Healthcare Reform, where can I locate the facts?Follow

Varus: We spend more.
Nobby: We spend a higher percentage of the GDP, ****.
Varus: That's still less!
Ash: Well no ****. They're a smaller country [Editor's note because you can't piece this together: (and therefore don't have the GDP we do.)]
Gbaji: Wrong! Size has nothing to do with it.

Well no **** it's less. That's why people compare GDP and not raw spending output. I bet California spends more on welfare than Rhode Island. Guess what that proves? Nothing.

It proves that California is a Communist autocracy and Rhode Island is a libertarian paradise.

Bard,



It's not like I run an insurance agency or anything.




Now that we're on the same page.




Certain foods cost more than others. Perhaps we should have the govn inspect everyones cubbard to see if they're purchasing the "right" kinds of foods.





Looking at the obesity statistics I would say quite a few people.


and I'll use quotes however I like thank you very much.

Then why are you so ignorant to the subject?

Remember those few times when I presumed to speak on behalf of conservatives, and you rightly told me to shut the fuck up?

Yeah, shut the fuck up.

***

You know what? No, this is worse than those times. You are stating assertions, whereas I at the very most state inferences from assertions. You haven't even tried to infer anything from what you, rightly or wrongly, believe to be my beliefs.

Edited, Aug 13th 2009 3:58pm by Pensive

No, Varus did. Read the thread.



Yeah, yeah it is. Because no matter what the U.K. will always spend less than the U.S. because it is smaller and does not bring in as much money. Do you know why the U.S. does more research and contributes more to the field? Because it has more money. Why does it have more money? Because it's bigger.



Varus was talking about R&D related to healthcare. The amount of research being done in that area is huge, and there's -

Fuck it, I'm not having this conversation with you. If you're stupid enough to think that there's a limited amount of "useful" (who the hell determines useful?) research to be done, we aren't going to get very far.



I'm just going to quote this again because I think it makes for some wonderful proof that you never actually read what you're talking about but insist that your made-up world is correct.

Ok. Then explain to me what principle you were acting upon when you criticized Varus for complaining about his money being taken by the government.




I don't have to. You plainly state them every single time you post. You just seem unaware of it. How else do you explain someone insisting that it's wrong for individuals to oppose the government taking their money away to pay for health care for others, but then immediately insisting that they don't put the good of the whole above the liberty of the individual?


Stop and look at what you wrote. It's contradictory. I didn't do that. You did.

Edited, Aug 13th 2009 1:11pm by gbaji

Nobby,



We pay that much primarily because attorneys like to sue the sh*t out of doctors. Apparently that's not something the UK has to deal with.



These inflated costs caused by higher insurance costs can again be retraced to the tort lawyers. Show me one doctor in the US who hasn't been sued more than once and I'll show you a liar. Never mind the free care being given to illegal aliens. Remind me again how many millions of mexicans swarm to the UK annually?




If it's already socialized why do we need this new plan?

Look at how poorly vets healthcare is and that's what you can expect on avg if this plan goes through.

That other individual people deserve the same recognition that he does as a human being. Do you see care for society enter anywhere into that principle? I refuse to believe that you are so ridiculously unimaginative as to fail to comprehend the difference between equality among individuals and contribution to the whole of society at large. You redistribute wealth because each person deserves it, not some conglomerate of people.

So seriously, you are not even remotely approaching credible to tell me what I, as a liberal, hold valuable, unless you are prepared to be charitable towards the liberal position; otherwise, you cannot help but to craft *sigh* stawmen.

Look, I can do it too: How else can you possibly explain wanting to withhold medical care from every person aside from yourself without believing that people do not deserve the opportunity to live and be free? Do you see how retarded that is? Do you understand that I do not actually believe that the best and most well constructed argument for the privatization of medicine reduces to that? Do you have any idea what it means to try to take the best possible argument that you opponent can make and argue against that instead of cherry-picking one that is easy for you to reduce to foolishness?

Nobby,



Here you go. So either we only cover the "evil" wealthy or we cover everyone at a lower cost. I bet your teeth are really f*cked up.

You know what's funny? Later in my post, I appended the phrase "to pay for health care for others" in order to make it clear that the property of the individual was being sacrificed for the "good of the whole". I then briefly thought about going back and appending this to the earlier sentence and thought "Nah! No one would fail to understand the context". I forgot who I was responding to...

What was that about cherry picking arguments? You cherry picked phraseology, knowing you were stripping out key contextual information in order to make it appear as though there is no social benefit involved. What does that say about your position? Why didn't you quote the second sentence in which I made a much broader (and more relevant) point:



This is the crux of the issue Pensive. Why not respond to it?



I would like to believe that you understand the difference between equality under the law and equality of result. Two people are not "equal" under the law, if they arrive at the same result regardless of their relative actions. What you're talking about is uniformity. And that absolutely is about the whole of society.

Um... Aren't you deciding who "deserves" what based on a broader social good? You aren't looking at the individual and his accomplishments and deciding that he deserves medical care. You're making a broad statement that "everyone in society deserves medical care". Given the sheer number of times this issue has been presented in broad social comparison ways (like why we're the only first world nation without socialized medicine and what a shame that is), it's hard to argue that this isn't based on a social good argument.

You can claim it's not, but everything you say about this points in the other direction. You insist that everyone (in society) should get X, attack people who don't want their money to pay for that, and then turn around and insist that you aren't placing the good of the whole over the freedom of the individual. I'm sorry, but I keep scratching my head over this one. At least folks like Smash acknowledge freely that they believe that the whole is more important than the individual and we should embrace our socialist ideas, but you seem hell bent to deny it. I'm kinda curious why. Is it because you've walked through the logic and realized how wrong that ideological position is, but instead of adjusting your own positions you've just convinced yourself that what you support isn't what you know to be a bad idea?

I don't know. Only you can tell us. Maybe a little self reflection is in order?



It's not what I'm saying your position is. It's what your position is. I just can't understand why you keep insisting that it isn't. I've repeatedly shown you how your own statements absolutely follow an ideology which places the good of the whole over the rights and freedoms of the individual. Not my words. Your words. You can't insist that it's wrong not to make sure everyone in society has medical care, insist that it's wrong for individuals to oppose having their money taken to pay for it, and then also insist that you aren't acting to benefit the whole at the expense of the individual. You know why? Because that's exactly what you are saying. Unless you and I are speaking two different languages which just happen to mean the same thing except in this one case, your own words and stated positions are all the evidence needed.





Yes. But in this case, I'm arguing against the actual meaning and use of words you have repeated many times in this discussion and in previous ones and using those to base my assumption about your own ideological reasoning. You are ignoring context and deliberately picking a version of a statement which fails to contains specific words so that you can make a very silly counter argument.


If what I'm doing is a strawman, it's not because I'm picking the weakest argument, but because the argument you've provided is weak. Can you explain to me how you can propose ensuring everyone receives medical care, dismiss the complaints of the individuals who'll have to pay to provide it for others, and yet somehow not be advocating the good of the society over the individual? Cause I just don't see it. It's like you're saying that you enjoy seeing horses run around a track really fast and placing bets based on who crosses a line first, but you're not in favor of horse racing. Um... What?

Edited, Aug 13th 2009 3:04pm by gbaji