I noticed an effective tactic when debating pro-State trolls on health care reform.
If you say "Government licensing requirements for doctors are damaging and should be eliminated!", then the Statist will say "You're a fruitcake." Saying "Government licensing requirements are damaging!" is a fnord phrase that sets off their pro-State brainwashing and causes their logical thinking ability to shut down.
Instead, I say "The supply of doctor licenses should be increased." This frames the issue in a manner that pro-State trolls can understand.
While Bill Clinton was President, there was a law that decreased the number of slots in State-licensed medical schools, restricting the supply of doctors.
The supply of doctor licenses is not determined by a free market process, but by a law.
The USA has fewer doctors per-capita than other industrialized countries. That leads to higher prices. In a State-backed monopoly, supply and demand have a nonlinear relationship. If you cut the supply by 20%, then prices may rise by more than 20%, especially for medical care where the patient/victim has no choice but to buy.
If you say "Government licensing requirements for doctors are damaging!", that's impermissible in the eyes of a pro-State troll. They'll get hostile when you suggest the idea. If you say "The supply of doctor licenses should be increased!", that's something a pro-State troll can understand.
No mainstream media debate of healthcare reform suggests "Increase the supply of doctor licenses!" as a solution.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Health Care Reform Debating Tip
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I'm curious about this law-- do you have any details about it?
"Saying "Government licensing requirements are damaging!" is a fnord phrase that sets off their pro-State brainwashing and causes their logical thinking ability to shut down."
Yeah, unfortunately, the idea that people's own demand for credible doctors would cause the marketplace to develop licensing requirements (which would better fit the number of doctors available and needed) is unbelievable, especially for leftists who have no concept of self-regulated markets (as they believe the market's been unregulated the entire time...the ignorance runs deep unfortunately). Yes, sometimes you have to craft arguments in a way that statists can grasp. But sometimes, still you can't get through. Right now i'm having a battle in my poll question entry on the issue of mandating health insurance to individuals by threat of taxation. And unfortunately, my friend's authoritarian ideas toward peaceful people making their own choices is stubborn to go away.
Nick brings up an interesting point...alot of leftists understand what is wrong but are WAYYY off the true source of our problems.
A friend of mine considers himself left-wing/communist but when I talk to him he describes an ideal society as some sort of anarchy based barter community made up of entrepreneurs! I tell him that he is probably more capitalist than I am! Its a shame that alot of potential allies to the agorist camp have been too badly brainwashed! Thats the type of paradox FSK writes about. The state has managed to create a situation where even people who have become aware of the state's evil are unable to properly place the blame and end up helping to marginalize the situation!
Post a Comment