Originally posted by bakuninHealth care is also an industry. Does that entail that it is ethical for doctors to act contrary to the best interests of their patients in order to maximize profits? If not, what's the difference between providing health care and providing information around which people structure their lives?
What i find really interesting is the discussion itself: when people buy a computer (or a car or whatever they buy) they don't expect the manufacturer to be devoted to the bettering of their lifes - they usually believe that the manufacturer, by producing the goods they buy, want to make as much profit as possible. That the car they bought is built to be re ...[text shortened]... ot (and, personally, i find this disgusting), but this is the american dream, isn't it?
Wolf
Originally posted by bbarrI think that health care is something that you can't get away with providing a shoddy service. It would be picked up on immediately by the media, and probably government regulation boards, watchdogs, or whatever they're called.
Health care is also an industry. Does that entail that it is ethical for doctors to act contrary to the best interests of their patients in order to maximize profits? If not, what's the difference between providing health care and providing information around which people structure their lives?
The media can do it easily seeing as they are the ones who report any wrongdoings, and if all the media are working for the good of the guys at the top, whether they are Dems or Reps, then who's going to pick up on the misinformation inherent in corporation based media.
Also, seeing as the media are corporations, a strong economy means more profits for that corporation. Why would the media giants report that the war in Iraq is in fact wrong, or even just in a truthful manner, when the war in Iraq is, in the short term, providing a massive boost to the economy, and, in the long term, is building the foundations on which the american economy can be strong for a further 20 years, ie: until the oil runs out.
Journalism is in drastic decline. It's become a lousy profession. The commercial media are greed-driven enterprises dominated by a dozen transnational companies. Newsroom staffs have been downsized. Much of what you see on national and local TV news is actually video news releases prepared by public-relations firms and given free to TV stations and networks. News directors air these PR puff pieces disguised as news stories because it's a free way to fill airtime and allows them to lay off reporters. Of course, it's not just television that's the problem. Academics who study public relations report that half or more of what appears in newspapers and magazines is lifted verbatim from press releases generated by public-relations firms.
Remember, the media's primary source of income is the more than $100 billion a year corporations spend on advertising. The PR firms are owned by advertising agencies, so the same companies that are producing billions of dollars in advertising are the ones pitching stories to the news media, cultivating relationships with reporters, and controlling reporters' access to the executives and companies they represent. So why would a large media giant report on the Columbian deathsquads, who are wiping out the trade unions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1448962.stm) or the slaves 'employed' by Nike in South East Asia, when these massive corporations and the 20-30 like them are the only ones who can afford to buy the 30 second superbowl slots for $2.5 million a pop.
D
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarr
Health care is also an industry.
Correct.
Originally posted by bbarr
Does that entail that it is ethical for doctors to act contrary to the best interests of their patients in order to maximize profits?
Interesting question. Take into account that "health industry" is not only the doctors (in fact they are the smallest part in it), but also the Pfizers, Novartis et al of this world. Do they what they can to maximize profit? Definitely. Do they what they do even at the expense of human lifes? You bet! You won't get a life-saving drug from them without being able to pay for it.
Now, if this approach is good enough for a multinational trust, why shouldn't it be good enough for a doctor? He too will do the cheapest possible to meet the standards set by the law and avoid additional costs as long as the increased spending isn't generating a benefit for him. (This is, he may offer "premium" services but only for premium prices.)
Yes, exactly the same is true for information business.
Wolf
Originally posted by bakuninThere are always exceptions to the profit-first mentality on an individual level. I don't think you will find many exceptions at a company level. The reason the CBS thing is such a stink is if people think the news is fabricated, people won't watch it and the company will lose money. The other news organizations will jump on CBS and tout their own journalistic integrety, to keep and increase their own profits. The exception to the profit rule will only occur with rare individuals who, like Dan Rather, have their own agenda, which isn't completely in-line with corporate profits and are willing to take risks to forward that agenda. Most people will just go with the flow, which pushes the companies to profit at all costs.
Originally posted by bbarr
[b]Health care is also an industry.
Correct.
Originally posted by bbarr
Does that entail that it is ethical for doctors to act contrary to the best interests of their patients in order to maximize profits?
Interesting question. Take into account that "health industry" is not only the doctors (i ...[text shortened]... but only for premium prices.)
Yes, exactly the same is true for information business.
Wolf[/b]
On a medical level, off the original subject but mentioned earlier in the thread, when is the last time a company came up with a cure for anything? They find ways you can live with an illness, but a cure is not as profitable. There will never be a cure for aids, cancer, common cold etc. Only expensive ways to live with the illness. Look at all the progress that has been made with Jerry Lewis' muscular distrophy campaign. eh, none.
Originally posted by bakuninThe question I raised wasn't whether it is the case that multi-national drug manufacturers act contrary to the interests of the sick. Of course they do, and they do so all the time. The question was whether doctors ought to do this. The question is not whether doctors do this (they do, at times), but whether it is ethical for them to do this. I don't think it is ethical either for drug manufacturers to gouge the sick by endeavoring to maximize profits, nor do I think that doctors ought to gouge their patients to amximize profits. You seem to think it is unjustified to demand a standard of ethical conduct from those in the journalistic profession, I'm asking if the same goes for the health care industry, when people's well-being is at stake.
Originally posted by bbarr
[b]Health care is also an industry.
Correct.
Originally posted by bbarr
Does that entail that it is ethical for doctors to act contrary to the best interests of their patients in order to maximize profits?
Interesting question. Take into account that "health industry" is not only the doctors (i ...[text shortened]... but only for premium prices.)
Yes, exactly the same is true for information business.
Wolf[/b]
1 edit
Imagine this. You're an extremely intelligent, but Machiavellian and evil, political operative. You are notorious for spreading disinformation.
You work for a candidate who did something bad and embarassing a number of years ago. Say he ditched his silver-spoon national guard service while his opponent was off being a war hero.
How do you take the steam out of this fact when it comes out? It seems like you have several options:
1. Bribe the people who know about it. Expensive and unreliable.
2. Kill the people who know about it. Expensive, unreliable, and tends to get you imprisoned.
3. Destroy the evidence. Unreliable, tends to get you imprisoned.
4. Manufacture contrary evidence. Just mires your candidate deeper in the controversy.
5. Discredit anyone who suggests it by associating them with a blatant lie. Ah-ha!
What better way to discredit anyone who reports your candidate's wrongdoing than to manufacture obviously forged documents saying he did what he actually, in fact, did, then leak them to a major news outlet?
Then, when the forgeries are exposed, anyone who ever again says that your candidate skipped his national guard service will be discredited. And you have an easy soundbite in response to press questions forever: "Those documents were forged."
(Call this a thought experiment)
Originally posted by paultopiaI'd call it something else. Lies and smear to justify lies and smear.
Imagine this. You're an extremely intelligent, but Machiavellian and evil, political operative. You are notorious for spreading disinformation.
You work for a candidate who did something bad and embarassing a number of years ago. Say he ditched his silver-spoon national guard service while his opponent was off being a war hero.
How do you take the s ...[text shortened]... to press questions forever: "Those documents were forged."
(Call this a thought experiment)
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou calling them 100% forgeries is just as big a lie as CBS saying that they are 100% for real. Can u not see that?
I'd call it something else. Lies and smear to justify lies and smear.
Kelly
Kelly, if the good man truly has nothing to hide, why are there so many pages missing/edited from his record? Why do none of his commanders remember him?
D
Originally posted by RagnorakProbably because he was in the Air Guard. Half the time those weekend warriors didn't show up for duty. It wasn't just Bush who did it. Kerry won't release his records either and to tell you the truth it shouldn't matter what they did 30 years ago. The ones doing the most complaining are the ones who have never been in the military. Also it amazes me how the ones complaining didn't bitch about Clinton's lack of service.
You calling them 100% forgeries is just as big a lie as CBS saying that they are 100% for real. Can u not see that?
Kelly, if the good man truly has nothing to hide, why are there so many pages missing/edited from his record? Why do none of his commanders remember him?
D
Originally posted by slimjimIts not the lack of service that is a problem in my view. Its getting war mad people's vote by saying he served, when in fact he didn't, and was in fact a draft dodger.
...to tell you the truth it shouldn't matter what they did 30 years ago. The ones doing the most complaining are the ones who have never been in the military. Also it amazes me how the ones complaining didn't bitch about Clinton's lack of service.
Also, your point about it not mattering what they did 30 years ago is a bit moronic. Are you saying that if Stalin was running, then it wouldn't matter that he killed 27 million of his own people a few years ago? Let bygones be bygones?????
D
http://www.drudgereport.com/mh.htm
I heard about ABC having issues with the election too. I found it on
the drudge report. Not a place I go to, but feel it is one I may
bookmark. Since it is increasingly obvious honest reporting isn't
something many of the US major news agencies have in mind,
instead they are out to promote ideologies.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by bekiekeIf anyone ever thought of Wally as anything but an apologist to mr. Stalin... I never heard of them. Well except all democrats.
Whatever happened to the network that at one time had as it's primary spokesman the man who was considered by many to be the most trusted man in America, Walter Cronkite?
<snark>
The interesting part is the question that was asked in the forums here a few months ago to "name specific examples" of liberal media bias.
Let's put it this way. Suppose that the fox news channel had put up a program with FORGED documents... forged US government documents against or harming mr. Hanoi John... Which is a second degree felony. Same as the charges that brought down Nixon. Suppose they had. Would the story have 'died'? As the one against CBS did?
I think not.
And there is good old comrade Dan... he is still saying "I have always felt that the documents are accurate. I still believe that they are exactly correct in their portrayal of events..." etc.
What very few people have figured out is that he is actually saying this to cover his butt. In a court of law he can always say, "I have always believed the documents to be accurate." For you see... the criminality of his offense is contained in the word "intent". If... he posted the story with the 'intent' of affecting an election, it is a federal crime. If he had no intent of harm... he is innocent.
What a joke.
Originally posted by bbarrWell, in a system, where nothing else than "maximizing the profit" counts - what do you expect people to do? Reducing their chance of competing by deliberately being ignorant to the mechanisms of the society they live in?
The question I raised wasn't whether it is the case that multi-national drug manufacturers act contrary to the interests of the sick. Of course they do, and they do so all the time. The question was whether doctors ought to do this. The question is not whether doctors do this (they do, at times), but whether it is ethical for them to do this. I don't thi ...[text shortened]... 'm asking if the same goes for the health care industry, when people's well-being is at stake.
You (plural) always wanted the "american way of life" - don't complain now that you have it.
Ethical?? Is a used car seller judged by "ethical standards" when he tries to sell you the car for the highest price possible? Why shouldn't a doctor offer "shoddy service" because of "cost restrictions" just to be able to sell his not-so-shoddy "premium" service to people who can afford them? What is unethical about a doctor doing the same every other businessman would do - and get applauded for doing so?
Funny, that all the good intentions of "free market" and "no public spending" and "make profit instead of sucking on the public tit" are forgotten as soon as it gets to ones own health.
Wolf
1 edit
Originally posted by RagnorakYou calling them 100% forgeries is just as big a lie as CBS saying that they are 100% for real. Can u not see that?
You calling them 100% forgeries is just as big a lie as CBS saying that they are 100% for real. Can u not see that?
Kelly, if the good man truly has nothing to hide, why are there so many pages missing/edited from his record? Why do none of his commanders remember him?
D
[/b]Were you saying that the forgeries, are what only 85% forgeries?
The documents were fake, you seem to have a view that parts of
them were not. You have information that suggest otherwise, or are
you buying into CBS's line that even though the documents were fake
the contents were true? After this CBS crime, and the ABC news
agency suggesting that Bush news needs to be handled differently
than the Kerry news seems like there is little in the way of objectivity
in the old big three networks now days.
Of course now there is a story or whatever we want to call it that the
DNC is trying to stop. A documentary on Kerry's anti-war stance after
he got out of the Navy. Seems like the press is a subject our
government is going to go after soon.
John McCain opened up a can of worms trying to block political
speech, since who gets to say what is and is not political speech?
Personally, I believe the move to regulate free speech during an
election is the worse thing that any government could do. That
is the one time free speech is really needed most. Having the
govenment being able to come down on an expression of opinion
or being able to smash a news story is scary.[/b]
Kelly