Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / FIDE Case 2/2012 “Rybka and ICGA”
1 2 3 Previous Next  
- - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-11-09 10:44
Below link is to FIDE Ethics Committee decision at Tallinn 84th FIDE Congress in Case 2/2012 “Rybka and ICGA”

http://www.fide.com/images/stories/NEWS_2013/FIDE/Congress/Annexes/Annex_69.pdf

From the FIDE Code of Ethics:
2.2.3  Organizers, tournament directors, arbiters or other officials who fail to perform their functions in an impartial and responsible manner.
Parent - - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) [us] Date 2013-11-09 12:30
So anymore news?  All I see is that they have received the case and will discuss it more.  (At least that's better than some of the other cases, which were immediately rejected.)  Any word on when the final decision will be announced?
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-11-09 15:01
Nothing specific over and above the linked FIDE document. I think it (receivable) means that (a) FIDE Ethics Committee consider that the ICGA, as an affiliate, are governed by the FIDE Code of Ethics, and (b) FIDE EC consider there is a prima facie case to answer re. the specified clause (2.2.3) and will deliver a verdict at some point after having asked the other side for their response.
Parent - - By Mark (****) [us] Date 2013-11-10 20:34
What do you think the verdict, whichever way it goes, will result in? Any chance a positive ruling would get the ICGA to re-open the case??
Parent - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) [us] Date 2013-11-10 21:51
I would guess that a positive ruling would make the ICGA irrelevant.
Parent - - By Peter Grayson (****) [gb] Date 2013-11-12 10:05
It is difficult to envisage FIDE's authority extending to overturning the ICGA decision. At best FIDE may ask the ICGA to review the process but as I understand it, the ICGA issue surrounding Rybka is not chess related because it is software plagiarism/copying/copyright that falls outside the jurisdiction of FIDE.

The fact Rybka was chess playing software seems incidental to the ICGA  findings because the same process could apply to computer Scrabble, Bridge or any other computer AI simulated game competition the ICGA may oversee.

If the ICGA do review the process but come to the same conclusion what then?

PeterG
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-11-12 10:57 Edited 2013-11-12 11:14
Interesting point.  FIDE code of ethics covers the ethical behaviour of the ICGA simply because ICGA is an affiliate of FIDE. ICGA is an affilate via the chess connection, even before the name change (chess to games) in 2002(?).

FIDE EC is not being asked to rule on the technical decision but on the process, whether or not the process met or breached their ethical standards.

Whether or not FIDE EC would get involved in hypothetical Scrabble or Bridge process cases was probably never considered. But zi would guess that any aspect of an affiliate would fall under their remit, other than things they were not competent to decide or fell ouside the scope of "ethics".

As to ICGA "review", well, they will do what they want. Any "appeal" would have to be handled independently, outside of the ICGA.

As to "authority", FIDE can impose a fine up to 25K, impose a sanction, give a warning, or do nothing. Can it order an overturn or force an appeal to be allowed - I don't know, I guess they could if they wanted. What do ICGA have to do? Well, they can accept, or ignore, or resign the affiliate status. Ultimately it's all going to be in the history books and DL's "name and shame" concept is maybe relevant.

I'm on record as stating that the lays will decide this, and they will. What the base of the pyramid thinks will be the ultimate verdict. As will whether there ends up being a pyramid at all, or whether, I guess, the network wins over the hierarchy. imo, the network has already won.
Parent - - By Ray (****) Date 2013-11-12 13:12

> I'm on record as stating that the lays will decide this, and they will. What the base of the pyramid thinks will be the ultimate verdict. As will whether there ends up being a pyramid at all, or whether, I guess, the network wins over the hierarchy. imo, the network has already won.


Yes, exactly right.
Parent - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-11-12 15:14
and connected to the phenomenon of no candidates for talkchess moderation, it's a "mass" vote to be in the network, at the pyramid base, and not form part of any hierarchy
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-11-12 16:52 Edited 2013-11-12 16:55
Sorry, but FIDE can't impose any fine at all in this circumstance.  Go back and re-read.  They can fine PLAYERS.  Or Arbiters.  Or organizers.  Or directors.  Or FIDE officers.  NONE of that applies to the ICGA.

Their ONLY recourse would be to say "you are no longer an affiliate".  Our events are not held under the FIDE umbrella.  Our events have zero relationship with FIDE.  It is a waste of time, but do whatever you want, it is your time.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-11-12 18:10
Well, we'll see. FIDE have not made a ruling yet, they may decide everything about the ICGA process was just fine and dismiss the complaint.

Anyway, it is good to know that despite being your being bound by the FIDE Ethics Rules, your attitude is "they can't do anything, so what do I care".
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-11-12 19:16
Sorry, I am not bound by ANY FIDE rule or regulation.  Never been a member, never played in one of their tournaments, never served in any sort of office or capacity for them.  So NO I am not bound by any of their rules, that ought to be intuitively obvious to the casual observer.  I'm only bound by the rules and regulations of the ICGA which I AM a member of.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-11-13 10:15
I would say you are bound by this one, but we will see ...

From the FIDE Code of Ethics:
2.2.3  Organizers, tournament directors, arbiters or other officials who fail to perform their functions in an impartial and responsible manner.
Parent - - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) [us] Date 2013-11-13 12:03
He's not a FIDE official, though--he is "outsourced labor".
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-11-13 14:19
I'm not even "outsourced labor".  Never spent one single minute doing anything for or related to FIDE.
Parent - - By AWRIST (****) Date 2013-11-13 19:23
Never spent one single minute doing anything for or related to FIDE.

That could be refutated if details could show that you and many other CC freaks tried to put their machines into USCF events as players. If the USCF had a connection with FIDE.
Parent - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-11-13 20:17
Sorry, USCF has its own specific set of rules for computer participation.  Playing in a USCF event does not make it a FIDE event unless the USCF chooses to do so.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-11-13 21:16
hmmm. you are/were an appointed Icga officer to the secretariat which ran the rybka investigation. at the same time, beforehand and afterwards, you ranted and raved about the case and about Vas himself. Remember the thief, liar and hooligan comments? Biased is too soft a word to describe you. This was not responsible behaviour in any managerial sense. Nor was it impartial. With the biased HW added to the secretariat a biased majority was formed. In terms of impartiality, the venture was doomed from the start. I won't even mention that the voters included those who picked up Rybka's titles as a result. The icga is bound, as an affiliate, by the FIDE ethics rules. Icga officers likewise. FIDE ethics rules stress impartiality. Your attitude that these rules do not apply to you and that FIDE can't do anything to you is cavalier. The icga should have disciplined you, it still should.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-11-13 21:23
Again, I am not a member of, nor am I affiliated with FIDE. 

FIDE has absolutely no say-so regarding ICGA events, rules, or policies.  Only when the ICGA is involved as a FIDE affiliate do their rules apply.  Since not one program in the WCCC events is a registered FIDE member, the event is "outside the FIDE umbrella".  Seems quite simple to understand.

There's nothing "cavalier" here except for your complaint to FIDE.  A complaint you knew was completely without merit since ICGA events have nothing to do with FIDE.  ICGA is a FIDE affiliate due to FIDE allowing computer members, and allowing computer programs to play in FIDE events.  Everything ICGA does NOT fall under FIDE through that affiliation.  Only when the events "coincide" in some way would that ever be the case.  So far, nothing has EVERY been sanctioned by FIDE or organized under FIDE, regarding the ICGA.  You know this.  I know this.  Eventually FIDE will figure this out as well.

Everything the ICGA does absolutely does NOT fall under FIDE policies.  Only those things both sides choose to join in doing would pass that threshold.

Just more nonsense, or as I mentioned earlier "a spite check" when nothing else is playable...
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-11-13 21:36 Edited 2013-11-13 21:41
the published FIDE documentation suggest otherwise. "what part of FIDE Code of Ethics applies to affiliate organisations" do you not understand? You've been wrong all along so far in your predictions. Me, I just prefer to wait and see. I also, and maybe I am alone in this, I don't know, think it a good thing that the ICGA is subject to external Ethics Rules and is thus accountable. You, however, appear to prefer the freedom to execute what Rolf calls lynch justice. So, let's wait and see, huh? Meanwhile readers will note that your "defence" is not to try and make the ridiculous claim that you ran a fair and impartial process, but that nobody has any oversight or control and you can therefore do what you want. Mafia capo again.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-11-13 22:23
You REALLY think that by becoming a FIDE affiliate, that FIDE now has control over every action the ICGA takes.  Sorry.  Doesn't work like that.

The affiliate does NOT lose their identity, or their control.  The affiliation is only an issue when one does something TOGETHER.  The WCCC is NOT affiliated with FIDE in terms of a chess tournament.  Sorry.  Dream whatever you want.  Doesn't make it true.

The process was as fair as possible, and as we have seen, the evidence is irrefutable, and is even growing over time even after the investigation was closed.  Dream on.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-11-13 23:00 Edited 2013-11-13 23:04
One would doubt that FIDE wants to control your every action. Why should it? So why would FIDE specifically state that its Ethics Code applies to affiliates? Easy to answer. FIDE is an open organisation, with some degree (I've not researched how much) of democratic control and presidential board voting process. It publishes accounts in detail, publishes minutes, is legally registered and operates under Swiss law. It takes ethics seriously. The chairman of the ethics committee is a judge in real life, a jurist and a Professor of Law. From his writings and reviews, it looks like he takes his work seriously and is concerned about impartiality and fairness. I'm sure you can research all this yourself should you wish. FIDE wishes to ensure, I would imagine, that any organisation with which it affiliates has, as a minimum, equivalent ethical and procedural standards. If it fails to ensure that, then FIDE risks becoming tarnished by association, hence it requires an adherence to its own Ethics Code by affiliates. If an affiliate fails to meet those standards and breaches the Code of Ethics then it is open for anyone to make a complaint to FIDE and FIDE will then decide if the complaint is "receivable" or not, and if so to investigate (according to its own same published Code of Ethics by the way).

You are presumably arguing that the FIDE Ethics Code only applies to joint FIDE/ICGA events and at all other events or times it can be disregarded. I would argue you are wrong.  If it were the case, it would say so specifically. It doesn't say so, so it looks general. It would also defeat the presumed purpose of elimination of association tarnish. Maybe, of course, you will be proved correct although that would then beg the question of why the complaint has been judged "receivable". "Receivable" presumably means "there appears to be a case and it falls under our remit". How do you interpret "receivable" differently?

Shall we stop now? I don't particularly want to get drawn into second guessing the fine detail of a process that is in spin and being decided externally anyway.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-11-13 23:44
Their ethics code applies to affiliates, when they are doing affiliated tasks.  Organizing the WCCC is NOT a FIDE operation, we do NOT use FIDE in any shape or form for those events.  Why do you want to continue this stupid discussion?  I don't care what FIDE publishes or doesn't.  You think they are open and above-board.  Go back a few years.  Karpov vs Kasparov for starters.  Was THAT handled open and above-board?  What caused the PCA to be formed?  A lack of openness and above-boardness?  :)

Complain as long as you want.  FIDE holds absolutely no sway over ICGA chess events.  None.  Nor do they have any control, interest or involvement in the normal operation of the ICGA.  That "affiliate" status has, to date, not been used to the best of my knowledge.  Our "affiliated role" was related to computer chess as it applied to FIDE events and participation.  Nothing more, nothing less.

"Received" can also mean "we are not sure what the claim is here, we need more information."

FIDE and ICGA currently have zero overlap since there are no computers participating in FIDE events.  FIDE certainly has no interest in ICGA tournaments, that is OUR organization and event to run as we see fit...
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-11-14 17:11
Karpov vs Kasparov for starters.  Was THAT handled open and above-board?  What caused the PCA to be formed?  A lack of openness and above-boardness? 
Go back a few years?!


You could try the same thing:

http://www.stmintz.com/ccc/index.php?id=332636

Bob: What a bunch of morons.

Bob: Fine.  Many of us will choose to do that.  Count the ECGA one member
fewer when my current membership expires.  I think it really marvelous
that the organizaation changes the charter, when _I_ as a long-term member
never got any chance to vote on such a change.  IE it probably is not valid
for the ICCA board to change the charter unilaterally.  Of course that has
not stopped them in the past, so...

Bob: I don't believe it is a valid fix.  I believe that changes to the charter
have to be voted on by the membership.  _I_ have never had the opportunity to
cast a vote for any charter change.

Of course, a little thing like this would not stop the ECGA from doing what
they want, I guess.  But, as I said previously, if my vote doesn't count, my
membership doesn't count.  It will end as of December 31, 2003.

Bob: I'll publish my papers elsewhere.  I'll play my chess elsewhere.  When enough
reach the same conclusion, the result will be painful.  And too late.

Bob: "find the sponsors".  "give us $50,000".  Just what part does the ICGA play
in all of this?  A "money sponge" and nothing else???

Bob: I don't see where the purpose of a chess tournament is to make money, in the
case of computer chess.  It should accomplish two things:

(1) promote computer chess participation and research.

(2) provide some publicity for a vendor that chooses to supply one (or more)
machines for use in that event.

You might ask why did Cray support me for so many years?  The free publicity
they got.  I used to have a scrapbook before I gave it to them, it had about
500 pages of stuff from the 1983 WCCC we won in NYC.  Cover of Chess Life.
New York Times stories.  Computer World.  Computer magazines of every flavor.
Wire stories.  We were on CBS news live doing a demo with Joel Benjamin.  Etc.

It seems that (1) has been forgotten by the ICGA.  And they have added more
bullets below 2, including (3) making money for the ICGA; (4) making money
for local vendors;  (5) etc.

(1) gets lost in all that.

Bob: I might consider entering, although after this year's WCCC I am not sure
I would ever want to enter another ICGA event, given the level of incompetence
shown in Graz.

Bob: So you believe that the TD and ICGA behaved "just fine" in the "debacle in
Graz"???   I've seen 18-year-old TDs make better decisions.

Bob: Also there is no "campaign against the ICGA".  The ICGA has done some things
that I as a member disagree with.  I was a charter member in 1974.  We wrote
a charter that detailed what the ICCA would do and why.  Apparently that
charter was modified without any input from the general membership.  At least
_I_ never had the opportunity to vote on anything, and I've been a member for
a _long_ time.  I certainly disagree with that kind of nonsense.

In early years, almost _all_ computer chess activity was centered in the US.
Yet we hardly tried to keep the ICCA as a US-tournament-organization only.
Because the original membership wanted to promote computer chess around the
world.  Now, however, that seems to have turned around.  More commercial
interest in Europe, so let's hold all the events close to Europe.  That is
what I disagree with.  But, I'm not going to make a big deal of it any longer,
I'm simply not going to renew.  There are other ways to compete in Computer
Chess besides the ICGA now.  In fact, there are _better_ ways to compete.  They
chose this route.  It might be painful.  It was certainly avoidable.

Bob: maybe the ICGA is a modern edition of "the flat earth society"???
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-11-14 17:28
Your point would be?  You demand openness everywhere.  You will never get it ANYWHERE.  Life goes on..
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-11-14 17:53
Point? That you shift sides from attacking one organisation, then using it, then attacking another. Seems a bit inconsistent.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-11-14 18:10
my complaint about the ICGA and the WCCC event was my opinion.  You seem to believe that if you disagree with one policy an organization has, you must therefore disagree with ALL?  I'm a staunch conservative, but I agree with the occasional Democrat idea.

What "other" organization have I disagreed with?  And what did I disagree with the ICGA about other than (a) WCCC was too long making it difficult to attend;  and (b) it was held in Europe/Asia exclusively again making it difficult for those in North America to attend.

In other words, you didn't have any point, and tried to manufacture something...

I've been married for over 45 years now.  My wife and I have occasional disagreements.  We've never considered divorce.  You way of thinking has some serious issues.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-11-17 23:05
incoherent. worse than wrong again.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-11-17 23:55
Idiotic,as usual.  Again...
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-11-18 11:33
sorry, I don't do insult chains, try someone else.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-11-18 14:15
Right.  You don't do posts like this:

incoherent. worse than wrong again.

You have a distorted view of reality.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-11-18 15:47
Incoherent isn't an insult, it's a response to a post that rambles from ICGA via American political parties to divorcing your wife. What is that if not incoherent?

If you reply with an insult (idiocy) then you clearly just don't understànd what is being said. Further it is not logically coherent to call something YOU don't understand as "distorted reality". Hence you are wrong, and worse than wrong, since the wrongness is accompanied by incoherent thinking mixed with narcissistic absolutism.

The above is a factual argument, not an insult by the way. Shall we stop here, you can just bale out thinking I'm an idiot with a distorted view of reality, whereas you are absolutely right and your reality is the real one, if you like ....
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-11-18 16:05
It is only incoherent if you don't bother to read.  Your accusation was I was playing both sides of the street.  That I didn't like the ICGA except when I did like it.  That's wrong.  I disagreed with a policy.  I did not stop being a member.  My point was that you can disagree with someone without having them become your mortal enemy.

I thought it was pretty obvious.  Apparently not to "some".

You were dead wrong about me and the ICGA.  As you usually are when you delve into such arguments.

My "reality" is that I was a founding member of the ICGA, have been a member since 1977, and still support the organization.  If yours is different than that regarding what you think I believe, you have an issue.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-11-19 00:09
Your incoherent post (seven back now) rambled from ICGA through Republicans, Democrats and your marriage/divorce status. When you begin to discuss on a content basis, with posts that flow sensibly from the post you are responding to, it might be worth discussing back, but your material is kind of crazy at the moment and for some time now. Too random, too rambling, too many diversions, no sticking to the point. Shall we stop now?
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-11-19 01:19
And all were DIFFERENT examples where I could disagree with someone on one subject, and agree on another, without "taking my ball and running home".

Stop whenever you want.  My disagreement with the ICGA about failing to hold WCCC events in North America is well-documented.  My complete agreement with the tournament rules we use, as well as being involved in many revisions of same is ALSO well documented...
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-11-19 09:56
Except you called them morons, criticised the $50,000, said something about money hoover, said the TD was no better than an eighteen year old, there were better ways to organise online, said they changed the charter without member voting, said the purpose was to make money for themeselves and announced you were quitting the organisation. Because the tournament was going´to be in Israel. Where, as an American you could not go.

Looks like ranting and taking your ball and staying home, no? I dredge this up as an example of massive petulant over reaction to those who offend you, but, hey, what's new?
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-11-19 13:40
SO?  I can't disagree with one thing and agree with others?  One disagreement is a permanent split?

REALLY sound reasoning.

This wasn't a "petulant" reaction.  SEVERAL of us were in that discussion, with the SAME complaint.  Bruce Moreland comes to mind, but there were others.  In fact, most any chess author living in North America had something to say about it since the charter said "alternate between Europe and North America" but after 1989 (I believe that was the last North American event, could be wrong however) we have had no more WCCC events on this side of the pond...

One thing you will get from ME is exactly what I think/believe.  NOT what I think everyone wants to hear.  You might try that...
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-11-20 15:22
You think and believe a lot of things, many mutually exclusive, or kept in storage. If you are even slightly offended, as by ICGA in Israel and not North America, you're prepared to bring out numerous negative beliefs as to their finances, competence, lack of democracy, moronicity etc etc in a wild firestorm. If you think you are on the same side as them then they are unbiased, democratic, impartial etc etc. Your consistency is zero, it is whatever suits you, no principles, just Hyatt self interest. So, its not the disagreement, that's normal and natural; it's the disproportionate behaviour and wild position swings depending on the latest battle campaign over some minor issue you are determined to win at all costs. As ever.

Shall we stop now?
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-11-20 17:00
You should have stopped long ago.  I'm more than willing to stop, since this goes nowhere.

The way you think and do business, apparently, one dispute and you are done with that business for life.  A mathematician will tell you that the limit on that equation, as time advances, is "you will end up doing business with no one."  AKA burning your bridges as you cross them.  I have no problems with "second chances" if I see evidence that something has changed.  I'm also not going to let the fact that my favorite auto manufacturer discontinues the only color I really like (a minor complaint) cause me to not buy my next vehicle from them.  I might complain.  Perhaps bitterly.  But color is not my #1 priority.

You have a distorted view of life.
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-11-21 15:52
You don't understand the iron law of business. One unresolved dispute otherwise known as breach of contract or failure to pay indeed leads to doing away with dealing with the other business for life. Including businesses set up by directors or CEO's who put a previous venture into liquidation wtih debts outstanding, it usually leads to serial liquidation delinquencies, debts left everywhere and a lot of unhappy people. Avoid like the plague. Did you not know that?

Your mathematician is dumb. Your own business life does not go on forever in the first place, and many businesses one deals with don't survive more than two or three years. Often less. Time limits the limit. Businesses have to constantly look for new markets as old ones decay. Take a look at your own field, strategy games. To survive as a genuine profitable business for decades is very rare. Failures and contract breachers need to get junked before they junk you.

We all have a "distorted" view of life. Your problem is that you don't know that, and assume your view is the real and unbiased one. Which does probably make you somewhat dumb and essentially un-dialogue-able with since it leaves you living in a self constructed fantasy world where you know everything  and everybody else has either to be taught your truth or swept away with the Walmart disinfectant and Hyatt lavatory brush.
Parent - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-11-21 19:50
I don't understand business, perhaps.  You don't understand "common sense" without a doubt.

I don't agree with everything the ICGA does.  Never have, never will.  But I am a member, because I support the concept of organized computer chess competition, the ICGA journal,the mindgames olympiad and such.

My view is distorted yet you only look at it from a business perspective?  If I behaved as you suggest, I would eventually have no place to buy groceries, because they ALL screw up from time to time, mismarked prices, discontinue stocking a product I like, etc.  So I starve rather than going back.  Smart.  real smart.

Ever gotten a traffic ticket for speeding?  Do you NOW never approach law enforcement for help, or to report a crime you witnessed, or a crime against you that someone else perpetrated?

Again, real smart...

You should stop trying to lecture me on your view of "good business practice" and instead focus on real-world common sense...

One mistake does not mark the end of the road for me.  Ever heard of "second chance"???
Parent - - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) [us] Date 2013-11-18 04:10

> I'm a staunch conservative, but I agree with the occasional Democrat idea.


Damn you, Bob!  How dare you soil the word "conservative" with treasonous talk like that!
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-11-18 14:18
Here's one thing I agree on.

I believe it unconscionable for a hospital to charge someone with insurance $10,000 for a procedure, but someone without insurance $100,000, and then to appear to be kind and feeling, agree to reduce it to $50,000.

Obamacare is a crock, and fixing the above did not make it in.  It should have as they were championing the idea.

There is not very much I agree with them on, so it is a minor treasonous act at worst.  :)
Parent - - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) [us] Date 2013-11-18 17:56
The hospital is simply trying to get as much as it can.  It's a starting point for negotiation.  Think how many people get extensive care and are complete financial write-offs.  Those with ANY assets have to make up the difference.  It's just business.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-11-18 18:14
It's a bad business.  If it costs N$ for them to perform the service, I have no qualms about them "offering" the service for (N+x)$.  Where x is what they need to offset the no-pay cases.  But not N+x for those that have insurance, and N+5x for those that don't, the very people that will have trouble paying in the first place.  Why would you want to charge the poor MORE than someone that can actually afford health insurance.  And now that we have fewer insured rather than more, thanks to all the cancellations by insurance providers, it gets compounded.

Auto shops don't do that.  Walmart doesn't do that.  ONLY healthcare.  That could be corrected.
Parent - - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) [us] Date 2013-11-18 19:17
This happens because free market principles are not applied to health care.  Where is the competition?  Where is price discovery?  If you go to a doctor to get a broken arm treated, can you ask him "how much will this cost me?"  He'll probably look at you puzzled.  If he has a number can you readily compare his price to someone else?  You have websites online that rate and compare prices on tons of things, but not medicine.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-11-18 19:29
I agree. But ONLY because that is the way it has always been done.  Doesn't make it fair, or right, or ethical.  Just a lousy precedent.

BTW there is a TON of competition here in Birmingham.    For hospitals, as an example:

(1) UAB.  One of the top 5 hospitals in the US.

(2) St. Vincent's  Very good hospital

(3) Brookwood Hospital.   Ditto.

(4)  Shelby Baptist medical center.  Also very good.

Leaving UAB out (part of UAB school, but hospital is not state-funded), the rest of those compete, spend huge sums on lawyers to try to limit each other's growth, profits, procedures they can do, etc.  For my UAB health insurance, I can go anywhere I choose.  I get a minor hospital co-pay concession if I am admitted to UAB, but that's chickenfeed.  Therefore, there is no incentive for me to research costs, since I don't pay 'em or even see 'em unless I decide to go online and wade through a ton of insurance reports to see what they were charged and what they actually paid.  AFTER the fact, of course.

I think this part of healthcare is a mess, but it is cast in concrete so it is not easy to change.  Why the Dem's just ignored that is anyone's guess.  Probably they have an underlying financial interest.  There was a public demand to limit these payday loan ripoff companies, but amazingly most of them were owned by legislators so no restrictions were placed on them.  25% interest per month?  Works for them.  Borrow $1000 for an emergency, pay off 12 months later.  Write a check for $5000 plus the compounded interest each month.  Ugh.
Parent - - By Nelson Hernandez (Gold) [us] Date 2013-11-19 00:05
Preaching to the choir.  It's such a pitiful shame.  If the Dems really intended to fix things the solutions were there, and if they had succeeded they'd be in the driver's seat.  But it was never about fixing things or solutions.  It was always about pushing us all a bit further along the road to totalitarianism: pervasive central planning featuring credentialed mandarins calling the shots because they obviously knew so much better than millions of free people making individual choices.  It's amazing what a little parchment from an elite school convinces people they are fully qualified to run!
Parent - - By bob (Gold) [us] Date 2013-11-19 01:21
In short, rather than "teaching a man to fish so he can feed himself for life" they prefer to "give a man a fish so that he will be dependent on them, until the world runs out of fish to give..."
Parent - - By Ugh (*****) [fr] Date 2013-11-19 09:46
Incoherent again. there's no good reason to suppose either of the two scenarios would deplete fish stocks any faster than the other.

what you mean to say is that is better that people have capital (tools or education or useful land) which they can use to create income, than no capital and no income creating opportunities. you also presumably believe that a significantly large part of the population will react on gifted income by being lazy.
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / FIDE Case 2/2012 “Rybka and ICGA”
1 2 3 Previous Next  

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill