Search the Community

In Ontario, there's been some recent fuss in the media about some Doctor's applying for an explicit right to discriminate, reminiscent of the recent Indiana discrimination legislation. This article outlines some of the typical popular sentiment about this application. My partner takes the position that doctor's should not be allowed to discriminate. I argued the other case, and suggested that people can just switch doctors and the discriminatory doctor will have financial pressure to change their policies. My argument seemed weak for a number of reasons: - There is so much legislation in place in Ontario relating to health care that switching a family doctor is non-trivial. - There is no free market for specialists, and you don't have the flexibility to switch or choose. A specialist is assigned by the "family" (or walk-in) doctor who gets a (Government paid) fee for providing the referral service. You are not allowed to see specialists directly, even if it's obvious that it's appropriate to do so. The wait time for seeing a specialist is usually in the order of many months, so the cost of looking elsewhere if you don't like the service you receive is high. - There may not be other alternatives in Rural areas, so if you don't like the geographical proximate doctor, you may be stuck with their services. I am curious, given the anti-free market constraints that are undeniably in place in Ontario in the medical industry, what position other libertarian biased people would take in this argument, and how others would argue against the weaknesses in my argument against more legislation.

We have all been there, exiting Whole Foods and there is someone petitioning for you to sign something regarding Gay Rights, The Environment, or something else the U.S. government has destroyed for centuries. And the tool that they are going to use... You guessed it... THE GOVERNMENT! Yesterday, I was exiting whole foods and I got asked "Do you support gay rights?" "Yes, of course, but are you trying to get a new law passed?" "yes." "Well I certainly don't want any more of those! Thank you" ....then he says... "ENJOY YOUR PRIVILEGE" So... needless to say, I turned around engaged in a 5 minute debate of sorts.. Kind of fun, they are sitting ducks, so don't pick on them. But the reality is, any time you waste of theirs is time people aren't signing their petition to enact a new law, so it is time well spent. Btw, he was trying to get an anti-bullying law passed so that all public school teachers would be forced to offer an anti-bullying course, particularly for the lesbian and gay community. The first question I ask is "How long have you been in California?" "Ten years..." "Ok cool. And how long do you think insurance companies would have been recognized same-sex couples and certain hospitals would have allowed same-sex couples to visit each other in critical care, if it weren't for the laws that made it illegal in the State of California?" "Probably decades!" "Ok great... so now, you are telling me.. you are going to go to same exact people.. to ask for your rights back? With the same exact tool of democratic voting (democratic totalitarianism)." Long story short.. The product: "Uphold the rights of minorities!" Brought to you by the same people who gave you crowd sensations like: SlaveryJim Crow Laws 1,000,000 Dead Iraqi's The Prison Industrial Complex The War on Drugs The War on Terror Genocide of the Native Americans Followed by Welfare Enslavement NSA Spying National Debt Enslaving Future Generations Japanese Internment Camps Inflation Robbing The Lower Classes of Their Wealth The Suppression of Gay Rights "Ok, the government has done some bad thing IN THE PAST BUT without the government, minorities rights can't be protected!" The Truth: Without the government, you can not suppress the rights of minorities because you can not impose the oppressive views of the mob rule majority. During slavery, when run away slaves were caught, they were returned to their masters by the police. The police of course were paid for through taxation. Meaning slavery was subsidized by the government aka the tax payer. It also means, that every slave knew that if he did escape he would almost always be returned. This, of course, made it extremely unlikely for slaves to try to run. Now, imagine if the slave owner had to pay his OWN police force to be constantly roaming the land looking for run away slaves. It completely changes the business model and makes it entirely inefficient. And THIS the exact same system and people we are supposed to going to look for protection of the rights of minorities. Tell me how this blatant contradiction isn't the result of indoctrination and propaganda! As in, if there was ANYONE BESIDES THE GOVERNMENT with the same track record, would you even consider going to them for the protection of minorities rights? Let's say a few years ago, CHICK FILA and its affiliates singlehandedly caused the Japanese Internment Camps, but now they are under new management. Would you then willingly go to them to say, "Oh yeah, I know you guys kind of dropped the ball in the past. But we would really like gay marriage to be legalized, I know how good you are at helping the rights of minorities." At the end of the conversation, he says, "Well, I would continue this conversation, but I am trying to get people to sign up. So enjoy your PRIVILEGE!" (He has used that phrase several times in the conversation) So I stop. And loudly say. "EVERYONE LISTEN. This person is trying got get an ANTI BULLYING law passed, while constantly calling me "PRIVILEGED" in a derogatory axion, because I am a white male. And he assumes, I am not a minority. But the beauty of this is. I AM GAY. And he has not only jumped to conclusions about me based on my looks, he is bullying me based on those conclusions." I let him with a pretty funny expression on his face. Happy Anarching.