Re: American health care best? No...Most expensive? Yes...Ranked 12th

From: Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD (andrew_at_heartmdphd.com)
Date: 07/05/04 

Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2004 06:31:48 -0400

Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com wrote:
>
> > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <andrew@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message news:<40E698A8.3554@heartmdphd.com>...
> > >
> > > Christ's second commandment would be more effective.
> >
> > What, you think these gang bangers haven't heard it?
> >
>
> Chung:
> Christ is more effective than either you or I in our white coats and
> stethoscopes. What do you think?
>
> COMMENT:
>
> I'll tell you what I think. I think Santa Claus is more effective than
> Christ, because I've seen kids do things for him that they'll never do
> for Christ.

In truth, without Christ, there would be no Santa Claus.

> The problem with Christ is that he's just basically Santa for adults.
> By rumor, he's making a list and checking it twice, gunna find out
> who's naughty and nice, and one day he's coming to town. `Cept until
> then he's awfully scarce, you notice?

Not for those who have been walking with Him.

> Has an unlisted phone number and
> email and even mail (hell, Santa can be reached at North Pole, Alaska,
> not far from Fairbanks-- I've been there and he seemed nice enough).

Why would you need a phone number (email address or postal address for
that matter) to reach someone who is walking right beside you?

> Christ doesn't seem to have my email address, even though he should.
> And he never visits me (come on, he doesn't need a chimney). And he
> must be really shy about photos, because although other people SAY he
> visits them, they never seem to have a handshake picture, like they do
> with the President. And I'll bet they'd pay money for it, too. "Me and
> Jesus the Christ. Taken in St. Peter's square, 7/1/01. Glowing
> autograph. $479.95. Less than airfare to Rome!"

It seems that you are blind, Dr. Harris.

May God open your eyes so that you can see Him all around you, in
Christ's name.

> You know, I think the Christ is actually a made-up person, just like
> Santa and the Tooth Fairy. What do you think?

Not.

> Like the Loch Ness
> Monster, Bigfoot, and those little gray aliens with bug eyes, the
> living Jesus is never around when you really need him to show up to
> settle an argument.

I do not show up to settle arguments. So by your logic, I don't exist
either.

> That's really fishy. If he'd just hold a telephone
> ike Howard Hughes once did, or better yet video, he could do a lot of
> scotch those rumors that he's actually been dead for some time. And if
> Jesus is still alive, I'll bet he looks better than Hughes, and isn't
> addicted to codeine, so it could be fun. We could bring in Dan Rather,
> some loaves and fishes, and have a better audience percentage than the
> last superbowl.

Is that what you require in order to accept Christ as your personal Lord
and Savior?
 
> CHung:
> >I agree there is more confusion when you blur the distinction between
> >economic systems with political systems.
>
> >It is one thing to let people know that you have a better mousetrap
> to >sell more mousetraps.
>
> >It is another thing to come up with a catchy jingle or ad campaign to
> >sell more inferior product.
>
> COMMENT:
>
> Is it the jingle and ad campaign you object to, or the inferior
> product?

Who said I was objecting to anything?

> I suppose you don't object to ad campaigns like your website, where
> you claim to have an "edge" due to "preventive cardiac techniques
> exclusive and proprietary to my practice?"

Why would I object to the truth?

> Yeah? Well, an edge over
> who?

The ordinary mousetrap.

> Other cardiologists who don't have these exclusive techniques?
> Well, it wouldn't be an edge at all unless you were claiming your
> "proprietary" and "exclusive" techniques were better than everyone
> else's, now would it?

If something is "exclusive," by definition there is no comparison.

> If somebody else's techniques are better, then
> you're engaged in false advertising.

Good thing I remain truthful.

> If your own are better than
> anybody else's, how come you don't have the Nobel Prize?

Bill Gates arguably claims to have the best Windows operating system
around. Has he been awarded a Nobel Prize for this?

> And failing
> that, WHERE'S YOUR PROOF?

What proof do you require?

> I must've missed your last authoritative
> survey in Circulation or the NEJM.

I don't conduct surveys. Sorry.

> The problem here is you're hoist with your own petard. You object to
> people advertising any but the best product, but you've done it
> yourself, right here.

Two comments here at this juncture:

(1) No objection has been raised (by me anyway) about capitalistic
practices of marketing (such as marketing to create new markets or
demands where none previously existed).

(2) Thank you Dr. Harris for the unsolicited advertising of my
cardiology practice.

>You have no evidence. Which means you're full of
> baloney.

Ouch, you may have at the other cheek.

> I think that's all logical.

As if baloney were logical.
 
> > Or at least, they all try to. None of
> > them are perfectly effective. I see no point in you even making the
> > comment, when it applies not only to capitalism but also to socialism
> > and Communism.
> >
> > You bring up "free markets" out of the air. Who said anything about
> > "free markets." ??
>
> >Most people associate advertising with free markets. Are you now
> >claiming that you did not bring up advertising,
> >Dr. Harris?
>
> COMMENT:
>
> COMMENT
> I brought up advertising. We have to have a word for what we're
> talking about when you talk about "making people want things." People
> may associate advertising with free markets—-I don't know.

I suspect you do know.

> They may
> associate smoke with coal locomotives. So what? When you have a coal
> locomotive you usually have smoke. The reverse isn't usually true.

You probably mean converse. And that depends on whether the smoke is
moving along a railroad track.

> > You bring up the term as though it was synonymous
> > with capitalism. It's not.
> >I bring it up because it is associated with advertising.
>
> COMMENT:
> And smoke is associated with coal locomotives. It doesn't not follow
> that where there's smoke there's a coal locomotive.

See above.
 
> Harris
> > Free market implies a market in which
> > trades are supervised by some kind of governing trade authority, which
> > prevents open theft and also adjudicates and guarantees fairness and
> > nonviolent conflict resolution in the case of trade disagreements.
>
> Chung;
>
> >Would suggest you stick with the definition:
>
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=free+market
>
> Main Entry: free market
> Function: noun
> an economic market operating by free competition
>
> COMMENT:
>
> Would suggest you don't post definitions too brief to be meaningful.

You may certainly complain to the good folks at Merriam-Webster. I am
sure that they will consider your comments very carefully and lengthen
the definition in the very manner that would suit you and your purposes.

> The one above is too abbreviated to be very useful, and just re-uses,
> without comment, one of the words in the phrase to be defined. That's
> not very helpful. It assumes you know the prerequisites and
> requirements of "free competition." I merely listed them out. They
> apply to everything from pro-football to the Olympics to a flea market
> or bazaar.
>
> Chung:
> > > Though it [advertising/marketing] does not define it, you have to admit that it is a feature of
> > > American-style capitalism.
>
> Harris;
> > It's a feature of every kind of political system. They show goods and
> > services in newspapers and on TV. I guarantee you they do it in Cuba
> > and Sweden, and they did it in the old USSR. My point is: so what?
> >
>
> Chung:
> You started with the view that "capitalism gives people what they
> want" and I countered with capitalism using advertising/marketing to
> convince people to buy (or eat) what they don't need (creating markets
> where none previously existed).
>
> COMMENT:
>
> You haven't been paying attention. First of all, the distinction
> between what people merely want and what they really need, is
> meaningless. It's a matter of individual taste. I've seen people die
> rather than violate their values, and indeed I've seen them die rather
> than violate their standard of what kind of life is the best to live.
> There's no arguing with any of this, so long as they don't use force
> to makes me or somebody else go along.

Then why are you arguing?
 
> Second, although capitalism may be good at giving people what they
> want, the idea that capitalism is somehow specially gifted at creating
> wants where none existed before, is hogwash. Most non-casual
> interactions between animals and animals, between animals and humans,
> and between humans and humans, and which don't involve the use of
> force, instead involve some kind of advertising. That's often how
> people finally know what they want, and how to get what they want. And
> yet most human interaction (counting both public and private) is not
> economic, even in a capitalist society. You want to get married? You'd
> better create a market for yourself where none existed before (very
> few people carry perfect police-sketches of the mate they're looking
> for around with them, until one they finally, by total luck stumble
> upon the suspect). You even want to get your kids to go to bed without
> threat of violence? Then you'd better figure out how to shape
> pre-existing child-wants into YOUR wants. This is not capitalism.
> Capitalism isn't responsible for most of this kind of thing in the
> world. Capitalism didn't make the anglerfish's lure, nor the pea***'s
> tail.

Not that I am anti-capitalism but why are you so fervently
pro-capitalism?

> Send me your address, Dr. Chung. I'll have the Mormon missionaries
> come out and convince you that a Book of Mormon is just what you need,
> and therefore should be just what you want.

My home belongs to God and I welcome all those whom He would have me
welcome.

> And right now there are
> Christian missionaries trying to do the same to Hindus and to Russian
> atheists.

May God continue to bless them, in Christ's name.
 
> Capitalism doesn't run the world, Dr. Chung.

Never claimed that it did.

> The need for dominance,
> power, control, and successful reproduction run the world. Capitalism
> is merely one of the minor techniques we humans have for accomplishing
> these goals. But it's not the most important one, by far.
>
> SBH

You remain in my prayers to God in Christ's name, neighbor.

May you accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, someday, so that
you too will have eternal life and the infinite riches of His
everlasting kingdom. 

-- 
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048
What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48
Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
Quantcast