3 ms·
You are now engaging in sophistry. Doctors in England can be paid more in their system than they make now without putting in profit motives. In a publicly fun
by synetic 3y ago
You are now engaging in sophistry. Doctors in England can be paid more in their system than they make now without putting in profit motives. In a publicly funded system one can pay lots of money to workers without profit in the system.
It’s as if Americans don’t understand that government can provide services and not be profit driven.
- thfuran 3y ago>Doctors in England can be paid more in their system than they make now without putting in profit motives Could their pay increase without the doctors profiting?
- synetic 3y agoThis is a nonsensical response. You know what is meant by “profit” in the context of this discussion. You argue in bad faith particularly since you deliberately left off the motive part of my statement. Obviously what is being discussed is that non-workers should not reap monetary rewards from denying care or otherwise siphoning out money from the healthcare system. You may nitpick each word and be as pedantic as possible but none of that will demonstrate that having PE firms in charge of hospitals would be better than a government or nonprofit entity running things.
- thfuran 3y ago>but none of that will demonstrate that having PE firms in charge of hospitals would be better than a government or nonprofit entity running things. You accuse me of arguing in bad faith while repeatedly implying that I'm arguing for things I haven't even remotely approached?
- synetic 3y agoAre we in agreement then that it’s best for PE not to be able to buy hospitals? Do we agree that nonprofit (as that term is applied colloquially) entities should run healthcare? I hope we are in agreement on this. If not then I hope your view does not gain support.