Re: 100 Years of Medical Robbery
From: Paul Antonik Wakfer (tom_at_morelife.org)
Date: 06/15/04
- Next message: Paul Antonik Wakfer: "Re: 100 Years of Medical Robbery"
- Previous message: Todd Gastaldo: "Retired OB proposes child abuse to expose child abuse..."
- In reply to: David Wright: "Re: 100 Years of Medical Robbery"
- Next in thread: Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS: "Re: 100 Years of Medical Robbery"
- Reply: Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS: "Re: 100 Years of Medical Robbery"
- Reply: David Wright: "Re: 100 Years of Medical Robbery"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 03:16:40 -0400
David Wright wrote:
> In article <40CCC988.90201@morelife.org>,
> Paul Antonik Wakfer <tom@morelife.org> wrote:
>
>>David Wright wrote:
>>
>>>In article <40CCB59E.9010604@morelife.org>,
>>>Paul Antonik Wakfer <tom@morelife.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Orac wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <40cc3774$0$70109$45beb828@newscene.com>,
>>>>>"Howard McCollister" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Paul Antonik Wakfer" <tom@morelife.org> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:40CBE911.5010701@morelife.org...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1547
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Excerpt:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"The American Medical Association (AMA) was founded in 1847 around two
>>>>>>>propositions: one, all doctors should have a "suitable education" and
>>>>>>>two, a "uniform elevated standard of requirements for the degree of M.D.
>>>>>>>should be adopted by all medical schools in the U.S." [1] In the days of
>>>>>>>its founding AMA was much more open--at its conferences and in its
>>>>>>>publications--about its real goal: building a government-enforced
>>>>>>>monopoly for the purpose of dramatically increasing physician incomes.
>>>>>>>It eventually succeeded, becoming the most formidable labor union on the
>>>>>>>face of the earth."
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>I swear, ignorance about the American Medical Association
>>>>>>abounds. I suppose it makes for a good focal point for peoples'
>>>>>>frustrations with the health care system in the US. Never mind
>>>>>>that statements such as Paul Wakfer's represent total ignorance
>>>>>>of how the system actually works.
>>>>>
>>>>*I* did not make the statement. I posted an excerpt from the full
>>>>article written by someone else. If you have factual criticisms of the
>>>>article then please make them. Smearing me to smear it simply won't work.
>>>
>>>I really do despise people who post inflammatory crap
>>
>>If you would take the time to read and understand the whole well
>>researched and written article you would know that it is not
>>"inflammatory crap".
>
>
> What you posted certainly is, as other posters have demonstrated quite
> well. The AMA isn't a "union," and it's nowhere near the
> power-monster that the excerpt claims it is. What else need be said?
There are other reasonable definitions of "union" than one which
requires all those in a given occupation to be members. Why don't you
read the full text to find out why he used that term?
It sounds like "shoot the messenger" to me.
I did not author any of it. I simply delivered it for appraisal of its
contents in forums which should be interested.
>>>and, when
>>>they're called on it, try to weasel away from it by claiming they just
>>>posted it, they didn't write it.
>>
>>The previous poster stated: "statements such as Paul Wakfer's". It
>>needed to be made clear that I did not make that statement. That is what
>>I did make clear. If you have read anything that I have ever written on
>>the Internet, you should know that I *never* attempt to "weasel away
>>from" anything.
>
>
> That's how it read.
Clearly you jumped to the wrong "convulsion".
> I admit it did seem a bit out of character.
> You're not usually one to walk away like that.
Then why did you assume so incorrectly?
My only conclusion is that you are much more biased in thought and much
less open to reason and rational discussion than the impression that you
have heretofore given.
>>>It's perfectly reasonable to assume
>>>that you posted it because you agreed with it
>>
>>Not at all.
>
>
> Oh yes it is. Are you in the habit of posting articles, without
> comment, with which you disagree?
Absolutely yes. Particularly since I do not agree fully with practically
anything that I read (unless I have written it :-)
> And if so, why would you do such a thing?
To get some other viewpoints of something about which I am not entirely
certain, without first coloring it with my own ideas. Isn't that a
reasonable thing to do?
>>And in any case he said that it was my statement, not merely
>>that I agreed with it. In fact, I don't fully agree with it nor the
>>entirety of the article.
>
>
> Then that needs to be said, and you didn't say it.
I did not say anything because I have no great certainty nor sufficient
evidence for all my positive or negative thoughts about it. Again, is
that not reasonable?
>
>>However, I thought that it needed some
>>discussion in the arena of those who would be interested in it and
>>affected by it. I had hope to get such rational, thoughtful discussion
>>rather than a bunch of mere blind disgusted smears.
>
>
> You posted something that was, for all practical purposes, a blind
> disgusted smear
Not at all, if you would only read the article. In addition, the Mises
website does not post "smears". That much is certain.
In hindsight my mistake was simply in selecting any particular excerpt.
> and now you're complaining because it generated more of the same.
No. I am complaining at the irrationality of some people (such as you)
for wanting to shoot the messenger and for not even caring to read the
whole article and bring concerted evidence to bear against it.
> Hardly reasonable, and it should be *just* what you
> expected.
The response was totally unreasonable and not what I expected at all
from supposed rational intelligent people. I am afraid that I now have a
dimmer opinion of doctor types than even before.
> If you want a reasonable discussion, lead off with
> something reasonable. This wasn't it.
I will admit that I erred in selection of the excerpt that I quoted. So
many times I post links which never get a response that I thought I
would make sure it did. At least that worked :)
>>>-- unless you explictly said otherwise, which you didn't.
>>
>>I explicitly said nothing on purpose, because I did not wish to provoke
>>any initial bias either way.
>
>
> Given that the initial posting was heavily biased to begin with,
> that's disingenuous.
David, all such articles are biased (ie. has some individual's
subjective viewpoint) to a certain extent. The only question is whether
the evidence brought to bear is factual and whether the arguments for
the conclusions are logical or not. If you have not read the article you
are in no position to judge it - certainly not from one out-of-context
excerpt.
>>>I think you need to revamp your life-extension regimen. It may be
>>>lengthing your life, but it's softening your brain.
>>
>>David, I had always thought from your postings that you were a person of
>>some reason and rationality. But this posting from you, particularly the
>>last insult, means that I now must revise that opinion.
>
>
> Go right ahead. I had though you were opinionated, but generally
> reasonable, yourself -- however, a couple of your recent contributions
> have caused *me* to start to revise my opinion.
Such a shame.
--Paul Wakfer
MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Rational freedom by self-sovereignty & social contracting
- Next message: Paul Antonik Wakfer: "Re: 100 Years of Medical Robbery"
- Previous message: Todd Gastaldo: "Retired OB proposes child abuse to expose child abuse..."
- In reply to: David Wright: "Re: 100 Years of Medical Robbery"
- Next in thread: Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS: "Re: 100 Years of Medical Robbery"
- Reply: Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS: "Re: 100 Years of Medical Robbery"
- Reply: David Wright: "Re: 100 Years of Medical Robbery"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
