it was some sort of plutocratic free market bullshit like this.

Because I view such a situation as being fundamentally more egalitarian than one in which the State may dictate the terms of organ donation.

Oh no, the State! Capitalized! That's a lot scarier sounding than "doctor puts you on a waiting list" isn't it. Funny how you felt compelled to word it that way.

Don't believe for a minute I think mine is the perfect answer; both mine and the one proffered elsewhere in this thread are basically discriminatory - but mine is an equal-opportunity discrimination.

No, yours is utterly ironclad discrimination based upon income.

You'll never see me advocating that a drug-addict, or someone engaging in "high-risk sexual behavior" (i.e. homosexuals), etc. be denied the right to an organ transplant.

Unless they're poor, in which case fuck 'em. But if they're rich they're free to purchase and shit up as many organs as they want with their irresponsible lifestyle while anyone who isn't rich can just fuck off and die.

A drug-addict or a homosexual can be born poor, certainly, but so can the most uptight of WASPs.

I like how your vision of egalitarianism is poor people of any race or creed being allowed to more or less die in the street while a rich alcoholic buys as many livers as he can survive long enough to burn through.

Yeah, what a fair and egalitarian world you posit, where millionaires bid on transplant organs and everyone else can go fuck themselves and die.

[Serafina]

Yeah, right...so, what is your basis for evaluating the quality of a medical system?
Why do you advocate another basis than "whichever system saves most lives and keeps people more healthy"?

My basis is simple: "that system which saves the maximum number of lives and keeps the most people healthy without unduly discriminating against any individual on any unnecessary basis." I would prefer it, of course, if State-sanctioned organ rationing were wholly efficient and politically workable - but such isn't likely the case. And if it were, at least in the United States, what we'd likely have, as we've always had, is a concerted effort to needlessly discriminate against certain vulnerable persons. Not being a philosophical utilitarian - or, if I am one, I subordinate my utilitarianism to certain other principles - I'd rather the system be unfair one way than the other.

So instead of fixing the second part of your definition (if it is indeed broken, which i can not judge for the USA), you want to replace it with something that guarantees neither the first nor the second part of it?

Because a free market is efficient at nothing BUT generating wealth (since that is per definition the goal of a free market) and it's sure as hell not interested in equality.

Besides, i can not imagine that "the state" is actuallly "dictating" who becomes organs and who doesn't (except by giving guidlines based on medical necessity), so cut the rethoric bullshit.

[Einzige]

I figured it was some sort of plutocratic free market bullshit like this.

Yes. Yes, that's precisely what it is.

Oh no, the State! Capitalized! That's a lot scarier sounding than "doctor puts you on a waiting list" isn't it. Funny how you felt compelled to word it that way.

As I look at the trend the United States is taking in the long-term, one obvious alternative to my phraseology is "a church-approved doctor puts you on a waiting list after you have successfully passed rigorous physical and moral examination."

No, yours is utterly ironclad discrimination based upon income.

Better the devil that you know.

Unless they're poor, in which case fuck 'em. But if they're rich they're free to purchase and shit up as many organs as they want with their irresponsible lifestyle while anyone who isn't rich can just fuck off and die.

Pretty much. But, then, this stems from my anti-utilitarianism: I simply don't hold to the notion that every life is as valuable as every other life.

I like how your vision of egalitarianism is poor people of any race or creed being allowed to more or less die in the street while a rich alcoholic buys as many livers as he can survive long enough to burn through.

Yeah, what a fair and egalitarian world you posit, where millionaires bid on transplant organs and everyone else can go fuck themselves and die.

As against the possibility that a thoroughly politicized health-care system, which, by its very nature, must be responsive to the often arbitrary and always uninformed whims of a mass populace, might deform into something utterly repulsive? I'll take my chances.

So instead of fixing the second part of your definition (if it is indeed broken, which i can not judge for the USA), you want to replace it with something that guarantees neither the first nor the second part of it?

Here's my fear: let's have a universal organ rationing system. Let's make it perfectly democratic, as most Statist progressives prefer. That means that each successive Administration appoints a Secretary of Medical Management (or whatever title you prefer) to oversee the allotment of biological resources.

That's fine and well. Now say that a populistic religious fire-breather takes office and forswears that he will eliminate all medical funding to those he considers "moral degenerates": the addicts, the gays, and, by the time this might come around, the cyborgs. Now you have a situation that is no more progressive than it was before, and is reactive in a new and charming way.

Paranoia? Perhaps. Living in America it pays to be suspicious of your fellow-citizens. If you can show me a rock-solid way around even the possibility of this happening, and still have it come out politically viable here, I'm all ears. But I don't think you can do it.

Because a free market is efficient at nothing BUT generating wealth (since that is per definition the goal of a free market) and it's sure as hell not interested in equality.

Not your understanding of equality, no.

Besides, i can not imagine that "the state" is actuallly "dictating" who becomes organs and who doesn't (except by giving guidlines based on medical necessity), so cut the rethoric bullshit.

Under different circumstances that could very well prove to be the case.

[Serafina]

So instead of fixing the second part of your definition (if it is indeed broken, which i can not judge for the USA), you want to replace it with something that guarantees neither the first nor the second part of it?

Here's my fear: let's have a universal organ rationing system. Let's make it perfectly democratic, as most Statist progressives prefer. That means that each successive Administration appoints a Secretary of Medical Management (or whatever title you prefer) to oversee the allotment of biological resources.

That's fine and well. Now say that a populistic religious fire-breather takes office and forswears that he will eliminate all medical funding to those he considers "moral degenerates": the addicts, the gays, and, by the time this might come around, the cyborgs. Now you have a situation that is no more progressive than it was before, and is reactive in a new and charming way.

Paranoia? Perhaps. Living in America it pays to be suspicious of your fellow-citizens.

Damn, you are stupid.
Look, it works that way:

There are medical guidelines - based on simple medical necessity and reality. The system is nothing like what you describe.
So yes, a doctor could theoretically decide "fuck you, i do not like you, i will not give you an organ".
Of course, right now, with a goverment to complain to, you can actually sue him and go to another doctor.
But if we implement your system, the doctor can just as well say "no, fuck you" - but there is nothing you can do about it. Sure, you can still go to another doctor - but if your nightmarish general discrimination comes true, then that's not that usefull, now is it?

Go read up on "checks and balances". Granted, the US-System is quite outdated - but it's not like it is EASY to discriminate against anyone you want to. Otherwise, the Bush-administration would have been far worse.
You know, these little things called constitution, supreme court, having multiple political institutions etc.

Not your understanding of equality, no.

Well, sure...my understanding of "give those who need it most first" is much less equal than your "whoever has more money is worth more".

Besides, i can not imagine that "the state" is actuallly "dictating" who becomes organs and who doesn't (except by giving guidlines based on medical necessity), so cut the rethoric bullshit.

Under different circumstances that could very well prove to be the case.

Yep, let's keep making up stuff to push our own deluded ideas, shall we?

[Einzige]

There are medical guidelines - based on simple medical necessity and reality. The system is nothing like what you describe.
So yes, a doctor could theoretically decide "fuck you, i do not like you, i will not give you an organ".
Of course, right now, with a goverment to complain to, you can actually sue him and go to another doctor.
But if we implement your system, the doctor can just as well say "no, fuck you" - but there is nothing you can do about it. Sure, you can still go to another doctor - but if your nightmarish general discrimination comes true, then that's not that usefull, now is it?

I quite understand that's how it works in theory. And, if I remotely trusted the United States to continue functioning along the lines it was originally intended to, I'd have not the slightest problem with your position.

But you come from a nation that got its conservative-populist kicks out in the first three decades of the last century. Quite admittedly, I am a pessimist: I wouldn't be surprised to find that my children look back on this era as a gilded age in comparison to what I expect to be coming down the line. If I have to beat you about the head with it - America is dysfunctional, to the point that, if we hadn't overspent on our military in decades past, I have no doubt whatsoever that it'd have degenerated into despoty decades ago.

Everything is politicized here - literally everything. And until this over-politicization of health and medical issues dies down, particularly as it is connected to the religious issue, I do not believe it a wise attempt to establish anything remotely approaching universal health care.

Yep, let's keep making up stuff to push our own deluded ideas, shall we?

I want you to do me a favor: go out and pick up an English language newspaper covering American news and politics. The number one story, day in and day out, is the popular mass furor that is, even as we speak, culminating into a virtual mobilization, an army of white trash that may very well escalate into something even worse. What might we expect out of people like this?

I'm hardly justifying the medical status-quo on grounds that I like it. I do not. But for the present, I do not trust the American people to use your system responsibly.

[Serafina]

You know, i can understand your pessimism - but that still doesn't make your stupid idea any better or "more equal".
Because, quite frankly, i would prefer the current system with some discrimination against minorities than a system that discrimintes against everyone BUT the rich - which your does by merit of design.

Seriously, if you have such widespread discrimination, the discriminated are going to have next to no money to spare anyway - therefore, your system would be useless to them, and still discriminate against the majority of the populace.

Besides, you would only alleviate the current problems with US-healthcare - namely, that it will ruin you if your are unlucky enough to get any serious illness or injury.

[DudeGuyMan]

As I look at the trend the United States is taking in the long-term, one obvious alternative to my phraseology is "a church-approved doctor puts you on a waiting list after you have successfully passed rigorous physical and moral examination."

Strawman.

Better the devil that you know.

Not when it's the devil that's going to shrug while you die because you're not a millionaire.

Pretty much. But, then, this stems from my anti-utilitarianism: I simply don't hold to the notion that every life is as valuable as every other life.

No, you hold that the lives of people with huge amounts of money are more valuable than those without. For what reason, I'm not sure.

As against the possibility that a thoroughly politicized health-care system, which, by its very nature, must be responsive to the often arbitrary and always uninformed whims of a mass populace, might deform into something utterly repulsive? I'll take my chances.

As opposed to just creating something guaranteed to be repulsive?

That's fine and well. Now say that a populistic religious fire-breather takes office and forswears that he will eliminate all medical funding to those he considers "moral degenerates": the addicts, the gays, and, by the time this might come around, the cyborgs. Now you have a situation that is no more progressive than it was before, and is reactive in a new and charming way.

Again, fucking strawman where you compare your bullshit system to one which doesn't actually exist.

[Einzige]

You know, i can understand your pessimism - but that still doesn't make your stupid idea any better or "more equal".
Because, quite frankly, i would prefer the current system with some discrimination against minorities than a system that discrimintes against everyone BUT the rich - which your does by merit of design.

And this is the gist of it, and, I believe, it reduces our differences to a mere matter of opinion: you would accept what I'll term a vertical discrimination - that is, a system which discriminates against select groupings in favor of other select groupings - so long as a horizontal equality on the issue - easier access for the "common man" to needed medical facilities - was achieved. I prefer horizontal discrimination - a broad-based hazing out of a majority of people from the system - in favor of vertical equality - the absence, or near-absence, of any denial-of-use owing to reasons deeply related to the individual being discriminated against.

I hardly find either to be ideal, but then, I consider myself a realist, particularly with regards to American politics. In truth I have no problem whatsoever with the notion of universal health care as implemented by a sane, stable society, such as Germany; but America is spoiled, America is impudent, and most Americans are wholly unworthy of it, and wouldn't be able to live up to it in the first. Therefore, if we must pick our poisons, I'll pick mine and you'll pick yours.

[Serafina]

Oh, please, not the old "it's my opinion!!1"-shit.

And this is the gist of it, and, I believe, it reduces our differences to a mere matter of opinion: you would accept what I'll term a vertical discrimination - that is, a system which discriminates against select groupings in favor of other select groupings - so long as a horizontal equality on the issue - easier access for the "common man" to needed medical facilities - was achieved. I prefer horizontal discrimination - a broad-based hazing out of a majority of people from the system - in favor of vertical equality - the absence, or near-absence, of any denial-of-use owing to reasons deeply related to the individual being discriminated against.

Hey, dipshit - what's the difference between those two?
"It's your fault, you are poor" is NOT what i call morality. Why not? Well, simply because it is NOT always ones own fault, wether you believe that or not.

But back to the smelly, rotten core of your argument:
IF the USA become as bad as your proclaim, your system is still USELESS in preventing "vertical discrimination".
Why? Well, simply because those discriminated against would have a much harder time finding jobs and making money - therefore, they would be poor because they are who they are - NOT because it is "their fault".

Discrimination is mostly and foremost done by "the people" - not by "the goverment". Of course, a biased population will support and/or demand biased goverment decisions. But even if the goverment does nothing, the discrimation is still there.
That's why we need anti-discrimination laws. Your "brilliant plan" would remove those from this part of health care, inevitably leading to increased discrimination.

Show how your plan would actually prevent discrimination based on race, gender, religion etc. better than the current system, or conceed your point.

[Einzige]

Oh, please, not the old "it's my opinion!!1"-shit.

Uh, yes, that's precisely what we've arrived at, which, if you were capable at reasoning at all with faculties beyond your reptile brain, you'd realize that this is what the difference has been all along. Owing to the realities of the political system we're discussing, there's going to be massive discrimination either way. It's just a matter as to whether or not you slice the pie from the middle out or from the outside in.

Hey, dipshit - what's the difference between those two?
"It's your fault, you are poor" is NOT what i call morality. Why not? Well, simply because it is NOT always ones own fault, wether you believe that or not.

Uh, no. Did I indicate I believed it? Did I, at fucking all, say I believe, or even suggested I feel, that those in poverty are in any way "at fault" for their circumstances? Have I not - repeatedly - said I wish it were otherwise in this nation? And have you not *incessantly* neglected these things so you can continue your petty dick-waving crusade?

But back to the smelly, rotten core of your argument:
IF the USA become as bad as your proclaim, your system is still USELESS in preventing "vertical discrimination".
Why? Well, simply because those discriminated against would have a much harder time finding jobs and making money - therefore, they would be poor because they are who they are - NOT because it is "their fault".

Which is more acceptable to me than the alternative.

Discrimination is mostly and foremost done by "the people" - not by "the goverment".

Not when that government is ostensibly controlled by "the people".

Of course, a biased population will support and/or demand biased goverment decisions.

Precisely.

But even if the goverment does nothing, the discrimation is still there.
That's why we need anti-discrimination laws. Your "brilliant plan" would remove those from this part of health care, inevitably leading to increased discrimination.

Let's say that you've got a very low-set brow, as I expect. Let's say that people mock you behind your back for it. Then let's say one day you run into a chap who physically assaults you all the while calling you a Neanderthal. Who's worse: the passive fellows who displayed their bigotry to your rear, or the active one who introduced it to your face?

Show how your plan would actually prevent discrimination based on race, gender, religion etc. better than the current system, or conceed your point.

As I've said, my system isn't perfect (unlike you, I'm more than capable of admitting that I don't have all the answers), but it prevents the worst of the worst, and the devil take the hind.

(Edited for decorum.)

[Serafina]

Again, show how it prevents "the worst of the worst"

Your "goverment deliberately denies health care to minorities"-szenario is only likely if there is a massive surge in discrimination.
However, if that is the case, your systems does nothing to prevent discrimination against those minorities.
At the very best, it could be argued that those of these minorities who already are rich could still get a transplant if they find a doctor who does not discriminate.
But with such a massive surge of discrimination, the people will do more than enough to prevent that (you know, stuff like hanging these "dirty collaborators").

Even IF you removed any form of order and rules for transplants (and presumably other stuff) and made it a "the strongest wins"-system - the majority is by definition the strongest force around.
On the other hand, if you pass laws that prevent discrimination and aid these minorities, it WILL prevent at least some discrimination.


Neither my nor your system can be an ultimate safeguard against a massive spike of discrimination.
But mine has an potentially reducing effect on it, while yours already massively discriminates against ~80 percent of the population.
You are proposing a massive trade-off for a nonexistent benefit.

By the way, i let you off the hook for your claim that poorer people do not have as much right to live as richer people for now - not because i agree, but because i think everyone can see what a little selfish asshole you are in that regard.

[Einzige]

Again, show how it prevents "the worst of the worst"

Why, when you've already demonstrated it quite thoroughly yourself?

Your "goverment deliberately denies health care to minorities"-szenario is only likely if there is a massive surge in discrimination.

However, if that is the case, your systems does nothing to prevent discrimination against those minorities.

And yet, in the very next sentence:

At the very best, it could be argued that those of these minorities who already are rich could still get a transplant if they find a doctor who does not discriminate.

I understand that rhetorical questions are sometimes useful for debating purposes, but you take it to extremes.

But with such a massive surge of discrimination, the people will do more than enough to prevent that (you know, stuff like hanging these "dirty collaborators").

Not likely. Most people value order; discrimination is the result of wanting too much order in too many illogical areas.

Even IF you removed any form of order and rules for transplants (and presumably other stuff) and made it a "the strongest wins"-system - the majority is by definition the strongest force around.

On the contrary: the smallest minority around is decidedly the strongest, and, itself a conglomeration of minorities, would benefit the most under my system.

On the other hand, if you pass laws that prevent discrimination and aid these minorities, it WILL prevent at least some discrimination.

Just like the Great Society did... oh, wait.

Neither my nor your system can be an ultimate safeguard against a massive spike of discrimination.

Thank you for finally admitting what I've been arguing all night, and what I frankly had no intention of continuing to argue until you incessantly kept it up.

But mine has an potentially reducing effect on it, while yours already massively discriminates against ~80 percent of the population.

Only until such a time as the majoritarian populace gets its hands on it.

You are proposing a massive trade-off for a nonexistent benefit.

No; I'm proposing a trade-off so as to prevent a massive catastrophe which, however unlikely, is still possible, even today. If you can find me some system that safeguards against it, and convince me of it proof-positive, then, again, I'm all ears. Until such a time, I regard your approach as fundamentally flawed.

[Serafina]

Slow version for retards:

Einzige proposes that the USA will see a massive surge of intolerance (e.g. that the religious right will rise to power worse than under Bush Jr.).

He proposes that reducing all govermental controll from health care (specifically, organ transplantation) will prevent that this majority discriminates against minorities (e.g. that christians deny organs to homosexuals).
Instead, a free market for organs should exist, presumably without govermental controll (including a law that prevents the goverment from intervening)

However, his proposal is flawed in multiple ways:

-He fails to realize that the current system is not "goverment controlled", but instead is guided by necessity (someone who needs an organ soon gets it sooner than someone who can wait).
-He does not understand that this creates good efficieny for the supply of organs, something which his system would destroy.
-His system discriminates against poor people by design.
-He justifis this with the usual "you did not use your equal opportunity, therefore you deserve whatever happens to you".
-The lack of safeguards will create all the problems of an unregulated market: Organized crime, no safety controlls and either hypercompetition or cartels.
-His system could easily be revoked by the radical majority, thus nullifing it when it is supposedly needed
-His system does nothing to prevent localize discrimination even if it stays intact - an organ trader could just decide not to sell to the minority ("no hearts for homos").
-However, it would enable this type of discrimination right now - nothing prevents an rich, white organ trader not to seel to minorities under his system.

I think it is obvious that "the einzige real dipshit" (einzige=only in german) is incapable of logical tought (for not spotting the flaws in this) and unable of human empathy (for despising poor people). He clearly thinks that he is "the only person that matters".

[Einzige]

I understand that it positively sticks in your craw that anyone might have the cajones to insist that you are not in the moral absolute right on your position, so let me run through, line by line, to demonstrate it to you:

-He fails to realize that the current system is not "goverment controlled", but instead is guided by necessity (someone who needs an organ soon gets it sooner than someone who can wait).

I never argued that it did control the distribution of organs at present. Rather, my response was to a very particular system, proposed at some length earlier in this thread, where it was explicitly suggested that the government should assume control over such distribution, and my comments were made in that particular context.

-He does not understand that this creates good efficieny for the supply of organs, something which his system would destroy.

Uh, no. In the context of the State-directed distribution I was referring to earlier, my system is more efficient.

-His system discriminates against poor people by design.

A flaw I've previously and openly acknowledged.

-He justifis this with the usual "you did not use your equal opportunity, therefore you deserve whatever happens to you".

Show one place in this thread where I've made that line of argument or retract this statement.

-The lack of safeguards will create all the problems of an unregulated market: Organized crime, no safety controlls and either hypercompetition or cartels.

As opposed to the involuntary cartelization of a State-controlled market, as - and I must continue insisting on this point, as I do not trust your reading comprehension skills whatsoever - was proposed elsewhere?

-His system could easily be revoked by the radical majority, thus nullifing it when it is supposedly needed

Why? I'm hardly a democrat; if they attempted to infringe on the property rights of the minority, then they would deserve to be shot.

The next two are tangentially related, and so I'll address them together:

-His system does nothing to prevent localize discrimination even if it stays intact - an organ trader could just decide not to sell to the minority ("no hearts for homos").
-However, it would enable this type of discrimination right now - nothing prevents an rich, white organ trader not to seel to minorities under his system.

My issue here isn't to prevent localized forms of discrimination. I can't, you can't, and no other pretend-messiah can; it happens today just as surely as it would under either of our systems. The pertinent issue is to prevent it from becoming universalized.

I think it is obvious that "the einzige real dipshit" (einzige=only in german) is incapable of logical tought (for not spotting the flaws in this) and unable of human empathy (for despising poor people). He clearly thinks that he is "the only person that matters".

Now go run off to the moderators for your cookie and glass of milk.

[Serafina]

I never argued that it did control the distribution of organs at present. Rather, my response was to a very particular system, proposed at some length earlier in this thread, where it was explicitly suggested that the government should assume control over such distribution, and my comments were made in that particular context.

Wether you claimed it or not, it still constitues a massive flaw in your "system". In fact, you system would go a great lenght to minimize efficiency, therefore costing many human lives.

Uh, no. In the context of the State-directed distribution I was referring to earlier, my system is more efficient.

Why?
Even if you have total state controll that discriminates against minorities, it would still be more efficient (the organs would be used for those majoritarians that need them first).

Show one place in this thread where I've made that line of argument or retract this statement.

An intrinsic property of your proposal.
However:

Precisely. If a man - no matter how drug-ridden he may be - can afford to pay for an organ, and a faithful member of the Christian flock cannot, then, quite frankly, it sucks to be her.

Source
Right there, moron. Money rules supreme, regardless of circumstances.

As opposed to the involuntary cartelization of a State-controlled market, as - and I must continue insisting on this point, as I do not trust your reading comprehension skills whatsoever - was proposed elsewhere?

A state-"cartel" is NOT used to keep the prices high and IS controlled by his "customers" - as opposed to an actual cartel.

Why? I'm hardly a democrat; if they attempted to infringe on the property rights of the minority, then they would deserve to be shot.

By whom? Remember, they are the radical majority. They can change laws and constitutions as they want to, as it happened during numerous historic precedences.

My issue here isn't to prevent localized forms of discrimination. I can't, you can't, and no other pretend-messiah can; it happens today just as surely as it would under either of our systems. The pertinent issue is to prevent it from becoming universalized.

Bullshit.
While you can not root it out completely, you can severely reduce it with anti-discrimination laws.
Your system however has absolutely NO controll mechanisms and is, essentially, anarchistic.

Now go run off to the moderators for your cookie and glass of milk.

I prefer icecream, thank you very much.
However, i already HAVE squashed moron, and i actually earned it. You should appreciate that, since i used my opportunity - and the victims are to blame since they did not.

Hmm, homemade squashed moron - delicious!

[Einzige]

Wether you claimed it or not, it still constitues a massive flaw in your "system". In fact, you system would go a great lenght to minimize efficiency, therefore costing many human lives.

So you propose a hypothetical UHC system administered by a theocracy to a hypothetical free-market system which is not. Good to know, but it doesn't speak well of your reasoning systems.

Why?
Even if you have total state controll that discriminates against minorities, it would still be more efficient (the organs would be used for those majoritarians that need them first).

And? Protip: I'm not arguing that my system would be more efficient (although it would be); I'm arguing that it would be ultimately more egalitarian than some of the systems proposed in this thread.

Right there, moron. Money rules supreme, regardless of circumstances.

In this instance, certainly: the life of a religious fundamentalist is not equivalent to the life of a normal human being, however anti-utilitarian that sounds.

However, if you were remotely capable of contextual analysis, you'd have noticed that I wasn't endorsing a system based on the values, but that it would be the logical outcome of what I am endorsing, something I have repeatedly stated throughout this thread as something I'm willing to accept.

A state-"cartel" is NOT used to keep the prices high and IS controlled by his "customers" - as opposed to an actual cartel.

By the customers - who can use that control to whatever end they wish.

By whom? Remember, they are the radical majority. They can change laws and constitutions as they want to, as it happened during numerous historic precedences.

2010 is not 1789.

Bullshit.
While you can not root it out completely, you can severely reduce it with anti-discrimination laws.

Which have succeeded so well since the 1960s!

http://observers.france24.com/en/conten ... al-hutaree

According to an intelligence report by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the number of "patriot" groups in the US rose from 149 to 512 between 2008 and 2009; 127 of them defined as militia organisations.

Oh... maybe not.

Your system however has absolutely NO controll mechanisms and is, essentially, anarchistic.

However, i already HAVE squashed moron, and i actually earned it. You should appreciate that, since i used my opportunity - and the victims are to blame since they did not.

Hmm, homemade squashed moron - delicious!

Not quite as good as the sliced sycophant I'm presently feasting on.

[Broomstick]

I figured it was some sort of plutocratic free market bullshit like this.

Yes. Yes, that's precisely what it is.

Ah. So I take it you've never been poor?

Oh no, the State! Capitalized! That's a lot scarier sounding than "doctor puts you on a waiting list" isn't it. Funny how you felt compelled to word it that way.

As I look at the trend the United States is taking in the long-term, one obvious alternative to my phraseology is "a church-approved doctor puts you on a waiting list after you have successfully passed rigorous physical and moral examination."

Oh, please - you're how old? 14? 15? You sound that stupidly young and naive. What in the hell makes you think any one church is going to get that kind of pull in the US? There are too many churches. NONE of them has a majority. What church is going to concede such authority to another institution? There is no "church of the United States" and I don't think there ever will be.

Unless they're poor, in which case fuck 'em. But if they're rich they're free to purchase and shit up as many organs as they want with their irresponsible lifestyle while anyone who isn't rich can just fuck off and die.

Pretty much. But, then, this stems from my anti-utilitarianism: I simply don't hold to the notion that every life is as valuable as every other life.

Equally clearly, you measure human worth in dollar signs. Again, you've obviously never been poor.

As against the possibility that a thoroughly politicized health-care system, which, by its very nature, must be responsive to the often arbitrary and always uninformed whims of a mass populace, might deform into something utterly repulsive? I'll take my chances.

You know, that's how we got our current dysfunctional system.

It blows my mind that Americans will not admit that their system sucks. So many would, literally, rather die than concede the rest of the world got it right when they have it wrong.

So instead of fixing the second part of your definition (if it is indeed broken, which i can not judge for the USA), you want to replace it with something that guarantees neither the first nor the second part of it?

Here's my fear: let's have a universal organ rationing system. Let's make it perfectly democratic, as most Statist progressives prefer. That means that each successive Administration appoints a Secretary of Medical Management (or whatever title you prefer) to oversee the allotment of biological resources.

We already have nationwide organ sharing system, and "the administration" has nothing to do with running it. Given the love conservative nutjobs have of privatizing shit, WHY would anyone eliminate the current system (UNOS) to set up a government bureaucracy to run it? Why the FUCK do you think each "administration" would appoint some one to hand out "biological resources"? Does the administration appoint every fucking doctor in the system? Every hospital CEO? Where do you get this ludicrous idea?

You certainly didn't base it on reality or any knowledge of how organ donation works.

That's fine and well. Now say that a populistic religious fire-breather takes office and forswears that he will eliminate all medical funding to those he considers "moral degenerates": the addicts, the gays, and, by the time this might come around, the cyborgs. Now you have a situation that is no more progressive than it was before, and is reactive in a new and charming way.

What the fuck are you smoking? We've had fundies in office - Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2....Despite all that we still have legal abortion, birth control, people with HIV still get treatment....

If anything, there was LESS discrimination against gays under Bush 1 and 2 than there was under Gerald Ford, or Nixon (Nixon who, by the way, proposed universal health care for all Americans back in 1972!) Not that I expect you to believe that, as you are clearly too young to have any sense of history.

And cyborgs? What the fuck makes you think any religious or conservative type is going to discriminate against cyborgs?. That ship has sailed, buddy-boy. Dick Cheney has hardware keeping his heart beating, and Rush Limbaugh has mechanical ears now. Within my lifetime prosthetic limbs have gone from things that makers attempted to make life-like and users hid under clothing to today, when young war vets unabashedly tromp about in fake legs that look like they were taken off Robocop's thinner brother at my local mall. The American public clearly has achieved a base level of acceptance of artificial parts that make your supposition ludicrous in the extreme.

Paranoia? Perhaps. Living in America it pays to be suspicious of your fellow-citizens. If you can show me a rock-solid way around even the possibility of this happening, and still have it come out politically viable here, I'm all ears. But I don't think you can do it.

You don't get "rock solid" guarantees in life - not EVER. It's a hostile universe, kid. That sort of statement demonstrates yet again that you are stupidly naive, cocksure, and full of yourself.

Because a free market is efficient at nothing BUT generating wealth (since that is per definition the goal of a free market) and it's sure as hell not interested in equality.

Not your understanding of equality, no.

Not anyone's understanding of equality - an unbridled free market will NEVER promote equality. Of any sort.

Besides, i can not imagine that "the state" is actuallly "dictating" who becomes organs and who doesn't (except by giving guidlines based on medical necessity), so cut the rethoric bullshit.

Under different circumstances that could very well prove to be the case.

Hey, fuckwit - you DO understand that you can't just arbitrarily hand out replacement organs, right? That even if a church did get control over the supply they can't simply hand out incompatible organs to their flock, pray hard, and make it all work out, right?

I quite understand that's how it works in theory. And, if I remotely trusted the United States to continue functioning along the lines it was originally intended to, I'd have not the slightest problem with your position.

Gah! The stupidity! Are you a product of the worst sort of homeschooling? Because even most public schools do better than that! The United States government was NEVER intended to be immutable! That is WHY there is an amendment process to the constitution. That's the way it was always intended to be - flexible enough to CHANGE to adapt to an unforeseeable future!

Quite admittedly, I am a pessimist: I wouldn't be surprised to find that my children look back on this era as a gilded age in comparison to what I expect to be coming down the line.

I think you fail to understand the difference between gilded age and golden age.

If I have to beat you about the head with it - America is dysfunctional, to the point that, if we hadn't overspent on our military in decades past, I have no doubt whatsoever that it'd have degenerated into despoty decades ago.

God, you are fucking stupid - and ignorant of history. Although we are going through a turbulent time it is by NO means as horrible as you think it is, you mewling larval human. This ain't nothin' compared to the 1960's when assassinations of a president and presidential candidate, among others, was a reality, all the major cities were rioting, unarmed college students were shot dead by national guardsmen, and there were literal tanks rolling down fucking I-75 in Detroit! The US survived it. We'll survive this, too. It'll be shitty for awhile, but it's not the End of the World.

Of course, a major difference between you and me is that I remember the 1960's.... and your most recent memory is mommy changing your full diaper.

Everything is politicized here - literally everything.

Wake the fuck up and get over your American exceptionalism! Shit is politicized everywhere. Goddamn, you are fucking ignorant of the rest of the world.

And until this over-politicization of health and medical issues dies down, particularly as it is connected to the religious issue, I do not believe it a wise attempt to establish anything remotely approaching universal health care.

You have health insurance, then?

You are not one of the people who have to watch a loved one suffer daily for lack of care. You are not someone who does the suffering. How easy it is, to let others feel the pain.

I want you to do me a favor: go out and pick up an English language newspaper covering American news and politics. The number one story, day in and day out, is the popular mass furor that is, even as we speak, culminating into a virtual mobilization, an army of white trash that may very well escalate into something even worse. What might we expect out of people like this?

Oh, boo-fucking-hoo - one of the "white trash" militia assholes recently arrested and charged with treason (gee, I guess being religious doesn't make one immune after all!) lived not 5 miles from me. They're a sad, pathetic group of losers. Unfortunately, they do have arms, but the notion that the US government can't handle that sort of rabble is ridiculous.

You don't know what civil unrest is like. I doubt you're old enough to remember the Oklahoma City bombing. You seriously think even the most well-equipped private militia group in the US has a ghost of a chance against the Feds?

And this is the gist of it, and, I believe, it reduces our differences to a mere matter of opinion: you would accept what I'll term a vertical discrimination - that is, a system which discriminates against select groupings in favor of other select groupings - so long as a horizontal equality on the issue - easier access for the "common man" to needed medical facilities - was achieved. I prefer horizontal discrimination - a broad-based hazing out of a majority of people from the system - in favor of vertical equality - the absence, or near-absence, of any denial-of-use owing to reasons deeply related to the individual being discriminated against.

In other words - you favor the creation of a privileged aristocracy (determined by wealth rather than descent, but a favored elite nonetheless). The privileged will reap the benefits of 21st Century medicine and the poor will die in droves.

Let me make a wild guess - you aren't volunteering to be one of the serfs, right? You clearly believe you'd be in the privileged caste. That's always how these juvenile wet-dreams go.

[quoteI hardly find either to be ideal, but then, I consider myself a realist, particularly with regards to American politics.[/quote]
You are too ignorant to claim title to "realist"

In truth I have no problem whatsoever with the notion of universal health care as implemented by a sane, stable society, such as Germany; but America is spoiled, America is impudent, and most Americans are wholly unworthy of it, and wouldn't be able to live up to it in the first. Therefore, if we must pick our poisons, I'll pick mine and you'll pick yours.

Right, because, say, Germany of the 1930s and 40's was so incredibly sane

If Germany can go from the clusterfuck of WWII to a sane system today then there's no reason on god's green earth the US can't do the same. More of that poisonous American exceptionalism again - too many Americans would rather die, literally, than concede they aren't special snowflakes.

Who are you to judge that "most Americans" are not worthy of medical care?

Hey, dipshit - what's the difference between those two?
"It's your fault, you are poor" is NOT what i call morality. Why not? Well, simply because it is NOT always ones own fault, wether you believe that or not.

Uh, no. Did I indicate I believed it? Did I, at fucking all, say I believe, or even suggested I feel, that those in poverty are in any way "at fault" for their circumstances?

You said they were unworthy of life-saving medical care - pretty damning, if you ask me. I don't usually accuse people of Nazi attitudes, but that's exactly what they did - they deemed some of their fellow citizens unworthy of life. Then moved on to deem many other categories of human being unworthy of life.

Have I not - repeatedly - said I wish it were otherwise in this nation?

You've made it pretty clear that you favor a priveleged caste of people who can benefit from medical care and devil take the rest.

But back to the smelly, rotten core of your argument:
IF the USA become as bad as your proclaim, your system is still USELESS in preventing "vertical discrimination".
Why? Well, simply because those discriminated against would have a much harder time finding jobs and making money - therefore, they would be poor because they are who they are - NOT because it is "their fault".

Which is more acceptable to me than the alternative.

Translation: I'm butthutt at the notion a poor person's life is worth as much as my rich, pampered ass.

Let's say that you've got a very low-set brow, as I expect. Let's say that people mock you behind your back for it. Then let's say one day you run into a chap who physically assaults you all the while calling you a Neanderthal. Who's worse: the passive fellows who displayed their bigotry to your rear, or the active one who introduced it to your face?

The passive ones stabbing you in the back are worse. You see, outright assault can be taken to court, it's much easier to prove your case and get redress with blatant, outright discrimination. Meanwhile, the folks engaged in behind-your-back bullshit will whittle you down all your life - you just won't get the promotion, you just won't hear about an opportunity, you just won't be invited to the party, so no matter how hard you work you will NEVER catch up with them... and you'll never be able to fix it.

Show how your plan would actually prevent discrimination based on race, gender, religion etc. better than the current system, or conceed your point.

As I've said, my system isn't perfect (unlike you, I'm more than capable of admitting that I don't have all the answers), but it prevents the worst of the worst, and the devil take the hind.

In other words - he favors a system that favors people such as himself. Even if it makes things worse for the majority of other people. Young selfish asshole. Big surprise

(Edited for decorum.)

If you polish a turd it's still a turd. And it still stinks.

[Einzige]

Ah, God forbid that any libertarian post on this forum: he will be automatically dog-piled and ground into submission through sheer weight of numbers.

Time to take the kid gloves off.

Ah. So I take it you've never been poor?

First off: fuck you. I live at present on a plot of land with - not one - not two - but three trailers situated on it. I attend a community college (having worked for a summer to afford the tuition). Don't even fucking try to play class-warfare with me. And I've been around long enough to know all about your economic woes.

Oh, please - you're how old? 14? 15? You sound that stupidly young and naive.

Twenty-two, actually. But I can hardly ask you to refrain from condescension, as it's part-and-parcel of your debating style.

What in the hell makes you think any one church is going to get that kind of pull in the US? There are too many churches. NONE of them has a majority. What church is going to concede such authority to another institution? There is no "church of the United States" and I don't think there ever will be.

A Church? No. An ecumenical council? Quite possibly. A massively intensified Religious Right with vague moorings in certainly loosely-connected religious bodies? Almost a certainty from my position. I live at Ground Zero of that movement - y'know, being poor and all.

Equally clearly, you measure human worth in dollar signs. Again, you've obviously never been poor.

Or I'm a realized who isn't prepared to create a government large enough to strangle myself with.

You know, that's how we got our current dysfunctional system.

So let's not fight fire with fire, eh?

It blows my mind that Americans will not admit that their system sucks. So many would, literally, rather die than concede the rest of the world got it right when they have it wrong.

Are you another of these fuckwits absolutely incapable of reading?

I posed what is now being delightfully referred to as "my system" in explicit response to another poster who suggested the government begin rationing organs to those he deemed worthy. I did not argue it to be preferable to a functioning organ-donation program under a Universal Healthcare System.

We already have nationwide organ sharing system, and "the administration" has nothing to do with running it. Given the love conservative nutjobs have of privatizing shit, WHY would anyone eliminate the current system (UNOS) to set up a government bureaucracy to run it? Why the FUCK do you think each "administration" would appoint some one to hand out "biological resources"? Does the administration appoint every fucking doctor in the system? Every hospital CEO? Where do you get this ludicrous idea?

Once again you demonstrate your total disinterest in actually reading anything before whatever it was in my posts that made you take up your Cross of Gold against me. I repeat: I was specifically responding to another poster who advocated government rationing and the rejection of 'unfavorables'.

What the fuck are you smoking? We've had fundies in office - Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2....Despite all that we still have legal abortion, birth control, people with HIV still get treatment....

My fear is that we've only seen the beginning; that we will, in fact, look back on those fellows as downright pleasant in comparison.

Actually... you know what, fuck it. I'm simply going to end here until you fucking morons realize that I was responding to someone else's hypothetical and that you imbeciles used it as opportunity enough to jump my shit for daring to question it.

Oh, and by the way, Broomstick? Before you have the fucking balls to call anyone else a Nazi, take a look at some of your fellows here on this fine forum:

A few random notes:

Drug addicts should be banned from getting organs. Period.

Until we figure out a way to get ahold of them other than taking people apart for spare parts... yeah.

Yeah, I really look like Goebbels in comparison.

[Broomstick]

Not likely. Most people value order; discrimination is the result of wanting too much order in too many illogical areas.

No, discrimination is rooted in fear of the other, and wanting an advantage over others, particularly an unearned/unfair advantage.

Even IF you removed any form of order and rules for transplants (and presumably other stuff) and made it a "the strongest wins"-system - the majority is by definition the strongest force around.

On the contrary: the smallest minority around is decidedly the strongest, and, itself a conglomeration of minorities, would benefit the most under my system.

In other words, you're claiming the wealthy are the smallest minority and deserve the best for themselves, and to hell with everyone else?

You DO realize the peasants vastly outnumber you, yes...?

On the other hand, if you pass laws that prevent discrimination and aid these minorities, it WILL prevent at least some discrimination.

Just like the Great Society did... oh, wait.

Yes, actually it did the Great Society is what eliminated discrimination in public accommodation and transportation, ended separate but (un)equal schooling, and institute Medicaid and Medicare in this country. Or hadn't you learned in school (since you are obviously too young to remember it as reality) that you don't see "whites only" signs any more, and it's illegal for a business open to the public to say "we'll only serve people of X type"?

In other words, you just flatly contradicted yourself. Fuckwit.

But mine has an potentially reducing effect on it, while yours already massively discriminates against ~80 percent of the population.

Only until such a time as the majoritarian populace gets its hands on it.

Translation: Because, you know, those dirty peasants just don't understand they aren't worth as much as one of the aristocracy! If you let the "majoritarian populace gets its hands on it" they'll just waste medical care on the poor (who, being poor, are inherently undeserving of medicine) and helping cripple people to walk and the blind to see and the deaf to hear instead of providing new livers for rich alcoholics!

You are proposing a massive trade-off for a nonexistent benefit.

No; I'm proposing a trade-off so as to prevent a massive catastrophe which, however unlikely, is still possible, even today. If you can find me some system that safeguards against it, and convince me of it proof-positive, then, again, I'm all ears. Until such a time, I regard your approach as fundamentally flawed.

We could get hit by a fucking rock zooming in from outer space, rendering all this moot - shitforbrains, you CAN NOT have a guarantee of the sort you're asking for, it does not and will not exist. I think you even know that - so you're arguing for a system that keeps you safe and if thousands of others die preventable deaths to keep you comfortable, so be it. You are one nasty piece of work.

[Jaevric]

Einzige:

Who were you responding to who suggested a system of government rationing and rejection of "unfavorables?" Me, because I said that people who voluntarily engaged in medically risky activities should be a lower priority for organs than people who do not? Or did someone else propose a system that you felt was unacceptably discriminatory?