Healthcare debate gets even uglier (as if it were possible!) [Archive]

JohnXDoe

08-20-2009, 07:57 PM

the country deserves a government option, lets get one

i have been in therapy for the last 9 or 10 months. not in need of a doctor or meds, i go to a low cost clinic that takes insurance, "scale / slider pay" (what i do) and the state run program "Medi-Cal"

its mostly Medi-Cal which supports the clinic, however. its a big place with a number of sites. i go there to see a specific therapist who was refereed by a close friend. she is not a doctor, so my insurance won't pay. fine...so i have been paying

at my session yesterday i was informed the clinic is closing due to Cali budget cuts (the entire facility) and she has been let go. idk her life, but she is moving to nothern california and i won't be able to work with her anymore. all this was looming...but the actual news came to everyone just a week ago. in a couple of more weeks it will all be gone

for me its personal because i have worked with her very well. i have about 4 months left in my treatment, however...so my work is incomplete. i now must find my way through what i have been working on without professional help

so thats me and its upsetting. but i think more about the people i see who are receiving services there every week when i go. as said, this is a low cost mental health center...yet very professional. the people who go there are the least of the least...many the sickest of the sickest in our society. i see them waiting in the lobby...many take the bus to get there...come from miles around, and talk to themselves while i walk past. most are poor and cannot afford to pay

so this is part of what California has done because people in my state can't seem to pay $5 more in taxes a month or w/e. we voted not to raise taxes because we are ANGRY and don't want government to pay the bills which benefit the state with OUR money. although we live here

not very neighborly, i'd say :/

so yeah...the people of Cali need Healthcare. so lets get some :)

Against Miik!

08-20-2009, 08:01 PM

JohnXDoe

08-20-2009, 08:10 PM

oh i am also getting a medical marijuana card

at least Cali gets something right :smoke:

1338 h4x0r

08-20-2009, 08:11 PM

actually intelligence probably isn't normally distributed from what I understand (i.e., not exactly half of the people are dumber than average)

but yeah people are pretty ignorant at least

a lot of them probably think Obama is a Kenyan Muslim reptilian communist who wants to take away their guns and socialize Medicare/Medicaid, Inc.

Detective Dan

08-20-2009, 08:13 PM

but isn't he?

Against Miik!

08-20-2009, 08:13 PM

Well I guess its median. But you have to say average because most people don't know what a median is.

JohnXDoe

08-20-2009, 08:14 PM

don't be silly detective dan...everyone knows he's a reptilian socialist :rolleyes:

Permanent Solution

08-20-2009, 08:17 PM

Well I guess its median. But you have to say average because most people don't know what a median is.

This. When you think average intelligence I don't think people are thinking of he mean intelligence, but rather the median. If it were mean, I imagine it would actually be skewed right, if anything though...there aren't that many people who are really unintelligent, mostly just those with a disease or deformity.

Against Miik!

08-20-2009, 08:21 PM

Maybe our standards are too low. I think at least 50% of the adult population isn't properly equipped with enough brain power for critical thinking

Jude

08-20-2009, 08:21 PM

The more I hear about this debate the more I think it would be less humane to provide health care for all Americans, than to just drag them out in the streets and shoot them

Against Miik!

08-20-2009, 08:22 PM

I want a politician to say that so badly

Permanent Solution

08-20-2009, 08:24 PM

Maybe our standards are too low. I think at least 50% of the adult population isn't properly equipped with enough brain power for critical thinking
nature vs nurture

Schooling is more to blame for that, imo.
The more I hear about this debate the more I think it would be less humane to provide health care for all Americans, than to just drag them out in the streets and shoot them
you must be an ivy league elitist who thinks he knows so much you just want to take away my freedoms let me do what i want elitist

JohnXDoe

08-20-2009, 08:26 PM

Maybe our standards are too low. I think at least 50% of the adult population isn't properly equipped with enough brain power for critical thinking
i think this is right

i can be in a conversation or lite debate with someone and all of a sudden they just sort of...give up. its as if the convo can go so far...but i get into a space they can't indentify with and have no reasoning for

its quite disconcerting :(

1338 h4x0r

08-20-2009, 08:34 PM

Well I guess its median. But you have to say average because most people don't know what a median is.

assuming that intelligence is normally distributed, then the mean and the median are the same

I've heard that it's really negatively skewed (which would be a good thing) but ignorance is pervasive

YDtoad

08-20-2009, 09:54 PM

O heres an absolutely hilarious statistic that makes you just kind of throw your hands up:

According to a recent poll, 39% of Americans think the government should stay out of medicare

ummmmmmmm

That's actually a fairly semantically nebulous question even beyond it being intentionally deceitful (people in general will allow themselves to be tricked, giving opinions on nonexistent bills, etc.)

Anyway, the real ugliness in the debate is from the Obama camp. It's just fringe people carrying around Obama Nazi posters. It's Obama aides, senators, etc. calling people who disagree with Obama Nazis, racists, 'evil-mongers', etc.

And there's no such right that entails demanding someone else give you their time. If the government can force doctors into servitude (and that's what a 'public option' will result in--the loss of the market of skills), then the government can compel anyone to do anything. The very essence of freedom is abdicated.

cobert

08-20-2009, 09:55 PM

I hate when I say that people are misinformed and they fire back with "SO I GUESS ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH YOU IS MISINFORMED HUH?!" but really they have no clue what they're even opposing.

These town hall "debates" are ****ing disgusting.

cobert

08-20-2009, 09:58 PM

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_National_819513.pdf

Theres the statistic I mentioned. Page 2, Question 3

It also says only 62% think Obama was born in the US

Basically this just proves that even a simple issue like this is just way over peoples heads. Likes George Carlin said, think about how dumb the average person is, then realize that half are dumber than that.

And that 10 percent polled think Hawaii either isn't part of the United States or they're not sure.

I want a politician to say that so badly

Hahaha

That would be awesome.

Iskandar

08-20-2009, 10:07 PM

Anyway, the real ugliness in the debate is from the Obama camp. It's just fringe people carrying around Obama Nazi posters. It's Obama aides, senators, etc. calling people who disagree with Obama Nazis, racists, 'evil-mongers', etc.I'm really not seeing the people around Obama doing anything as underhanded as calling people Nazis.
And there's no such right that entails demanding someone else give you their time. If the government can force doctors into servitude (and that's what a 'public option' will result in--the loss of the market of skills), then the government can compel anyone to do anything. The very essence of freedom is abdicated.I'm know you're trying to sound like William F. Buckley but seriously.

Universal healthcare = death of freedom.

What.

Against Miik!

08-20-2009, 10:09 PM

That's actually a fairly semantically nebulous question even beyond it being intentionally deceitful

How? The question, very clearly, is: Do you think the Government should stay out of Medicare?

Thats not even within the realm of physical possibility. People at town halls are heard proclaiming they don't want government run health care, but that they don't want their Medicare taken away either. This shows a level of ignorance that I can't even verbalize.

And there's no such right that entails demanding someone else give you their time. If the government can force doctors into servitude (and that's what a 'public option' will result in--the loss of the market of skills), then the government can compel anyone to do anything. The very essence of freedom is abdicated.

And who do they work for now? The insurance companies?

YDtoad

08-20-2009, 10:20 PM

I'm really not seeing the people around Obama doing anything as underhanded as calling people Nazis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGRUx2b0ArM
http://politicalinquirer.com/2009/08/11/why-are-healthcare-opponents-racists/

I'm know you're trying to sound like William F. Buckley but seriously.

I don't know nearly enough polysyllabic words to truly mimic Buckley. If only :(

Universal healthcare = death of freedom.

What.

When you are compelled by the government to provide a service to another person, you are not free. That's what serfdom entailed.

How? The question, very clearly, is: Do you think the Government should stay out of Medicare?

'stay out' could conceivably interpreted as meaning "don't change." A better phrase would have been "the government should not become involved in medicare" but then it's just a trick question anyway and trick questions are stupid and pointless.

And who do they work for now? The insurance companies?

Now they work for whoever--a hospital, a nursing home, their own private practice, etc.

Against Miik!

08-20-2009, 10:31 PM

'stay out' could conceivably interpreted as meaning "don't change." A better phrase would have been "the government should not become involved in medicare" but then it's just a trick question anyway and trick questions are stupid and pointless.

It's a government run program. Anyone who is confused by that question has the same mental capacity and someone who is not.

Even if it is a trick question, it isn't terribly tricky. A question like this does a great job at immediately eliminating a people who have no business talking about this issue.

Now they work for whoever--a hospital, a nursing home, their own private practice, etc.

O do they? Is that who pays them?

I propose nationalized health care for everyone who wants it. There will be absolutely no tax increases. Every penny for this program will be taken out of the Dept. of Defense budget. I think the DoD could cover this six times over.

Do you, jw, think that there is absolutely no need for any type of reform?

YDtoad

08-20-2009, 10:41 PM

It's a government run program.

That doesn't change the fact that the question is poorly phrased ^_^

Even if it is a trick question, it isn't terribly tricky. A question like this does a great job at immediately eliminating a people who have no business talking about this issue.

Plenty of people who answer correctly still have no clue of what they're actually talking about.

O do they? Is that who pays them?

Their patients. Who they choose to treat through marketing their labor. Which government controlled health care will change. It makes about as much sense as government controlled lawn service.

I propose nationalized health care for everyone who wants it. There will be absolutely no tax increases.

yes there would be.

Every penny for this program will be taken out of the Dept. of Defense budget. I think the DoD could cover this six times over.

lol and then what about, you know, defense?

Do you, jw, think that there is absolutely no need for any type of reform?

Tort reform would be good, as would eliminating some of the barriers to interstate competition amongst insurance companies.

The notion that you will enact a public option without severe consequences on the private health care market is foolhardy. Introducing a guaranteed public alternative will lead to companies choosing to pay the penalty for not ensuring employees as this will be cost-beneficial, which will push many millions more people into an already distorted market, forcing them ultimately into the government-run machine. And eventually the private health care market will cease to exist. Obama, Frank, etc. all desire this goal.

fruteefly

08-20-2009, 10:41 PM

Lady is a tactless bitch
Jewish fellow is bald.

regardless of their politics, I just love his accent.

Mr. Ron

08-20-2009, 10:55 PM

Yeah I absolutely hate comparisons to Hitler FOR ANYTHING or anyone. People don't even understand who he was. Comparing him to Hitler is nonsensical.

YDtoad

08-20-2009, 10:56 PM

Yeah I absolutely hate comparisons to Hitler FOR ANYTHING or anyone. People don't even understand who he was. Comparing him to Hitler is nonsensical.

it's coming from someone who follows lyndon larouche 'nuff said.

Mr. Ron

08-20-2009, 11:01 PM

it's coming from someone who follows lyndon larouche 'nuff said.
Even Hitler would be like:

http://i25.tinypic.com/9h6kp3.jpg

gregulus

08-20-2009, 11:05 PM

Even Hitler would be like:

http://i25.tinypic.com/9h6kp3.jpg

Hahahaha.

siva_chair

08-20-2009, 11:49 PM

the country deserves a government option, lets get one

What you really mean by this is that some part of the population deserves to employ an institution to steal from others so they can have a particular entitlement.

not very neighborly, i'd say :/

Neither is advocating your neighbor be robbed.

Schooling is more to blame for that, imo.

And people are actually proposing a healthcare service from the same institution that provides us with that craptastic service.....

gregulus

08-20-2009, 11:59 PM

I was waiting for it. My waiting paid off.

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 12:13 AM

They were laughable at best against Bush but against Obama they're incomprehensible.
um this statement is just as bad

their party is more like hitler than my party!!!!!!

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 12:18 AM

also neither republicans nor democrats know what the **** they are talking about welcome to democracy dont try and pretend your side is smart

i hope the republicans win this skirmish though

Against Miik!

08-21-2009, 12:33 AM

O they will because democrats are faggots who can't even pass a bill when they have a majority in both the house and senate and have the white house.

I gotta hand it to Bush. In hindsight, he got **** done, no matter how ludicrous it was. Is that better than idealists like Obama and Jimmy Carter who have decent ideas but can't execute? I dunno. I guess its better for republicans.

Iskandar

08-21-2009, 12:37 AM

When you are compelled by the government to provide a service to another person, you are not free. That's what serfdom entailed.You're not free to not provide it to them, maybe.

But it's still retarded to bring up the notion of serfdom just as it's retarded to claim healthcare is fascist.

Against Miik!

08-21-2009, 12:39 AM

Also any doctor that is in medicine for any reason other than to help sick people isn't a very good doctor.

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 12:44 AM

i wouldnt mind a public option if it was opt out

but fascism doesnt work that way

Also any doctor that is in medicine for any reason other than to help sick people isn't a very good doctor.
i dont think skill is determined by stuff like this

but nice try

Smokey D

08-21-2009, 12:47 AM

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 12:48 AM

what if no doctors elect to provide care

are you saying the government will shirk on its promise of healthcare

because no

Smokey D

08-21-2009, 12:51 AM

what if no doctors elect to provide care

are you saying the government will shirk on its promise of healthcare

because no

Um yes this happens a lot.

It's called healthcare rationing.

Against Miik!

08-21-2009, 12:51 AM

i dont think skill is determined by stuff like this

but nice try

No but if profit was completely taken out of the equation, skill would be the only determining factor. It's impossible to say whether or not going with a public option would be a disincentive for potentially good doctors to get into medicine. It's so impossible to know that I would say its irrelevant.

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 12:54 AM

No but if profit was completely taken out of the equation, skill would be the only determining factor.

what

you said doctors that want to do well for themselves arent good doctors

tell me how that works

Er, there's a private dimension to healthcare in the UK right.
well how do you mean

theres a private healthcare industry

and the government uses private entities to provide healthcare in some cases

Also, what if we made it so that people who elected to get private treatment got tax breaks since they aren't benefiting from the public option.
why dont they just not charge me for it in the first place

Against Miik!

08-21-2009, 12:57 AM

No I didn't. Or maybe I did. But what I meant is that doctors who don't make patient care their top priority aren't good doctors. Making money should be a byproduct of patient care. Not the other way around, where they are trying to get rich and if they heel some folks along the way thats cool to.

The thing about medicine for profit is that actually healing people is less profitable than keeping them just healthy enough to keep paying the bills.

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 12:58 AM

patient care makes you money

if your incentive is money alone you will still provide good patient care

free market son thats how it works

Against Miik!

08-21-2009, 01:00 AM

Then why do insurance companies, motivated by profit, ever deny care, or put a limit on it?

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 01:02 AM

because they have no competition that doesnt do those things because the government restricts who can provide insurance

JohnXDoe

08-21-2009, 01:02 AM

What you really mean by this is that some part of the population deserves to employ an institution to steal from others so they can have a particular entitlement.

Neither is advocating your neighbor be robbed
no, not really. although it seems the idea of any sort of taxation is government theft to you. so you might think so...

i'm sure some of my taxes go to things which don't benefit ME at all. things i would object to morally and politically and otherwise. but in turn...some of my taxes...and the taxes of others...go to things i think are necessary, or at least reasonably good for the country and the people who live here. others may feel differently. but in the end...it all evens out...and hopefully we get something good all around for what we ALL pay for

you pay for my healthcare siva...and in some way i pay for your right to bear arms. by paying taxes to a government which supports that right and might even spend a little money to fix up some gunshot wounds with some good 'ol american healthcare

you see how that works :)

plus its insurance so....

and no one is "robbing" anyone. thats a ridiculous notion of the paranoid :/

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 01:04 AM

Against Miik!

08-21-2009, 01:08 AM

because they have no competition that doesnt do those things because the government restricts who can provide insurance

Do you really think that freeing up the market would change anything? I don't really think health care works the same way as commodities.

Smokey D

08-21-2009, 01:09 AM

why dont they just not charge me for it in the first place

Because you might end up using it and that's not how taxes work.

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 01:10 AM

Do you really think that freeing up the market would change anything? I don't really think health care works the same way as commodities.
services work the same way as commodities everywhere else

but ooh healthcare is magic

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 01:11 AM

Because you might end up using it and that's not how taxes work.
then they can charge me after

kind of dumb just to assume ill use it

JohnXDoe

08-21-2009, 01:13 AM

yeah but they are robbing people since if i dont want to pay for something and you take the money anyway thats what we call stealing

doesnt matter if you spend it on ponies for dying children its still theft
taxation is not theft imho

i guarantee even if you think you never benefit from what you pay for...in some way you do if you really think about it. or will NEED something from the government sooner or later. and it needs to be there and payed for when you need it. be it a cop or a band-aid

or defense. people love paying for that shi.t. and they love honoring the troops

but what if the families of those troops, friends and neighbors need some healthcare? no...we won't pay for that. just to let them go fight and die

so...we do what we do. and when its good we should acknowledge that, and move forward. and healthcare for our nation is good. no doubt about it

taxes aren't going to stop. and until they do we have this. so i say work with it the best we can

Smokey D

08-21-2009, 01:14 AM

then they can charge me after

kind of dumb just to assume ill use it

It's about distributing costs.

Against Miik!

08-21-2009, 01:14 AM

services work the same way as commodities everywhere else

but ooh healthcare is magic

It's not magic. It's just thats its an irrational market because its peoples lives you are dealing with.

Also lets consider that you pay for the service, not for results. Like, if I ate at a restaurant and ordered, and they never brought me my food, I would most likely not be required to pay. Or if I took my car to a mechanic and they returned it without fixing the problem, I shouldn't be required to pay. Not a whole lot of services work like health care, and if they do, they probably aren't so absurdly expensive that they can potentially cripple someone financially.

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 01:15 AM

i guarantee even if you think you never benefit from what you pay for...in some way you do if you really think about it. or will NEED something from the government sooner or later. and it needs to be there and payed for when you need it. be it a cop or a band-aid

or defense. people love paying for that shi.t. and they love honoring the troops

but what if the families of those troops, friends and neighbors need some healthcare? no...we won't pay for that. just to let them go fight and die

so...we do what we do. and when its good we should acknowledge that, and move forward. and healthcare for our nation is good. no doubt about it

no the point is it doesnt matter i dont get to mug you as long as i buy you an ice cream after

if you want an ice cream you buy an ice cream yourself

siva_chair

08-21-2009, 01:16 AM

I was waiting for it. My waiting paid off.

Patience is a virtue.

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 01:18 AM

It's about distributing costs.
i know what its about

my support for opt it is so that i wont be part of the system at all

It's not magic. It's just thats its an irrational market because its peoples lives you are dealing with.
but people are in virtual reality in other exchanges? what

every voluntary transaction improves quality of life (whatever that means to the individual) or people wouldnt voluntarily do them

healthcare is the same

Also lets consider that you pay for the service, not for results. Like, if I ate at a restaurant and ordered, and they never brought me my food, I would most likely not be required to pay. Or if I took my car to a mechanic and they returned it without fixing the problem, I shouldn't be required to pay. Not a whole lot of services work like health care, and if they do, they probably aren't so absurdly expensive that they can potentially cripple someone financially.
i dont understand what you're saying

you dont pay because theres a contract and the provider has violated it

explain to me how healthcare cant work like that

Against Miik!

08-21-2009, 01:22 AM

I'm saying it doesn't work like that.

And I'm not necessarily for a public option and nothing else. In its current form, I am actually against it because it isn't financially feasible. That is the only reason. I have no issue with it in principle, and I also recognize that it isn't the only option.

It is odd that we are pretty much the only western democracy that doesn't use this option though.

cobert

08-21-2009, 01:25 AM

i am a libertarian

free markets will fix healthcare

siva_chair

08-21-2009, 01:25 AM

no, not really. although it seems the idea of any sort of taxation is government theft to you. so you might think so...

Because it is.

you pay for my healthcare siva...and in some way i pay for your right to bear arms. by paying taxes to a government which supports that right and might even spend a little money to fix up some gunshot wounds with some good 'ol american healthcare

No you don't pay for my right to arms.

you see how that works :)

plus its insurance so....

Oh boy that makes theft ok.

and no one is "robbing" anyone. thats a ridiculous notion of the paranoid :/

You mean it is a sensible notion of those that see taxation for what it is.

It's not magic. It's just thats its an irrational market because its peoples lives you are dealing with.

Also lets consider that you pay for the service, not for results. Like, if I ate at a restaurant and ordered, and they never brought me my food, I would most likely not be required to pay. Or if I took my car to a mechanic and they returned it without fixing the problem, I shouldn't be required to pay. Not a whole lot of services work like health care, and if they do, they probably aren't so absurdly expensive that they can potentially cripple someone financially.

Except you are ignoring why the service is absurdly expensive to begin with.

Hint: it has nothing to do with the free market and everything to do with government restriction and regulation.

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 01:25 AM

I'm saying it doesn't work like that.

i know but you're not explaining how its different

you provide a service that benefits me, i choose the best provider of that service, i pay the appropriate price

i dont get how this changes between mechanic and doctor

It is odd that we are pretty much the only western democracy that doesn't use this option though.
well yeah all the other ones hate freedom

hence you also being the only one that allows a lot of things

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 01:27 AM

free markets will fix healthcare
well they're responsible for making everything else as affordable as it is today

still waiting for someone to explain how healthcare is some special thing where this wouldnt apply

JohnXDoe

08-21-2009, 01:27 AM

no the point is it doesnt matter i dont get to mug you as long as i buy you an ice cream after

if you want an ice cream you buy an ice cream yourself
its a great ideal. i have no doubt many of us here are great idealists of one sort or another

however life isn't ideal. it can never be. politically or otherwise. because things become realistic very rapidly

yes....taxes are a form of government control, power, and in some cases, abuse. however the alternative in a country like america is most likely worse

as i have gotten a little older i too am not comfortable with everything my government does with its tax dollars. but the alternative is not something i like to ponder

i believe in all that government "by the people for the people" crap. and so i believe it should serve the people the best it can in certain ways. and i believe the government is mostly made up of americans, average and otherwise, who want the best for this country. flawed as it is...i believe in my financial system, tax system, and justice system. the entire political system. we faught long and hard for what we have as a nation and its pretty good. so i'm pretty satisfied to pay my taxes because don't feel robbed in anyway

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 01:29 AM

the alternative is that people provide for themselves without some entity forcing them to and oppressing them

sounds terrible man i know

Smokey D

08-21-2009, 01:29 AM

Um, the argument for public healthcare is that everyone should be able to have it regardless of whether they can afford it.

This is different from other markets because we have decided that people who can't afford it should in most cases not be able to have it.

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 01:32 AM

Smokey D

08-21-2009, 01:33 AM

But markets don't do that.

Markets make prices move towards equilibrium. Virtually by definition, an equilibrium price is higher than the price a section of the population are willing or able to provide.

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 01:35 AM

markets tend to do it when the demand is as high as it is for healthcare

and i disagree that it should be provided for all anyway so this isnt really going to go anywhere

Smokey D

08-21-2009, 01:36 AM

Not really.

Demand is not the same as want.

Aaron

08-21-2009, 01:38 AM

Economic darwinism.

Against Miik!

08-21-2009, 01:39 AM

i know but you're not explaining how its different

you provide a service that benefits me, i choose the best provider of that service, i pay the appropriate price

i dont get how this changes between mechanic and doctor

I'll concede that it could but it won't work like that without a government mandate.

Also, choice of provider is limited now only insofar as your employer chooses your provider, but would they not use the same criteria for picking a provider as an individual?

And lastly, quality of care would still be tiered, and some would say that unlike commodities, people with more money aren't entitled to more when it comes to health care.

Against Miik!

08-21-2009, 01:40 AM

Also I'm going to bed so...yep

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 01:41 AM

Demand is not the same as want.

want is potential demand, its in the interest of providers to become more cost efficient and provide to more people

and so the price goes down

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 01:44 AM

I'll concede that it could but it won't work like that without a government mandate.
bare assertion

Also, choice of provider is limited now only insofar as your employer chooses your provider, but would they not use the same criteria for picking a provider as an individual?
no choice of provider is limited by the fact that the government only allows a certain number of providers

And lastly, quality of care would still be tiered, and some would say that unlike commodities, people with more money aren't entitled to more when it comes to health care.
rich people contribute more to society, they're more valuable

Smokey D

08-21-2009, 01:44 AM

want is potential demand, its in the interest of providers to become more cost efficient and provide to more people

and so the price goes down

But only to the extent that supply costs allow.

siva_chair

08-21-2009, 01:50 AM

Um, the argument for public healthcare is that everyone should be able to have it regardless of whether they can afford it.

And this is where people are stupid, because there is no right to have healthcare provided for you at the expense of someone else.

But only to the extent that supply costs allow.

Government doesn't change this reality no matter how much people would like.

Also, medical technology, like every other technology, continually gets cheaper so....

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 01:52 AM

But only to the extent that supply costs allow.
competition pushes technological advancement too though

Iskandar

08-21-2009, 01:59 AM

And this is where people are stupid, because there is no right to have healthcare provided for you at the expense of someone else.No there isn't.

The argument is that it should be a right, or at least an entitlement.

Smokey D

08-21-2009, 01:59 AM

And this is where people are stupid, because there is no right to have healthcare provided for you at the expense of someone else.

I don't really want to get into a libertarian discussion outside the libertarian thread.

Government doesn't change this reality no matter how much people would like.

Maybe not but that's not really the point.

Also, medical technology, like every other technology, continually gets cheaper so....

All things being equal, technology drives the cost of outcomes down. The same treatment becomes cheaper over time but that doesn't affect the cost of new treatments.

competition pushes technological advancement too though

And?

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 02:03 AM

And?
and better utilization of resources and such provides still better prices

i already said i dont think literally everyone should be covered anyway

The argument is that it should be a right, or at least an entitlement.
argue it without axiomatically claiming people have a right to life at the cost of others

Iskandar

08-21-2009, 02:07 AM

Well, since natural rights theory axiomatically claims people do have a right to life, and since it has to be at the expense of others to mean anything that shouldn't be too difficult.

siva_chair

08-21-2009, 02:09 AM

I don't really want to get into a libertarian discussion outside the libertarian thread.

Umm isn't that the crux of the issue being debated here?

Maybe not but that's not really the point.

Then why did you bring it up?

All things being equal, technology drives the cost of outcomes down. The same treatment becomes cheaper over time but that doesn't affect the cost of new treatments.

Well, yes it actually does. As technology becomes cheaper, new treatments become more cost effective to implement. Most new treatments involve some level of prior existing technology, you know.

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 02:10 AM

Well, since natural rights theory axiomatically claims people do have a right to life, and since it has to be at the expense of others to mean anything that shouldn't be too difficult.

i said without using axioms you jerk

siva_chair

08-21-2009, 02:10 AM

Smokey D

08-21-2009, 02:11 AM

and better utilization of resources and such provides still better prices

i already said i dont think literally everyone should be covered anyway

Well theres your problem.\

Then why did you bring it up?

I didn't say government intervenes to keep costs down I said it intervenes to provide it for people who can't afford it.

Well, yes it actually does. As technology becomes cheaper, new treatments become more cost effective to implement. Most new treatments involve some level of prior existing technology, you know.

A doctor using a stethoscope, scalpel and a bone saw has less expenses than a doctor with a full range of diagnostic and surgical implements, but his treatments will probably be less good.

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 02:12 AM

Well theres your problem.
well i dont think they should not be covered if everyone could afford it

i just dont think everyone should have a right to healthcare regardless

Smokey D

08-21-2009, 02:14 AM

well i dont think they should not be covered if everyone could afford it

i just dont think everyone should have a right to healthcare regardless

Yah okay so you're operating on a different basis to the assumptions which underpin pro-public healthcare.

Iskandar

08-21-2009, 02:16 AM

This part is false.Explain how you can survive without other people.\

Well you technically can but you couldn't maximize your utility and therefore your quality of life would suck.

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 02:17 AM

Yah okay so you're operating on a different basis to the assumptions which underpin pro-public healthcare.

well im waiting to be convinced by iskandar so this could all change soon

siva_chair

08-21-2009, 02:34 AM

I didn't say government intervenes to keep costs down I said it intervenes to provide it for people who can't afford it.

Yeah and the government involvment makes more people unable to afford it as it doesn't do anything to drive prices down.

A doctor using a stethoscope, scalpel and a bone saw has less expenses than a doctor with a full range of diagnostic and surgical implements, but his treatments will probably be less good.

Of course but no one ever claimed as such so this statement is pointless.

Explain how you can survive without other people.\

Well you technically can but you couldn't maximize your utility and therefore your quality of life would suck.

I wasn't disputing that you may need other people to survive, I was pointing out that your statement about it necessarily being at the expense of others is false.

Also the "right to life" means no one has the right to take your life away from you, not that you have the right to not die and that everyone else is obligated to keep you from dying.

Smokey D

08-21-2009, 02:42 AM

Yeah and the government involvment makes more people unable to afford it as it doesn't do anything to drive prices down.

Um, yeah but if the government is still paying for everyone's treatment it doesn't matter how many people can't afford it.

Of course but no one ever claimed as such so this statement is pointless.

Well, I don't know why you're going on about why technology makes treatments cheaper.

Technology can do at least three things.

1) It can make costs go down but keep outcomes the same 2) It can make costs go up but make outcomes go improve 3) It can make treatment costs go down and outcomes go up.

It is a very much case by case kinda thing, though.

siva_chair

08-21-2009, 02:51 AM

Um, yeah but if the government is still paying for everyone's treatment it doesn't matter how many people can't afford it.

Yes it does. Someone is paying for it. Increasing taxes (government plunder) is the inevitable path.

Also, there are far fewer incentives to develop newer technology for treatments as well.

Well, I don't know why you're going on about why technology makes treatments cheaper.

Because it has a strong tendency to do so.

Technology can do at least three things.

1) It can make costs go down but keep outcomes the same 2) It can make costs go up but make outcomes go improve 3) It can make treatment costs go down and outcomes go up.

It is a very much case by case kinda thing, though.

Yeah it has the tendency to do number 3.

Example, better MRI technology leads to more MRI units being available to facilities (supply) leads to the cost of new treatments involving MRIs to go down (supply/demand relationship).

Iskandar

08-21-2009, 02:54 AM

I wasn't disputing that you may need other people to survive, I was pointing out that your statement about it necessarily being at the expense of others is false.I think everyone does, at least to have a life of consequence.
Also the "right to life" means no one has the right to take your life away from you, not that you have the right to not die and that everyone else is obligated to keep you from dying.Why is our right only active and not passive?

If life is a right as you claim, and we can prevent others from dying, aren't we then obliged to?

Not that I'm necessarily arguing for healthcare on these grounds but it is interesting to discuss.

siva_chair

08-21-2009, 03:01 AM

I think everyone does, at least to have a life of consequence.

No you don't need to do anything at the expense of others to have a life. Utility is marginal remember?

Why is our right only active and not passive?

If life is a right as you claim, and we can prevent others from dying, aren't we then obliged to?

Not that I'm necessarily arguing for healthcare on these grounds but it is interesting to discuss.

Umm no see the onus would be on you to prove that we are in fact obliged.

Iskandar

08-21-2009, 03:03 AM

No you don't need to do anything at the expense of others to have a life. Utility is marginal remember? Yeah you need others to derive utility from things they do and thereby maximize your own utility.
Umm no see the onus would be on you to prove that we are in fact obliged.I just explained it.

siva_chair

08-21-2009, 03:21 AM

Yeah you need others to derive utility from things they do and thereby maximize your own utility.

Yeah and nowhere in that does it state it has to be at the expense of anyone. Once again, exchange is not a zero sum game. Comparative advantage, etc.

I just explained it.

No you asserted it. You haven't demonstrated anything other than you can make assertions and try to pass them off as rational justification.

Smokey D

08-21-2009, 03:32 AM

Yes it does. Someone is paying for it. Increasing taxes (government plunder) is the inevitable path.

I mean even if healthcare costs increase (which is probably debatable but I don't wanna get you on a roll) then people are still going to be treated.

Also, there are far fewer incentives to develop newer technology for treatments as well.

Maybe but I don't see why the government couldn't set up R&D departments to compete for funds. Or for that matter, why private firms wouldn't keep on developing to sell to the government.

Yeah it has the tendency to do number 3.

Example, better MRI technology leads to more MRI units being available to facilities (supply) leads to the cost of new treatments involving MRIs to go down (supply/demand relationship).

I dunno I haven't done population health but I'm inclined to imagine the relationship between costs and outcomes is a complex one. It's probably true that the MRI machines get cheaper as the technology gets better but nonetheless they are still very expensive machines. The way I see it, adding new technology to medicine will in many cases increase costs over the short term but then move towards lower costs over the time. But I wouldn't want to speculate any further.

siva_chair

08-21-2009, 03:51 AM

I mean even if healthcare costs increase (which is probably debatable but I don't wanna get you on a roll) then people are still going to be treated.

Until the government can no longer extract enough income from productive sources to provide this service (or cripple productive sources to the point that they are really no longer productive).

Maybe but I don't see why the government couldn't set up R&D departments to compete for funds.

Yeah that worked so well for the Soviet Union why not?

Or for that matter, why private firms wouldn't keep on developing to sell to the government.

Well there is a reason why socialized healthcare systems do not tend to have the same access to new medical technology that private firms do. It has everything to do with the way the government necessarily acquires and spends wealth.

I dunno I haven't done population health but I'm inclined to imagine the relationship between costs and outcomes is a complex one. It's probably true that the MRI machines get cheaper as the technology gets better but nonetheless they are still very expensive machines. The way I see it, adding new technology to medicine will in many cases increase costs over the short term but then move towards lower costs over the time. But I wouldn't want to speculate any further.

Of course they incur costs over the short term, but the fact is that it increases the supply of those machines (as old functioning ones still can be and are used) in all, so treatments involving them end up costing less (and therefor become more available to people).

Already_Taken

08-21-2009, 03:52 AM

what's more important, curing our own citizen's broken bones, or liberating the Iraqis? keeping the isrealis armed and protected? sending men to space and the moon in billion dollar rockets?

i think there's a bigger issue than health care.

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 03:53 AM

and that children, is what we call a false dichotomy

Already_Taken

08-21-2009, 03:56 AM

i list four interests there. how is that a dichotomy?

oh you're talking about making america an anarchist capitalist haven. sorry bud, i'm just debating in, you know, reality.

Smokey D

08-21-2009, 03:58 AM

Until the government can no longer extract enough income from productive sources to provide this service (or cripple productive sources to the point that they are really no longer productive).

Wait so you envision prices rising continously even where all other factors stay the same?

Yeah that worked so well for the Soviet Union why not?

Um yeah it did...

Anyway, fallacy of composition etc etc.

Well there is a reason why socialized healthcare systems do not tend to have the same access to new medical technology that private firms do. It has everything to do with the way the government necessarily acquires and spends wealth.

Maybe. I don't deny there's a role for both public and private medicine.

Of course they incur costs over the short term, but the fact is that it increases the supply of those machines (as old functioning ones still can be and are used) in all, so treatments involving them end up costing less (and therefor become more available to people).

As I say I'm not qualified to make an informed comment but I think your description of healthcare economics is a little 101.

siva_chair

08-21-2009, 04:14 AM

Wait so you envision prices rising continously even where all other factors stay the same?

Well more like there is no actual price mechanism present so costs cannot be rationally realized or allocated.

And also I would say costs and expenditures will continually rise because public healthcare inherently stimulates more demand.

Um yeah it did...

Anyway, fallacy of composition etc etc.

Lol at a comparative snail's pace. Sorry but I would rather technological innovation improve the lives of people as fast as it possibly can.

Maybe. I don't deny there's a role for both public and private medicine.

Except the problem is public medicine cripples the private industry.

As I say I'm not qualified to make an informed comment but I think your description of healthcare economics is a little 101.

Well that is the way it tends to work.

Also, what is magical about "healthcare economics" that makes it different from any other economics?

Smokey D

08-21-2009, 04:26 AM

Well more like there is no actual price mechanism present so costs cannot be rationally realized or allocated.

No no.

The price mechanism regulates costs in relation to supply and demand. No one ever said it was the only way of regulating costs rationally.

Lol at a comparative snail's pace. Sorry but I would rather technological innovation improve the lives of people as fast as it possibly can.

I could be wrong here but it was my understanding that the Soviet Union had very advanced medical technologies until like the 1980s.

Except the problem is public medicine cripples the private industry.

I don't think it does though since it's alive and well pretty much everywhere with strong public health sectors.

Well that is the way it tends to work.

Also, what is magical about "healthcare economics" that makes it different from any other economics?

I didn't want to say it but your entire economic outlook is pretty simplistic.

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 04:36 AM

i list four interests there. how is that a dichotomy?
because only healthcare is on the table

not funding for israel

not funding for wars

funding for healthcare

the cost isnt going to be subtracted from the other stuff, so you cant say 'should we fund this OR this' because thats not how its going to work and its not the only way it can work

Already_Taken

08-21-2009, 04:50 AM

if they aren't raising taxes then how do you figure?

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 04:52 AM

because they are raising taxes

what

iamtherobots

08-21-2009, 04:53 AM

government will **** up healthcare, like everything else

siva_chair

08-21-2009, 05:12 AM

No no.

The price mechanism regulates costs in relation to supply and demand. No one ever said it was the only way of regulating costs rationally.

Regulating costs? So are you suggesting that the government price-fix?

The only other ways it can lower costs are by either decreasing the quality of healthcare or decreasing the quantity of healthcare it provides (or both).

I could be wrong here but it was my understanding that the Soviet Union had very advanced medical technologies until like the 1980s.

Even if they did have advanced medical technologies as you claim, it is clear that the US was still far ahead in medical technological innovations. In fact, I can't recall a single medical innovation or treatment that originated there during this time period and yet I can recall many major ones that originated in the US (PET, MRI, EEG topography, etc).

Also, we have no idea how much it cost for them to have this claimed advanced medical technology compared to the US either.

I don't think it does though since it's alive and well pretty much everywhere with strong public health sectors.

It is very difficult to compete with a rival who has all of their capital and operating costs paid out of tax dollars. When government "competes" with the private sector, it makes sure that the competition is unfair (usually by piling costly regulation after regulation, and tax after tax on the private companies while exempting itself from all of them). This effectively cripples them because it hinders their ability for growth and in effect lowers their abilities to provide cheaper and higher quality care they would normally be able to provide under other circumstances.

I didn't want to say it but your entire economic outlook is pretty simplistic.

Well gee golly I'm convinced. I didn't realize that we could disprove things by simply declaring them to be simplistic.

Sorry, but the healthcare industry isn't some magical industry that is somehow exempt from the fundamentals of economics.

Smokey D

08-21-2009, 05:24 AM

Regulating costs? So are you suggesting that the government price-fix?

Not necessarily.

The only other ways it can lower costs are by either decreasing the quality of healthcare or decreasing the quantity of healthcare it provides (or both).

Yeah but I'm not talking about the government lowering the costs of healthcare. I have never said this.

Even if they did have advanced medical technologies as you claim, it is clear that the US was still far ahead in medical technological innovations. In fact, I can't recall a single medical innovation or treatment that originated there during this time period and yet I can recall many major ones that originated in the US (PET, MRI, EEG topography, etc).

Perhaps. I'm not denying that competition is a good mechanism to promote development or claiming that the Soviet Union was the optimum model of government sponsored development.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say much of the medical R&D being done around the world is done either in a public-private partnership or is directly sponsored by government. This isn't to suggest anything like government sponsored research is necessarily better or more efficient than other models only that it is completely viable.

Also, we have no idea how much it cost for them to have this claimed advanced medical technology compared to the US either.

Seems fairly silly to infer one way or the other then.

It is very difficult to compete with a rival who has all of their capital and operating costs paid out of tax dollars. When government "competes" with the private sector, it makes sure that the competition is unfair (usually by piling costly regulation after regulation, and tax after tax on the private companies while exempting itself from all of them). This effectively cripples them because it hinders their ability for growth and in effect lowers their abilities to provide cheaper and higher quality care they would normally be able to provide under other circumstances.

Okay I dunno how private sectors survive so well then.

Also lol at "when government "competes" with the private sector, it makes sure that the competition is unfair (usually by piling costly regulation after regulation, and tax after tax on the private companies while exempting itself from all of them)."

Talk about baseless accusations.

Well gee golly I'm convinced. I didn't realize that we could disprove things by simply declaring them to be simplistic.

Well I'm not an economist either. But just saying 'supply and demand' over and over doesn't really leave me with a lot of confidence in your expertise.

Sorry, but the healthcare industry isn't some magical industry that is somehow exempt from the fundamentals of economics.

Okay so why have healthcare costs gone up.

siva_chair

08-21-2009, 06:17 AM

Not necessarily.

Then how are they going to effectively implement the newest medical technology?

Yeah but I'm not talking about the government lowering the costs of healthcare. I have never said this.

Please tell me how the government can know it is rationally allocating resources in this case?

Also, if the government isn't going to lower the costs of healthcare, wtf is the point in nationalizing the system anyway? In reality, your average person isn't going to be able to afford healthcare any more than they do already because they will still be paying for it (as well as the increase in administrative overhead required for such a proposal) via increased taxation. Net contributers will still be net contributers and net beneficiaries will still be net beneficiaries.

Perhaps. I'm not denying that competition is a good mechanism to promote development or claiming that the Soviet Union was the optimum model of government sponsored development.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say much of the medical R&D being done around the world is done either in a public-private partnership or is directly sponsored by government. This isn't to suggest anything like government sponsored research is necessarily better or more efficient than other models only that it is completely viable.

The problem with government sponsered research is that they really have no way of calculating the rational allocation of resources like a private firm does. A monopoly also suffers from this problem in the same manner. A competing private firm has a direct feedback mechanism to decide what specifically to invest in R&D and what services/products are satisfying consumer demands and preferences and what are not.

I mean, sure, the government can throw money at problems and hope to eventually solve them, but that is in no way indicative that it is solving things efficiently or at the best cost to benefit ratio. The market is much better at this sort of thing.

Seems fairly silly to infer one way or the other then.

Well we do know they didn't really innovate much.

Okay I dunno how private sectors survive so well then.

By having to charge more for their services out of necessity than they otherwise would.

Also lol at "when government "competes" with the private sector, it makes sure that the competition is unfair (usually by piling costly regulation after regulation, and tax after tax on the private companies while exempting itself from all of them)."

Talk about baseless accusations.

Government has the unfair advantage of deriving its capital from taxation. Check.

Government regulates any industry that it is a part of. Check.

Government has the incentive to regulate any industry it is a part of in its favor just as any actor(s) do. Check.

Yup nothing I said wasn't in accordance with known observable facts or reasoning.

Well I'm not an economist either. But just saying 'supply and demand' over and over doesn't really leave me with a lot of confidence in your expertise.

Well if the issue concerns the principles of supply and demand it makes sense to say so...

Okay so why have healthcare costs gone up.

Several reasons. A few of them include:

-The government restricts the number of medical student applicants and requires increasing licensing requirements for medical schools, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical doctors and other health care personnel, which has the effect of decreasing their supply.

-The government restricts the number of healthcare insurance providers (and in effect creates what essentially amounts to a cartel), and heavily regulates the ones that are allowed to exist. As a result, health insurers now are forced to cover a multitude of uninnsurable risks, alongside, and pooled with, genuine insurance risks. This contributes to to an increase in cost for medical insurance.

-The government places lots of restrictions on the production and sale of pharmaceutical products and medical devices (once again, cartels). This increases costs and hinders innovation.

And so on...

DBoons Ghost

08-21-2009, 07:05 AM

Americans shame themselves by parrotting their favorite right wing radio hosts' ignorance.

I have one simple beef. Costs for Medicare/Medicaid are spiraling out of control. Medicare/Medicaid is currently government run.

Obviously these are no longer cost effective.

So, where are the details of the plan that not only rein in spending on Medicaid and Medicare, but control spending on the next plan? It's really that simple.

Why not just expand upon the system we have, rein in spending and corruption within it, and call it a day?

Obama is taking the easy road, not the hard road, and the easy option led to Medicare and where we are now with it, so where's the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? Given all the blaring obstacles we currently face with this, why have we not been provided with any details at all? Why not attack insurance companies? Where is the change I can believe in? I want to believe in it. He's just a typical Democrat at this point. Spend and spend more, almost blindly.

Forgive me if this obvious matter had been covered but it seems there is ignorance on both sides, and to me, the people showing up at these town hall meetings are dumber then the officals they face, but that doesn't mean everyone's an idiot.

Mostly though.

A lot of the inefficiency comes from doctors having to order tests for patients in defense of potential lawsuits. Private practice having to pay 300k a year just for insurance is absurd.

DBoons Ghost

08-21-2009, 07:17 AM

Also we have to get over the whole "not everyone deserves healthcare" issue.

We pay for it anyway. We will continue paying for it. Get past that. The issue is the cost and the abuse.

Which Obama is not going to change. It bugs me he's blaming the GOP for playing politics. Broken system is broken. Building upon a broken system is ultimately dumber.

Now, without details of the plan and what it hopes to change, we're pissing in the wind.

siva_chair

08-21-2009, 07:44 AM

Well just repeating the mantra of "change" without really specifying much a bunch of times helped him win the election maybe he is under the impression that if you say it a lot of times it will just sort of happen??

DBoons Ghost

08-21-2009, 07:57 AM

Yes this is obvious now, and it was then. He's a liar but they all lie. They have to.

The man's ability to BS has nothing to do with the problem at hand. If I were him I'm sure he's thinking "if they're dumb enough to elect me on empty rhetoric, there's no end to what I can get over on these people.."

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 08:51 AM

Also we have to get over the whole "not everyone deserves healthcare" issue.

We pay for it anyway. We will continue paying for it. Get past that. The issue is the cost and the abuse.
if not everyone deserves healthcare then the government spends $0 on it

YDtoad

08-21-2009, 08:55 AM

Um, public healthcare just means the government pays for it it doesn't mean that any particular doctor is compelled to do provide care to any particular person. If you look at public healthcare systems around the world, you will note that doctors retain considerable autonomy in electing to give care.

You're not really dealing with my argument. If you believe that health care is a right, then there is by definition a right to demand the services of another citizen. There's no reason why a doctor couldn't be forced to treat any particular citizen--after all, to not do so would be to deny a right. Establishing a 'right' to health care is a) unconstitutional, and b) entailing the loss of true freedom of the private market of skills and labor.

And it's not serfdom cause they're getting paid pretty well.

So if Serfs were only being paid decently it would've been cool ^_^

It doesn't surprise me that Steve made that asinine comparison since we have it on file that he is the kind of person who compares Obama to Hitler.

Actually comparing Obama to Hitler is pretty silly. There are points of similarity--fostering a personality cult, statism--but these are plenty broad enough that far better comparisons exist. Obama has never embraced an outright genocidal ideology, so until he does, Hitler comparisons aren't proactive to debates.

Comparisons to Peron, on the other hand...:D

gregulus

08-21-2009, 09:17 AM

Steve loves comparisons to well-known dictators. If there's one thing he's good for, it's that.

In regards to change:
http://photos.state.gov/libraries/amgov/3234/week_4/022509_darwin_500.jpg

tbqh.

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 09:28 AM

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/5289/1249571332810.jpg

what now

gregulus

08-21-2009, 10:23 AM

Association fallacy again, tbh.

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 10:27 AM

cant be a fallacy if its not attempting to make an unrelated logical statement based upon it

gregulus

08-21-2009, 10:31 AM

But it is. The argument is:

1. Hitler was a charismatic speaker and people were drawn to him.
2. Obama is a charismatic speaker and people are drawn to him.
3. Lenin was a charismatic speaker and people were drawn to him.
4. Hitler and Lenin are both evil.

Therefore, Obama is evil.

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 10:58 AM

where does it say hitler and lenin are evil, or even if it did, where does it make that conclusion

i think you're making up your own ideas about the image, gregulus

gregulus

08-21-2009, 11:18 AM

I guess that's what happens with any sort of non-written medium and often times with a written medium.

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 11:31 AM

maybe subconciously you know obama is evil

cobert

08-21-2009, 12:55 PM

yeah that's it

Iskandar

08-21-2009, 03:20 PM

What would be the point in comparing Obama to Hitler if not to insinuate he's evil.

Also he isn't a democratic socialist the very idea is laughable.

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 03:22 PM

i guess the point would be to say that people go for charisma isntead of merit

since thats

what it says

in words

english words

Iskandar

08-21-2009, 03:24 PM

Yeah it's not loaded because Hitler's seen as the most evil person ever.

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 03:28 PM

well i dont think he was evil he was probably mentally ill im not sure if mentally ill people can be evil

YDtoad

08-21-2009, 03:51 PM

Every genocidal dictator could be said to have suffered from mental disease--the very act of carrying out a genocide entails a disease of the mind, in a clinical context.

Iskandar

08-21-2009, 03:54 PM

But Obama doesn't so the comparison becomes yet more asinine.

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 03:55 PM

obama doesnt have the excuse thats kind of worse

Iskandar

08-21-2009, 03:57 PM

Obama isn't genocidal.

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 03:58 PM

we wont know that until the end of his term will we

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 04:00 PM

that wasnt what i meant anyway

more like he has no excuse for bad policy

gregulus

08-21-2009, 04:05 PM

genocidal is not subjective. bad policy is.

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 04:06 PM

actually genocidal is subjective

gregulus

08-21-2009, 04:06 PM

genocide is a bad policy
obama has bad policies
therefore obama is genocidal

is this the second association fallacy in this thread?

Iskandar

08-21-2009, 04:06 PM

Wait until the end of his term before judging his policy then.

gregulus

08-21-2009, 04:07 PM

the definition of genocide is pretty explicit.

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 04:08 PM

Wait until the end of his term before judging his policy then.
why

his policy is bad now

i wouldnt wait if he comitted genocide tomorow either

i only said we wouldnt know that he's not genocidal until his term is over

fafafafa

08-21-2009, 04:10 PM

the definition of genocide is pretty explicit.
words are subjective but no not really its not

Iskandar

08-21-2009, 04:40 PM

why

his policy is bad now

i wouldnt wait if he comitted genocide tomorow either

i only said we wouldnt know that he's not genocidal until his term is overIf you won't know if he's genocidal, you won't know if his policies stay bad either.

YDtoad

08-21-2009, 04:59 PM

If you won't know if he's genocidal, you won't know if his policies stay bad either.

but we do know that his current policies are bad
and that he is lying when he says that he has not advocated single payer
^_^

Iskandar

08-21-2009, 05:01 PM

I disagree that his current policies are bad.

YDtoad

08-21-2009, 05:03 PM

I disagree that his current policies are bad.

the stimulus failed. This isn't really a matter of opinion, more a statement of fact. I can't fathom how you could think that Cash for Clunkers is anything more than a gimmick with bad consequences. And of course you endorse national health care but it's unconstitutional and most americans oppose it :o

Iskandar

08-21-2009, 05:03 PM

the stimulus failed. This isn't really a matter of opinion, more a statement of fact.Er.
And of course you endorse national health care but it's unconstitutionalLol no.

Det_Nosnip

08-21-2009, 05:05 PM

um this statement is just as bad

their party is more like hitler than my party!!!!!!

Yes, that's what I said. :rolleyes:

Angmar

08-21-2009, 05:15 PM

Hitler was a vegetarian.

Vegetarians = nazis

Mr. Ron

08-21-2009, 05:28 PM

Well yeah, that IS a fact.

YDtoad

08-21-2009, 05:33 PM

Er.

http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/files/2009/06/stimulus-vs-unemployment-may2.gif

Lol no.

The constitution protects the right of the property of your own labor. Establishing health care as a 'right' changes that.

Iskandar

08-21-2009, 05:39 PM

http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/files/2009/06/stimulus-vs-unemployment-may2.gifwww.redstate.com eh.
The constitution protects the right of the property of your own labor. Establishing health care as a 'right' changes that.So taxation is unconstitutional nice try.

YDtoad

08-21-2009, 05:42 PM

www.redstate.com eh.

States a fact. Obama's unemployment projections were flat wrong. The stimulus was a corrupt pork bill that he punted on.

So taxation is unconstitutional nice try.

Taxation is an after-the-fact government ceasure. They're not ceasing your services, they're just charging you for being able to offer them, basically.

Iskandar

08-21-2009, 05:43 PM

States a fact. Obama's unemployment projections were flat wrong. The stimulus was a corrupt pork bill that he punted on.I think you should look at some polls of economists.
Taxation is an after-the-fact government ceasure. They're not ceasing your services, they're just charging you for being able to offer them, basically.And this affects tax-funded healthcare how.

iamtherobots

08-21-2009, 06:02 PM

Hitler was a vegetarian.

Vegetarians = nazis

**** you bro

iamtherobots

08-21-2009, 06:03 PM

government will **** up healthcare, like everything else

this

Angmar

08-21-2009, 06:05 PM

**** you bro

I said vegetarians not vegans quit bitching, vegans are commies this is obvious.

iamtherobots

08-21-2009, 06:14 PM

stfu dude im a libertarian nigga

Angmar

08-21-2009, 06:16 PM

Which is borderline commie so who cares.

iamtherobots

08-21-2009, 06:16 PM

lol?

gregulus

08-21-2009, 06:17 PM

Technically, isn't veganism ⊆ vegetarianism?

Iskandar

08-21-2009, 06:36 PM

Yes.

gregulus

08-21-2009, 06:37 PM

OK. Mappy, your friend Angmar did in fact call you a Nazi.

Angmar

08-21-2009, 06:57 PM

fair enough

Smokey D

08-21-2009, 08:20 PM

Then how are they going to effectively implement the newest medical technology?

I don't know what price regulations has to do with that but I'll let it slide.

The most obvious candidate for a schema to rationalise healthcare resources would be to leave it up to the doctors to make decisions on a case by case basis based on need, probability of success and whether that money could be better used elsewhere. I dunno, they do it all the time.

this is opposed to a distribution of care based on ability to pay rather than need or chance of success.

Please tell me how the government can know it is rationally allocating resources in this case?

I don't think the government needs to micromanage here.

Also, if the government isn't going to lower the costs of healthcare, wtf is the point in nationalizing the system anyway? In reality, your average person isn't going to be able to afford healthcare any more than they do already because they will still be paying for it (as well as the increase in administrative overhead required for such a proposal) via increased taxation. Net contributers will still be net contributers and net beneficiaries will still be net beneficiaries.

Well, I don't know if a public option would lower costs or not. I'm not informed enough to make a call on it. Public healthcare schemes in other countries suggests that it may be possible to reduce healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP. I don't want to speculate on whether this is a feature of public healthcare generally or the specific incidents of those particular healthcare regimes.

That aside, the point is to provide healthcare for those people who can't afford it. Reducing costs would be nice but it's really a side issue.

The problem with government sponsered research is that they really have no way of calculating the rational allocation of resources like a private firm does. A monopoly also suffers from this problem in the same manner. A competing private firm has a direct feedback mechanism to decide what specifically to invest in R&D and what services/products are satisfying consumer demands and preferences and what are not.

I disagree. I don't think the government needs to operate in a monopolistic manner.

I mean, sure, the government can throw money at problems and hope to eventually solve them, but that is in no way indicative that it is solving things efficiently or at the best cost to benefit ratio. The market is much better at this sort of thing.

Well, as I say I don't think the basics of the market are essentially disturbed if the government adopts the right approach.

Well we do know they didn't really innovate much.

Do we?

By having to charge more for their services out of necessity than they otherwise would.

Maybe. They're still very profitable of course.

Government has the unfair advantage of deriving its capital from taxation. Check.

So the government has a larger potential capital pool. So what?

Government regulates any industry that it is a part of. Check

Now here's where you demonstrate that the government is regulating to the detriment of other market participants etc.

Government has the incentive to regulate any industry it is a part of in its favor just as any actor(s) do. Check

Well, I would suggest that the government operates on different assumptions to profit driven providers.

In fact, provision of private healthcare probably benefits public healthcare since lessens the load on the public purse.

You seem to be treating public healthcare as if it operates in comeptition with private providers. I don't see why this is the case.

Well if the issue concerns the principles of supply and demand it makes sense to say so...

Yeah but markets are more complex than just supply and demand. Supply and demand is an analytical tool for undersanding it's not the be all and end all.

-The government restricts the number of medical student applicants and requires increasing licensing requirements for medical schools, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical doctors and other health care personnel, which has the effect of decreasing their supply.

Does it? I've never heard that the government restricts medical school applicants unless you mean it requires people to sit certain exams and get certain grades but that's not something I have a problem with.

-The government restricts the number of healthcare insurance providers (and in effect creates what essentially amounts to a cartel), and heavily regulates the ones that are allowed to exist. As a result, health insurers now are forced to cover a multitude of uninnsurable risks, alongside, and pooled with, genuine insurance risks. This contributes to to an increase in cost for medical insurance.

Well I don't agree with that and I don't think it's a necessary feature of public healthcare.

-The government places lots of restrictions on the production and sale of pharmaceutical products and medical devices (once again, cartels). This increases costs and hinders innovation.

I'm not sure I agree with this statement.

You're not really dealing with my argument. If you believe that health care is a right, then there is by definition a right to demand the services of another citizen. There's no reason why a doctor couldn't be forced to treat any particular citizen--after all, to not do so would be to deny a right. Establishing a 'right' to health care is a) unconstitutional, and b) entailing the loss of true freedom of the private market of skills and labor.

Well, I don't know how it's unconstitutional. that's an interesting claim. I'd like to see how the argument goes.

But anyway, I don't think there would be a right to healthcare in the hard sense. At most, individuals would have the right to seek care.

I can point you to a number of cases in New Zealand where the 'right to healthcare' has been tested in the courts. The courts generally resile from compelling doctors and hospitals to do anything other than fairly consult in good faith. see also, deference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deference

actually genocidal is subjective

No it's not it's a legal term of art.

the stimulus failed. This isn't really a matter of opinion, more a statement of fact. I can't fathom how you could think that Cash for Clunkers is anything more than a gimmick with bad consequences. And of course you endorse national health care but it's unconstitutional and most americans oppose it

Wait what. How has the stimulus failed.

The constitution protects the right of the property of your own labor. Establishing health care as a 'right' changes that.

How so.

YDtoad

08-21-2009, 09:33 PM

Well, I don't know how it's unconstitutional. that's an interesting claim. I'd like to see how the argument goes.

Well you can start with the Protection Clause in article 1 section 8: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

That's actually the first right spelled out--the right to one's intellectual pursuits. It demonstrates the importance of property rights in the founding fathers' thoughts--it's a fundamental tenant in Locke's writings, which probably influenced the FFs, particularly Madison and Jefferson, more than anyone else.

And then you can go on to the 5th amendment:
"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

Establishing a 'right' to health care infers that there is no right to property, because a person can have the 'right' to the services of another individual.

But anyway, I don't think there would be a right to healthcare in the hard sense. At most, individuals would have the right to seek care.

But individuals already have the right to seek care.

I can point you to a number of cases in New Zealand where the 'right to healthcare' has been tested in the courts. The courts generally resile from compelling doctors and hospitals to do anything other than fairly consult in good faith. see also, deference.

Well if you accept that then there is no right to health care--doctors are obligated to fairly consult in good faith the same way a car dealership can not turn away a person for the color of their skin. If I'm not mistaken, this is essentially the established law in America today.

Smokey D

08-21-2009, 10:02 PM

Well you can start with the Protection Clause in article 1 section 8: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

That's actually the first right spelled out--the right to one's intellectual pursuits. It demonstrates the importance of property rights in the founding fathers' thoughts--it's a fundamental tenant in Locke's writings, which probably influenced the FFs, particularly Madison and Jefferson, more than anyone else.

It's a very attenuated link to try and connect the right to secure patents for intellectual property to coercing doctors to provide treatment. Maybe there is a connection but I think you need to try harder on this one. Get back to me.

PS whether or not it demonstrates the Founding Fathers' thoughts on property or anything else is irrelevant. What matters is what the text says on its face.

Establishing a 'right' to health care infers that there is no right to property, because a person can have the 'right' to the services of another individual.

Without due process of law.

So obviously the government can legislate to regulate people's property.

But individuals already have the right to seek care.

Yah and public healthcare just means that the government will pay for it.

Well if you accept that then there is no right to health care--doctors are obligated to fairly consult in good faith the same way a car dealership can not turn away a person for the color of their skin. If I'm not mistaken, this is essentially the established law in America today.

Yeah that's why your scare mongering is misplaced.

Public healthcare establishes nothing more than government payment.

Although I would say the duty of doctors to consult in good faith is probably a little more onerous than not turning away a patient for the colour of his skin.

fafafafa

08-22-2009, 12:14 AM

If you won't know if he's genocidal, you won't know if his policies stay bad either.
this is non sensical

if he punches an old lady in the stomach tomorrow i dont need to wait until the end of his term to know he punches old ladies in the stomach

if he starts a genocide tomorrow i dont need to wait until the end of his term to know he's genocidal

if he makes a bad policy decision...

Yes, that's what I said. :rolleyes:

well yeah it is what you said thats why i said you said it

I think you should look at some polls of economists.

um, obvious fallacy

i bet you were saying this before the recession when they all agreed it was good times ahead too

Iskandar

08-22-2009, 12:21 AM

if he makes a bad policy decision...He has three and a half more years of decisions to make.
i bet you were saying this before the recession when they all agreed it was good times ahead tooThis is a myth.

But if there was no sign things were looking bad, there would be no reason to assume they would be unless you're the type who enjoys predicting catastrophes.

fafafafa

08-22-2009, 12:27 AM

He has three and a half more years of decisions to make.
so if he punches an old lady in the stomach one day

then saves children all the others

he doesnt punch old ladies in the stomach?

uh, no

This is a myth.

But if there was no sign things were looking bad, there would be no reason to assume they would be unless you're the type who enjoys predicting catastrophes.
no there are people who predicted it very accurately while the mainstream was predicting that it was all good

you said this the last time though, about doomsayers

then i asked you for evidence of them just reeling off predictions

but you didnt reply iskandar, why was that

Iskandar

08-22-2009, 12:30 AM

so if he punches an old lady in the stomach one day

then saves children all the others

he doesnt punch old ladies in the stomach?

uh, noHe's then remembered as a mostly good president.
no there are people who predicted it very accurately while the mainstream was predicting that it was all goodNo there were orthodox economists predicting the real estate bubble was gonna burst years ago.

fafafafa

08-22-2009, 12:42 AM

He's then remembered as a mostly good president.
so? thats not what i said

No there were orthodox economists predicting the real estate bubble was gonna burst years ago.
no, we're talking about mainstream consensus, iskandar, as you said we should be looking to to determine economic truth

i can re-link the amusing video of schiff going up against all the other tv economists if you'd like to watch it again (because i know you did the first time)

Smokey D

08-22-2009, 12:47 AM

Um, I thought everybody was predicting the collapse ages ago. it's just that no one was willing to modify their behaviour because they didn't want to reduce their own profits while others succeeded. this is a classic prisoners' dilemma.

Iskandar

08-22-2009, 12:48 AM

so? thats not what i saidIf Obama makes mostly good decisions, he's remembered as a good president. It doesn't mean he never made bad decisions, just that more if them were good.

That and whether his decisions are good or bad is purely subjective.
no, we're talking about mainstream consensus, iskandar, as you said we should be looking to to determine economic truthThe consensus can change you know.

And economists can be and frequently are wrong.
i can re-link the amusing video of schiff going up against all the other tv economists if you'd like to watch it again (because i know you did the first time)No thanks.

fafafafa

08-22-2009, 01:01 AM

If Obama makes mostly good decisions, he's remembered as a good president. It doesn't mean he never made bad decisions, just that more if them were good.

thanks for the obvious statement

still not what i said

no amount of good policy after the fact can change an event, he either commits genocide or he doesnt, he either makes bad policy or he doesnt

And economists can be and frequently are wrong.
why do you feel the need to point to them as economic truth then hurr

Um, I thought everybody was predicting the collapse ages ago
oh yay i do get to post it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

Smokey D

08-22-2009, 01:04 AM

I don't have sound on this computer what does the video say.

fafafafa

08-22-2009, 01:07 AM

basically peter schiff predicts exactly how the entire thing pans out while every other economist is telling him he's crazy and its all rainbows and ponies

Smokey D

08-22-2009, 01:09 AM

I dunno in New Zealand the Reserve Bank was basically telling us the housing market was poised to collapse since like 2003

Iskandar

08-22-2009, 01:14 AM

thanks for the obvious statement

still not what i said

no amount of good policy after the fact can change an event, he either commits genocide or he doesnt, he either makes bad policy or he doesntObama can only make policies; whether his policies are good or bad can only be determined after the fact.

That and the fact that it's extremely likely any given person will agree with any of his policies means that at least some of his policies must be considered bad by everyone.

Thus it's kind of pointless what you're trying to do here.
why do you feel the need to point to them as economic truth thenDo you understand how consensus works.

We draw conclusions based on the evidence available to us. When newer or better evidence becomes available to us, we seek to revise them.

fafafafa

08-22-2009, 01:14 AM

I dunno in New Zealand the Reserve Bank was basically telling us the housing market was poised to collapse since like 2003

well idk the people involved there, maybe they just have better opinions than mainstream american economists do

fafafafa

08-22-2009, 01:17 AM

whether his policies are good or bad can only be determined after the fact.
no. obviously policies are subjective stop introducing things that dont matter

im saying we dont need to wait unti the end of his term to find out if he does certain things if he does them now

which is so patently obvious i dont know why you're trying to argue this

We draw conclusions based on the evidence available to us. When newer or better evidence becomes available to us, we seek to revise them.

consensus is not evidence

consensus = truth is fallacy

Iskandar

08-22-2009, 01:25 AM

consensus is not evidenceWell duh.
consensus = truth is fallacyIt's our interpretation of the truth it's not hard to see this.

fafafafa

08-22-2009, 01:32 AM

no its your interpretation of the truth based on something thats not truth at all

and its been shown to be highly inaccurate, so tell me again why we should assume its correct now

Iskandar

08-22-2009, 01:38 AM

no its your interpretation of the truth based on something thats not truth at allWat.
and its been shown to be highly inaccurate, so tell me again why we should assume its correct nowDid you read the part about the evidence changing and us re-evaluating our opinions with it.

We believe it to be the truth based on the best evidence available to us.

There's no reason to assume "well this could be wrong so let's just assume it isn't true."

fafafafa

08-22-2009, 01:42 AM

Wat.
its what you think will happen based on what other dudes think will happen

double interpretation

Did you read the part about the evidence changing and us re-evaluating our opinions with it.
tell me how peter schiff predicted it with the same evidence then

There's no reason to assume "well this could be wrong so let's just assume it isn't true."
yeah there is since it was spectacularly wrong the last time hurr

Iskandar

08-22-2009, 01:46 AM

its what you think will happen based on what other dudes think will happen

double interpretationI don't have to take their opinions as axiomatic.

I don't have to allow them to inform my own opinions at all.
tell me how peter schiff predicted it with the same evidence then
What part of subjective don't you get.

fafafafa

08-22-2009, 01:49 AM

us being in a recession isnt subjective. what.

the mainstream consensus has demonstrated it is capable of making an inaccurate prediction when the evidence is there that should lead them to the actual truth

if we know that then why should we believe future interpretations

Iskandar

08-22-2009, 01:52 AM

We don't have to.

In the absence of evidence on our part, it couldn't hurt.

fafafafa

08-22-2009, 01:56 AM

if peter schiff is statistically more accurate than consensus concerning this economic downturn why shouldnt i gravitate towards his opinion instead

Iskandar

08-22-2009, 01:57 AM

You should if you think he's right, but it's a lot easier to say that in hindsight.

fafafafa

08-22-2009, 02:00 AM

but why wouldnt you go for the more statistically accurate source

oh because you're an ideologue nvm

Iskandar

08-22-2009, 02:02 AM

Lol a libertarian is calling me an ideologue that's cute.

But you're missing the point. Before the recession the evidence was different; we can't say it's not likely to happen when it already did.

On another note, what's your basis for claiming a majority of economists discredited the idea of a recession.

fafafafa

08-22-2009, 02:08 AM

well i have principle of voluntarism which causes me to be against many things regardless of their 'benefit', but thats not the same as being an ideologue

Before the recession the evidence was different
and yet schiff was able to extract accurate predictions from it while others were not

On another note, what's your basis for claiming a majority of economists discredited the idea of a recession.
its what the media and the government were saying at the time based on their polling of mainstream economists

Iskandar

08-22-2009, 02:09 AM

Circular answer. "People said it because people said it."

fafafafa

08-22-2009, 02:13 AM

reputable media isnt hearsay iskandar

Smokey D

08-22-2009, 02:14 AM

I feel that we should start a 'did economists predict the financial crisis' thread this thread is about healthcare not economists.

fafafafa

08-22-2009, 02:14 AM

this thread is about obama being a distant relative of hitler

Iskandar

08-22-2009, 02:15 AM

Well, a poll of how many support healthcare would be nice.

fafafafa

08-22-2009, 02:18 AM

how many economists?

peter schiff does not support universal healthcare

Iskandar

08-22-2009, 02:19 AM

I don't care about Peter Schiff.

fafafafa

08-22-2009, 02:20 AM

you wanted a poll of opinions on healthcare

i am providing data

Iskandar

08-22-2009, 02:23 AM

One economist doesn't really matter though.

fafafafa

08-22-2009, 02:24 AM

well you need to ask them all in turn i was just saving you one

fafafafa

08-22-2009, 02:26 AM

but i dont really see why economists opinions on healthcare would matter

maybe their general opinion on government run enterprise

(which is probably negative)

Iskandar

08-22-2009, 02:49 AM

Actually that's a myth I've read studies by libertarian groups showing that a majority of economists did in fact support government programs in principle.

Not state-run businesses or anything though.

fafafafa

08-22-2009, 02:51 AM

but i said government run business

ps the government cant even run the postal service at a profit

Smokey D

08-22-2009, 02:54 AM

In NZ most stated owned enterprises are profitable.

And they don't even exclude private marketeers.

Iskandar

08-22-2009, 02:56 AM

I meant nationalization.

Metal_head

09-07-2009, 08:43 PM

i aint livin in no commie country gawrsh dernit

Regardless of whether President Obama idea is socialistic or not, it is little bit humanistic, at the beginning I was opposed to it, but 50 million uninsured is a number which Americans should be ashamed.
And 51% of Americans voted for him, you have to respect the decision of the majority.

JohnXDoe

09-07-2009, 11:04 PM

public health option is a great idea. and affordable healthcare should trump the "free market" here

all these free market / anti government people are strangling us about this

idc if every last insurance COMPANY went out of business and government ran healthcare 100%. they could do it, we can do it...YES WE CAN

:p

at the very least, and i'm not sure this has been proposed by the opposition because OMG GOVERNMENT, but the country should offer "safety net" coverage. meaning you can have your insurance, but if you are denied treatment or access to care for w/e reason, uncle sam will make sure you get what you need. no questions asked. and uncle sam will take it up with the insurance company later

we have a public healthcare system right now. the feds fund it, many states benefit from having their own programs which receive federal help. i am familiar with this system for the poor and less fortunate. it works...but it needs to be funded better. so things don't happen like they are in my state, Cali

so, if we can fund those things better and bring no questions asked "safety net" coverage for everybody else that isn't a failed trip to the local county hospital, we can have something here

but we have spent so many years debating this, doing nothing, and actually making things worse for many people, we now have to do something. and instead of something good enough its going to have to be more. because people are dumb

good enough, for both sides of this argument, is never good enough

fafafafa

09-08-2009, 07:03 AM

jxd you're too emotional you dont like facts you just say oh its true because it makes me feel nice inside thats no way to argue for anything

DBoons Ghost

09-08-2009, 07:49 AM

Regardless of whether President Obama idea is socialistic or not, it is little bit humanistic, at the beginning I was opposed to it, but 50 million uninsured is a number which Americans should be ashamed.
And 51% of Americans voted for him, you have to respect the decision of the majority.

50 million uninsured is a myth. There is no shame. Our citizens are all covered one way or another.

There is a lot more wrong with the system then lack of coverage. Our healthcare now shadows the once impossible defense budget people used to whine about.

Look into why the costs skyrocket. Fire the lawyers, rework the insurance companies and why they fail on so many levels. Obama refuses to fix the real problem. This is why most smart people tell him to GTFO. He won't fix the problem. Lawyers and insurance companies got him elected. Why would he hose them? CHange you can believe in eh?

Most states already provide free healthcare. They cannot continue to do so when the amount of payers supercedes the amount of recievers when the cost is so high.

There are waaaaaayyy too many ignorant myths about American healthcare.

fafafafa

09-08-2009, 07:55 AM

And 51% of Americans voted for him, you have to respect the decision of the majority.

so if he began throwing jews in the ovens tomorrow you'd be all oh lets respect democracy

DBoons Ghost

09-08-2009, 08:06 AM

51% voted for change they can believe in.

They will not get it. What they will get is much of the same. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

fafafafa

09-08-2009, 08:09 AM

dont be silly he's totally different he's got brown skin and everything

Metal_head

09-08-2009, 11:56 AM

so if he began throwing jews in the ovens tomorrow you'd be all oh lets respect democracy

If you're accusing me of racism, then you have an issue in not respecting someone elses values and views which is different than yours. The point of democracy is for everybody to have his/hers say. Any attempt of putting a label on someone's else just because he had a different view or values than yours is equal to Totalitarian regimes=Communism and Fascism.
Be able to look beyond your own universe.

fafafafa

09-08-2009, 12:00 PM

Iskandar

09-08-2009, 12:23 PM

so if he began throwing jews in the ovens tomorrow you'd be all oh lets respect democracy No democratically elected governments can't overstep their constitutional mandates or they become illegitimate.

In short, it's illegal.

fafafafa

09-08-2009, 12:25 PM

sure they can when its the government who interprets the constitution

and its hardly going to interpret it against its own interests

we had this discussion before iskandar

Metal_head

09-08-2009, 12:26 PM

no im accusing you of being stupid enough to think that just because someone is democratically elected we shouldnt question their actions if we know those actions to be detrimental

detrimental actions include throwing jews into ovens and implementing obamacare

what you're describing is tyranny of the majority, not democracy - every man should be able to represent himself but they should not be able to initiate force (or ask the government to initiate force) against another person to get what they want - authoritarianism is authoritarianism no matter how many people support it

Well according to the US constitution majority rules and the minority has rights until by legal ways becomes a maojrity. I understand that, but what would you accomplish by labeling somebody as stupid or a nazi!!!

Another thing according to Article 1 of the US constitution states that Congress shall make no laws that would prohibit freedom of expression, peaceful assembly or the establishment of religion.
And you have to learn to accpet that, if somebody has a differnet opinion. One ancient philosopher stated at his death bed:"Now I know that I don't know anything". Neither you nor me know what is the right decision.
And how can nationalising Healthcare be a move to Authoritarianism??Explain, or you know how to best explain with a Gun next to my head!!!
if you have a problem of having Obamacare that is your decision,its not OK to label someone as a Nazi or call somebody that he is Stupid or Ignorant.

fafafafa

09-08-2009, 12:28 PM

ps i hate to tell you but germany pretty much had one before they went crazy

fafafafa

09-08-2009, 12:31 PM

Well according to the US constitution majority rules

when electing leaders not when enacting legislation

but what would you accomplish by labeling somebody as stupid or a nazi!!!
i didnt call you a nazi, why are you so concerned about that.. unless.. are you a nazi?

And not Another thing Article 1 of the US constitution states that Congress shall make no laws that would prohibit freedom of expression, peaceful assembly or the establishment of religion.
what does that have to do with anything

Do you have a problem of having Obamacare or you're not willing to accept other people views or you're just another arrogant stupid American Yankee capitalist, who will trash somebody just because he is different from you!!!
oh no i think people who want obama care should get it but they should leave me out of it

well not me personally but they should leave people who dont want to pay for it out of it otherwise they're terribly guilty of the very thing you're whining about in forcing others to use it

Iskandar

09-08-2009, 12:42 PM

sure they can when its the government who interprets the constitution

and its hardly going to interpret it against its own interests

we had this discussion before iskandarAn independent judiciary interprets the constitution.
Well according to the US constitution majority rules and the minority has rights until by legal ways becomes a maojrity
I don't think you understand how majority rule works.

Metal_head

09-08-2009, 12:46 PM

No I'am not a nazi!!!
In Canada, we can always get private Insurance, that is for those that can afford private insurance, or are in the Union, those that are not able to get private insurance stick to the provincial plans.
You didn't explain how does Obamacare equals totalitarianism????

Iskandar

09-08-2009, 12:47 PM

Please stop making my country look bad.

fafafafa

09-08-2009, 12:54 PM

An independent judiciary interprets the constitution.

no a court funded by the state interprets the constitution

but i guess you think WWII could have been avoided if only germany had a supreme court to give hitler a slap on the wrist when he stepped over the line

because they surely would have been impartial and stood up for the law despite relying entirely on the state/hitler to exist

oh wait germany did have such courts and they didnt really care about any of it

No I'am not a nazi!!!

see i mean a normal guy who isnt a nazi would have just said it once

but you keep saying it like you really dont want me to think you are so i think you might be one

thats not cool nazis are bad people

In Canada, we can always get private Insurance, that is for those that can afford private insurance

oh so i can get private insurance but you'll still steal my money to fund your own healthcare

sounds like forcing your opinion on others to me

Iskandar

09-08-2009, 12:55 PM

Metal_head

09-08-2009, 12:57 PM

An independent judiciary interprets the constitution.
I don't think you understand how majority rule works.

Well a mojarity is that group that holds the most seats in the Congress, because of the nature of the American system which according to Fed.10 clearly states that politics is "faction of men ruled by the law" i.e. voting is done beyond party lines within the Constitution of US and also other laws which govern the country.
Hopefully I did say it correctly.

DBoons Ghost

09-08-2009, 01:00 PM

It's too bad you guys have failed and continue to fail to keep that little one under a bridge locked up.

Soon the Billy Goats Gruff will stop coming here to enjoy the grazing. They'll just go elsewhere.

Metal_head

09-08-2009, 01:02 PM

no a court funded by the state interprets the constitution

but i guess you think WWII could have been avoided if only germany had a supreme court to give hitler a slap on the wrist when he stepped over the line

because they surely would have been impartial and stood up for the law despite relying entirely on the state/hitler to exist

oh wait germany did have such courts and they didnt really care about any of it

see i mean a normal guy who isnt a nazi would have just said it once

but you keep saying it like you really dont want me to think you are so i think you might be one

thats not cool nazis are bad people

oh so i can get private insurance but you'll still steal my money to fund your own healthcare

sounds like forcing your opinion on others to me

According to the first decisions rendered by US Supreme Court, chief justice John Marshall stated that the role of the supreme court isn't to interpert but to by using judicial review evaluate whether this or that court decision violates the Constitution (Marbury vs. Madison).
Well not everything is covered by the government like botox and other cosmetic procedures aren't covered by the Health Care Act of Canada.
British common law and British Judicial practices which does the US follows is based on precedent, i.e. the judge has the final say on legal issue whether some evidence is admissable or not, or can invoke a century old ruling to nullify a law, or declare it unconstitutional, and everyone regardless of their social standing are covered by one set of rules.
Continental law is totaly diferent, it follows the traditions of Roman public Law, and it makes distinctions based on social status.