geekhack
geekhack Community => Off Topic => Topic started by: wellington1869 on Thu, 23 September 2010, 03:59:35
-
nyt reports (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/health/policy/23careintro.html?_r=1&hp) on the first round of folks to get concrete benefits from the new healthcare laws.
btw repubs just announced their new platform is based on trying to get healthcare repealed. cuz you know, allowing insurers to drop your coverage soon as you get sick is 'good'.
that wacky obama with his wacky ideas.
-
insured children make republicans cry.
-
The Founding Fathers did not die in Pearl Harbor for this Communism! Hurr Durr indeed.
-
Only problem is that those who contribute to society will be paying for the healthcare of those who don't (many of whom also don't take care of themselves.) And their healthcare costs will increase. Because making it easier for people to milk the system is good? Sigh...
-
Because children can get jobs and pay for their own healthcare?
-
Because children can get jobs and pay for their own healthcare?
They're covered under their parents who can get jobs.
-
Can they? I'm going to take a poll in Detroit.
So if the parents can't get jobs, it's OK if the kids suffer or die due lack of medical accessibility? You can say "yes;" I'm just trying to understand the other perspective here.
-
And that guy is from Texas ^^^
-
Can they? I'm going to take a poll in Detroit.
So if the parents can't get jobs, it's OK if the kids suffer or die due lack of medical accessibility? You can say "yes;" I'm just trying to understand the other perspective here.
Well if the parents didn't get COBRA to ensure their kids would be safe I think that would be a case of neglect. I'm sure the situation could be rough and it might be difficult to get money (especially with bad credit) but they have to have some accountability and responsibility.
-
And that guy is from Texas ^^^
Not really but dually noted. I feel like an alien here. At least the weather is nice.
-
Oh, so you are an imposter?
"Is that a six shooter in your pocket or are you itlnstln?"
-
Excellent, I can practically hear the republicans and tea party..."people"...screaming.
Who could possibly want healthcare that actually works?!
My healthcare has been fine...why would I want it to get worse and pay more taxes?
-
It's not that a medical insurance safety net is bad. It's that this should not be the role of the federal government. As I've mentioned before, Wisconsin and Minnesota both have successful state healthcare programs that cover the, otherwise, uninsured. (MNCare and BadgerCare)
Leave the social programs to the state and local communities. That way, if you don't like paying for it, you have the option to move to another community/state/etc.
The federal government really needs to stick with the core functions it was originally intended...
-
Our family healthcare plan has nearly doubled every year. It would have accounted for over 35% of gross income if we had stayed with it. Luckily my wife was able to get in the State Employee plan to lower the costs enough so we could afford it.
I am most thankful for the repeal of insurers to being able to exclude existing conditions. My son had open heart surgery at 4 months of age and still needs to see a cardiologist. Had this rule not happened, every insurer after he was off our family plan could have excluded any condition relating to his heart. My mother has RA and could not switch to a lower cost insurer since they were all excluding any treatment of her RA.
So let's see - we'll insure you for thousands per year but we wont cover anything that you actually need us for... Nice.
Dont get me started on what hospitals and doctors are trying to charge. All our statements always show what the hospital billed vs. what the insurance company "negotiated" down too. So if you did not have insurance, you would be screwed by the much larger amount - in some cases nearly double what the insurance company negotiated down.
-
The federal government really needs to stick with the core functions it was originally intended...
same can be said about the insurance industry, unfortunately. If they stuck by their own contracts and successfully provided their core functions, none of this would have been necessary.
In 1776 however there werent any health insurance companies. So I'm glad our founding fathers had the wisdom to build the ability to adapt-and-respond to changing needs right into our constitution, too.
-
Cycle of poverty - the American Way. Hey, as I long as I get to keep my personal wealth, **** everyone else. Just beef up the po-leece; poor people are some theivin'-ass muh'****as.
-
Cycle of poverty - the American Way. Hey, as I long as I get to keep my personal wealth, **** everyone else. Just beef up the po-leece; poor people are some theivin'-ass muh'****as.
I don't get why people say that - we have one of the biggest middle classes of any country in the world. Most other countries have a much larger gap between rich and poor than us. And at least here, there are ample opportunities for everyone to do well. Hence 'the land of opportunity'.
-
Cycle of poverty - the American Way. Hey, as I long as I get to keep my personal wealth, **** everyone else. Just beef up the po-leece; poor people are some theivin'-ass muh'****as.
l
o
l
Seriously though, IS that the American way? I have never understood why those with more money pay LESS tax. Fair is fair. I don't get hoarding money like it's going out of style.
-
l
o
l
Seriously though, IS that the American way? I have never understood why those with more money pay LESS tax. Fair is fair. I don't get hoarding money like it's going out of style.
Most of the folks that come here from other countries do so for the opportunities we have here, which are provided by capitalism. So I don't understand that argument at all.
-
Cycle of poverty - the American Way. Hey, as I long as I get to keep my personal wealth, **** everyone else. Just beef up the po-leece; poor people are some theivin'-ass muh'****as.
Also funny that many theivin'-ass rich people think this way.
-
The 1950's are over. The middle class is shrinking, and opportunities are few and far between. China is the new land of opportunity. Growing middle class, business growth, etc.
And they do say that, explicitly, in Texas.
-
The 1950's are over. The middle class is shrinking, and opportunities are few and far between. China is the new land of opportunity. Growing middle class, business growth, etc.
And they do say that, explicitly, in Texas.
Blehhh no way. China's economy got this way because it's been working its people to the bone. This won't be able to persist forever and their bubble will eventually burst. History has shown us that these kind of economies do not last. Most of their opportunities aren't even homegrown; they're based on jobs through foreign companies.
Edit: do a google search for 'working conditions in china'
-
You should see the working conditions in Texas.
Is it anything like this (http://www.nlcnet.org/reports?id=0006)?
More here (http://www.nlcnet.org/reports).
-
Most of the folks that come here from other countries do so for the opportunities we have here,
If they only knew...
which are provided by capitalism. So I don't understand that argument at all.
It's not an argument, it's a point of view. Call me crazy, but it's damaging to a society to have a large percentage of the population not give a **** about society/community at all.
Blehhh no way. China's economy got this way because it's been working its people to the bone. This won't be able to persist forever and their bubble will eventually burst. History has shown us that these kind of economies do not last. Most of their opportunities aren't even homegrown; they're based on jobs through foreign companies.
Edit: do a google search for 'working conditions in china'
sounds familiar:
(http://aftergradavenues.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/office-space.jpg)
Ah, ah, I almost forgot...I'm also going to need you to go ahead and come in on Sunday, too.
-
Aha, that's agreeable. In fact, it's how it works here, more or less (healthcare is provided at the provincial level - I carry an Ontario health card, not a "Canada" health card).
Ooooo Ontario government allows hotlinking of images. Good stuff.
Yeah, exactly the same and completely ****ing stupid. It's the same healthcare pretty well anywhere you go. I have lived in three provinces, and the differences are negligible. But each and every time I have had to get a new healthcard, and go through the whole rigamarole. In quebec, they had the nerve to all but accuse my wife and I of moving there specifically FOR health benefits(??). Just make it the one card and call it a day. Maybe then certain provinces will realize they really are part of a larger country.
-
If they only knew...
I Know - I know a lot of people that work abroad, have worked with such folks and have traveled abroad. And I also know many folks that have moved here from abroad, specifically for the opportunities.
It's not an argument, it's a point of view. Call me crazy, but it's damaging to a society to have a large percentage of the population not give a **** about society/community at all.
You'd be amazed how much larger that percentage is in many other countries. And especially communist and post-communist countries, China included.
-
I wont argue that, Im saying that there is always something better to aspire to.
-
Letting the tax cuts expire for the top 2% of income earners would more than pay for ObamaCare. But than's not going to happen. Money talks.
Hmmm...if that chart showed Obama the spending would obviously be off the chart...
-
Also funny that many theivin'-ass rich people think this way.
dude, rich people love socialism -- for themselves. They get all the tax loopholes and tax breaks and government subsidies and handouts for their industries. They just dont want anyone else getting any federal protections.
SO lets get it right -- socialism for the rich -- and capitalism for the poor -- thats the american way.
-
Hmmm...if that chart showed Obama the spending would obviously be off the chart...
spending isnt the issue.
The quesiton is spending on what?
If you're spending to invest -- for instance in technologies that will create new jobs that will more than pay for themselves, thats just common sense.
If you're spending to invest in preventative healthcare that will reduce the cost of healthcare nationwide and in long run will reduce the deficit, thats just common sense.
If you're spending on the nation's infrastructure -- road, high speed rail, internet -- that will boost nation-wide productivity and safety, thats just common sense.
If you're spending to actually enforce existing financial laws and existing environmental laws and existing consumer protection laws, thats just common sense.
If you're investing in access to education for a more competitive national work force, thats just common sense.
Thats what dems do.
Look at what the bushies spent on: yet more tax cuts for the rich (!) and an unecessary retarded war in iraq while the real bad guys got away with it in afghanistan. Gutting existing oversight agencies (financial, environmental, consumer) with the deliberate goal of bankrupting the national government.
Now choose who you want watching over the u.s. economy. I know who I want.
Its a question of priorities.
-
They're covered under their parents who can get jobs.
Right, but what about the ones who can't afford healthcare?
-
And what about the 15-20% or so of Americans living below the poverty line?
So, there are people who have come here with nothing and have become successful (or not), and people who have grown up here with nothing and have become successful (or not). Why didn't one group take advantage of the opportunities that the other did?
-
Well, if everyone was capable of doing the rags-to-riches routine, then it wouldn't really count for much now would it?
When you start blaming poor people for being poor, bad things happen...
-
Well, if everyone was capable of doing the rags-to-riches routine, then it wouldn't really count for much now would it?
When you start blaming poor people for being poor, bad things happen...
What about blaming poor people for not contributing to society i.e. not doing ****?
-
Why didn't one group take advantage of the opportunities that the other did?
The rich people in America sure are clever. The even have the poor people convinced that their way is right. So basically, even non-rich American's support ****ting on poor people, in the hopes that one day they too might undergo a rag-to-riches transformation, at which point they will also be free to hoard their money and begin ****ting on poor people in earnest.
nice.
-
What about blaming poor people for not contributing to society i.e. not doing ****?
Like Paris Hilton ... oh no that's right, she's rich.
I get it. It's OK to be stupid and lazy as long as you have money.
Trust me, the whole "All poor people are freeloaders" bit is tired BS. While there are some who might be doing so, there are FAR more people in the US and Canada who are legitimately broke, and are unable to dig themselves out of that hole, even though they work hard to do so.
-
What about blaming poor people for not contributing to society i.e. not doing ****?
Ah yes, I forgot that they chose to be poor and wouldn't want to be poor if they were given the opportunity. Thanks for reminding me.
-
Too bad the Chinese are so damn rude. Plus they belch a lot.
i've been called curt, never a belching fattie tho.
-
instantkamera & ch_123 --
When I was younger, I volunteered a lot (along with my others in my church) to help the poor and homeless. The VAST majority of the people we met were only looking for handouts. They were in the situations they were in because of themselves, and didn't want to change. People who wouldn't take jobs but instead chose to eat in soup kitchens and live in shelters. They get used to this lifestyle - it's habituating. If we help them to continue to habituate like this - we are doing an injustice to our society.
Have either of you ever volunteered to work with the poor and homeless? Were your experiences different from mine?
-
So, because the "poor" people in your area were predominantly people looking for a free lunch, that means that A) this trend is true across all parts of America and B) there is no substantive poverty problem across America?
Never get a job as a statistician.
-
So, because the "poor" people in your area were predominantly people looking for a free lunch, that means that A) this trend is true across all parts of America and B) there is no substantive poverty problem across America?
Never get a job as a statistician.
Well, I won't tell you where I live but it's in a city with one of the highest poverty rates in America. Speaking of jobs, do you even have one?
-
And that's relevant, how?
-
And that's relevant, how?
Well I've found that lazy people are typically more likely to support the rights of the lazy :P
-
So you genuinely believe that poverty is caused by laziness?
And please stop arguing like a retarded five year old. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_abuse) If you won't tell me what city you are in, why should I tell you what I do with my life?
-
Have either of you ever volunteered to work with the poor and homeless? Were your experiences different from mine?
As a matter of fact, Yes, and yes they were. However, even the people looking for a handout, did you ever stop to put yourself in their shoes? Put yourself in a homeless persons place, with the exact same resources they have access to and what do YOU do? If you have some kind of scheme for getting rich, I'm sure they would love to hear it, maybe they can't see the silver-lining to the situation they have been living in the way someone on the outside looking in can. Poor people need more than just food and water...
That brings me to another point. Does anyone know how hard it is to donate time/resources to a cause that is NOT driven and funded by a religious group? No one else seems to have the time or money to set up programs. My wife and I are not religious, and want to give back because we want to help, not because we feel like it's our Christian duty. All the kitchens in our area are church ones, and we did Samaritan's purse last year. We do them anyway, but it would be nice to donate something without that feeling of "strings attached". This year, thankfully, we have found a Women's Shelter that does baskets.
-
So you genuinely believe that poverty is caused by laziness?
And please stop arguing like a retarded five year old. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_abuse) If you won't tell me what city you are in, why should I tell you what I do with my life?
LOL ok, you got it pal :D
-
I didn't think you could answer that question either...
-
Really, there a lot of problems. The education system as a whole only helps the middle and upper classes; schools in poorer neighborhoods are there to house children during the day, not provide a good education. The parents are too poor to provide their children tools like PCs and whatnot, and there usually are not public libraries in those areas. The schools themselves cannot afford that equipment, either. If the children even make it out of public school, then comes the challenge of paying for college. Sure, there are programs to help these kids, but few of them fully pay for college, and the parents cannot afford to supplement grants, but since the schools rarely help the kids find funding, they probably won't even be able to get that help.
You can imagine where it goes from there. Money helps money; our system is not setup to help those that need it. It would be one thing if all aspects of our society were equal, but they're not, and that's the unfortunate part.
-
I didn't think you could answer that question either...
I can. I don't think laziness is necessarily a cause, but it certainly doesn't help!
Edit: but I'm a retarded 5 year old, so what do you care what I think?
-
So, are you saying that a majority of poverty is caused by people being lazy?
-
So, are you saying that a majority of poverty is caused by people being lazy?
Can you quote where I said that? I said that laziness doesn't help poor people to become successful. The more we give, the more they take. It becomes a habit, they get used to it, and that's the way they live.
-
Money helps money
Exactly. Rich people can't help but stay rich. Broke people, or those really ****ing close to it, have to weigh options and make decisions that might impact them, economically or otherwise, for a long time.
-
That brings me to another point. Does anyone know how hard it is to donate time/resources to a cause that is NOT driven and funded by a religious group? No one else seems to have the time or money to set up programs.
That's the ironic thing here in TX (home of the "mega-church"). Churches are house of rich people, not God. Churches around here have no interest in helping the needy; they serve as a place for rich people to network on the weekend and perpetuate greed in the name of God. This is not all churches, but the vast majority and particularly Protestant churches.
-
That's the ironic thing here in TX (home of the "mega-church"). Churches are house of rich people, not God. Churches around here have no interest in helping the needy; they serve as a place for rich people to network on the weekend and perpetuate greed in the name of God. This is not all churches, but the vast majority and particularly Protestant churches.
Well mine is Catholic...not sure if that has much to do with it. It's involved in a ton of programs to benefit the poor and needy.
-
Can you quote where I said that? I said that laziness doesn't help poor people to become successful. The more we give, the more they take. It becomes a habit, they get used to it, and that's the way they live.
No. You didn't say that, I asked if that was your stance. Because if you think that laziness is a leading cause of poverty, then you are an idiot. If don't, then you're just 'blaming the victim' (to use a Wellyism) to deflect the seriousness of the problem.
And last I checked, we're talking about healthcare here, not giving people free dinners. The very least we can do is provide people who can't afford healthcare the most basic service that they don't keel over and die.
Some people may be able to afford private healthcare and take public healthcare, but they are paying for it with their own tax money. If there's a situation where someone isn't their taxes, then that's tax evasion. I don't think anyone advocated that here.
-
Its a quesiton of priorities.
I guess for some people, the supreme laws of the land as found in constitutions of the several states and the United States is a high priority. For mostly everyone else, "**** the law" except apparently all subordinate law, which is quite fine. We'll just do what we want, because it makes us feel good, no biggie, doesn't matter if some people have to suffer infringement to their life, liberty, or property on the way as long as we can feel good about something related.
it's OK if the kids suffer or die due lack of medical accessibility?
What is your counter-proposition? Force (i.e. enslave) people to become doctors and insurers? Maintain a contingency slavery where you're only forced to do what everyone else wants if you become either a doctor or an insurer?
You get the life you're dealt no matter who you are and you have to work with others to make the best of it. But asking your government to enslave people to make the best of it seems immoral from the start.
Someone would probably offer health care for lower prices and at different tiers of service if the government didn't create monopolies through regulatory barriers. But that's alright, we can just make more laws to fix those other laws which were probably illegal in the first place, rather than returning to conforming to the precipice for this nation and its several states.
Here's one way to prevent a child from dying because of not having universal enslave-someone health insurance: don't have one. But that's just one idea. Everyone has this idea that in the United States there would be no private sector takeover of the public good if we just took the honest and immediate step of complying with our constitutions and cutting away the huge swaths of illegal law that impair our liberties and purses. The fact is that there would be markets in the public good, and people would ask for certain things to be fulfilled, and so people would fulfill them. I have no idea why everyone thinks we need an overbearing and onerous government just to have any single good thing.
Less theft, more consensual contract plz. If we got into the habit of saying no when we can, and yes when we want, the foundation for all of the monopolies created by regulatory barriers that created a perceived need for federal universal health care would have never existed.
people value season box football tickets at 10s of thousands of dollars but want to stiff those agents involved in health care, so we're all kinda at fault (and across generations) for misvaluing things first, and then demanding regulation following to fix the error of our ways rather than just acting differnetly
-
Wow.
Here's a situation that is common in TX. An oil well dries up, and the foremen, drillers, etc. are laid off; mind you, these are very[/] well-paid people. The way the oil business works, they may never see work for many years. They are now poor, have families, etc. They can't get another well-paying job, because their job skills are not marketable outside the oil industry. They have families. Should they have said "no" to children? No one's talking slavery here, just health insurance. Hell, it'll even help some doctors get paid since now the people that wouldn't have normally paid their medical bills will be able to now.
-
Wow.
Here's a situation that is common in TX. An oil well dries up, and the foremen, drillers, etc. are laid off; mind you, these are very[/] well-paid people. The way the oil business works, they may never see work for many years. They are now poor, have families, etc. They can't get another well-paying job, because their job skills are not marketable outside the oil industry. They have families. Should they have said "no" to children? No one's talking slavery here, just health insurance. Hell, it'll even help some doctors get paid since now the people that wouldn't have normally paid their medical bills will be able to now.
Relocation is an option...
-
Relocation is an option...
I hope what comes after the ellipsis is a lot more enlightened. This is exactly what I meant by putting yourself in someone's shoes. You clearly don't share in the misery that is being broke and actually weighing options that WILL impact your life directly. With the freedom of a clear (non-lazy) mind, surely you can think a plan through, start to finish, with the affected person/s SOMEHOW coming out for the better. "dot dot dot" WHAT?
-
Leave the social programs to the state and local communities. That way, if you don't like paying for it, you have the option to move to another community/state/etc.
But you know what that will cause. Every state will be competing with every other state to lower taxes, in order to attract businesses and tax-paying professionals, and so social programs will remain badly underfunded everywhere.
Instead, by doing it at a national level, the public still has control; they can vote for a party that favors less ambitious social programs if they wish. Thus, in that case, the social programs are at the level decreed directly by the electorate through their votes - instead of being kept at a level far below what the voters wish they could be because of the natural economic actions of individuals faced with a situation over which they have no control.
When they're administered federally, if you vote for social programs, you get your share of the higher taxes and your share of the social programs.
If you move to another state for lower taxes, though, the loss to social programs is split thousands of ways, while you get all the lower taxes. Well, maybe not exactly. But if you move to another state to get a job because the people you would get a job from moved to that other state for lower taxes, the feedback is definitely messed up.
What is your counter-proposition? Force (i.e. enslave) people to become doctors and insurers? Maintain a contingency slavery where you're only forced to do what everyone else wants if you become either a doctor or an insurer?
How about just forcing (enslaving) people to pay taxes, and hire doctors with that money?
-
The VAST majority of the people we met were only looking for handouts. They were in the situations they were in because of themselves, and didn't want to change. People who wouldn't take jobs but instead chose to eat in soup kitchens and live in shelters.
People queuing up for a free meal are looking for handouts? Of course they are! What you mind find tricky to explain is why the number of the lazy poor increases dramatically during a recession.
Benefits ("Welfare") often come under criticism for encouraging a certain amount of scrounging. That does go on, but not always as much as people would have you believe. Most people would rather have a $10,000 a year job than get $5,000 a year from benefits.
Ignoring the 'lazy' poor for a moment, there are also plenty of hard-working poor and people who would be hard-working if they could get a job. How many Mercs are there in the emplyees car-park at your local Walmart ? Some people aren't capable of getting well paid jobs - they don't have the skills, are a bit dim, have too many other commitments, etc.
-
Ignoring the 'lazy' poor for a moment, there are also plenty of hard-working poor and people who would be hard-working if they could get a job. How many Mercs are there in the emplyees car-park at your local Walmart ? Some people aren't capable of getting well paid jobs - they don't have the skills, are a bit dim, have too many other commitments, etc.
And, on top of that, there are people who do have the skills to do well paid jobs, but there aren't enough of those jobs going around. Just like the army needs a lot more privates than it does generals, the needs of the economy for work to get done don't necessarily match people's talents and abilities.
It will never be the case that everyone who can sing better than Britney Spears will be a famous recording star, for example.
-
i've been called curt, never a belching fattie tho.
it took geekhack to do that ;)
-
Relocation is an option...
Have you ever moved? It's not cheap.
-
Have you ever moved? It's not cheap.
No, and I know, but if it's a question of a person and/or family's health, I think it would become a priority. Take the famine in Ireland for example...
-
Relocation is an option...
we cant all move to massachusetts.
unfortunately healthcare is a nationwide problem, requiring a nationwide solution.
also, insurance is one of these businesses where the more people are in the pool, the more efficient (real cost savings) one receives. Doesnt lend itself to micro-pools at the city and county level, wouldnt make economic sense.
-
What about blaming poor people for not contributing to society i.e. not doing ****?
Wow, that's an amazingly f*cked up thing to say. It sounds like you think people who don't contribute to society are basically a waste of skin..?
That's the ironic thing here in TX (home of the "mega-church"). Churches are house of rich people, not God. Churches around here have no interest in helping the needy; they serve as a place for rich people to network on the weekend and perpetuate greed in the name of God. This is not all churches, but the vast majority and particularly Protestant churches.
That's exactly why I stopped going to the Methodist church I was attending in Olathe, Kansas. It was a great church with a wonderful pastor, but the church got popular, all the rich *******s started going and then it ballooned into a mega-church. Then it became more of a club than a house of God. Pastor Adam just seemed kind of lost when we left...
I have a couple of things to say here...
1. This is the United States of America; Reagan's 'Shining City on the Hill', what William J. Bennett called the "Last, Best Hope". We don't and we can't let people die on the streets because they can't afford health care. If we do, we might as well rename the place 'Somalia' and call it a day.
2. Hospitals are obligated by law to provide emergency treatment for anyone who needs it. Since we all have a right to treatment, we all have an obligation to pay for it. We're all paying for universal emergency room treatment now; either we pay the bill, our insurance pays the bill, some government program pays the bill or - when nobody pays the bill - the hospital passes the cost along to the people who do pay the bills. If we had universal health care - i.e.: Medicare for everyone - then we could implement some oversight and controls onto costs. As it is, there's no reason for hospitals to be realistic with their billing (except to Medicare, which is a harsh cost negotiator).
-
case ****ing closed. And on that note, over to the comic book thread with ye! I need recommendations!
-
Wow, that's an amazingly f*cked up thing to say. It sounds like you think people who don't contribute to society are basically a waste of skin..?
I didn't say that...but if they don't care about their own lives than why should we? For example - there are a lot of street kids in many post-eastern block countries in Europe. There have been countless efforts and organizations set up over the years to try to get them off the streets but in most cases they fail. This is because the kids prefer their lives on the streets.
-
This is because the kids prefer their lives on the streets.
ok, ghost of reagan.
-
ok, ghost of reagan.
Um what? What I'm talking about is true.
-
Um what? What I'm talking about is true.
i'm wondering why the catholic church doesnt stop its outreach programs for the poor then?
-
i'm wondering why the catholic church doesnt stop its outreach programs for the poor then?
There's a documentary called 'The Lost Children' about street kids in Romania. I recommend watching it. The kids literally say when interviewed that they prefer to live on the street. The Christian church there (Orthodox, not Catholic) gets them homes, food, etc., but the kids end up back on the street. And yes, they have ceased some of the programs because of this.
-
Take the famine in Ireland for example...
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3057/2367515373_515ff7a325.jpg)
So dawg, do you actually know anything about Irish history?
-
There's a documentary called 'The Lost Children' about street kids in Romania. I recommend watching it. The kids literally say when interviewed that they prefer to live on the street. The Christian church there (Orthodox, not Catholic) gets them homes, food, etc., but the kids end up back on the street. And yes, they have ceased some of the programs because of this.
I dont doubt some kids will prefer the freedom of the street (especially while they're still kids), but you cant assume everyone who is poor "wants it that way", or will always want it that way. Thats what reagan did (to the embarrasment of the nation).
Nor can you refuse to address structural inefficiencies and inequalities in our social systems that produce so many of the poor in the first place, and then simply say "well they like it that way" rather than address those injustices.
In other words, saying "they like it that way" is no way to develop social policy and its no way to run a nation. Regardless of whether you can produce some idiot kid who says he likes it. And if you abandon the kid based on that, my god I sure hope you're not a parent.
The orthodox church, regardless of what they did in romania, are not about to abandon their programs either.
-
So dawg, do you actually know anything about Irish history?
I know that's why a lot of Irish emigrated to the USA...are you denying that fact?
-
I didn't say that...but if they don't care about their own lives than why should we? For example - there are a lot of street kids in many post-eastern block countries in Europe. There have been countless efforts and organizations set up over the years to try to get them off the streets but in most cases they fail. This is because the kids prefer their lives on the streets.
And what exactly did you draw that conclusion from? You might as well be saying "Countless programs and billions of dollars have been invested in stopping the spread of AIDS in Africa. But AIDS is still spreading, therefore, African people like having AIDS."
-
I dont doubt some kids will prefer the freedom of the street (especially while they're still kids), but you cant assume everyone who is poor "wants it that way", or will always want it that way. Thats what reagan did (to the embarrasment of the nation).
I'm not assuming. I know from experience that many prefer it that way.
-
And what exactly did you draw that conclusion from? You might as well be saying "Countless programs and billions of dollars have been invested in stopping the spread of AIDS in Africa. But AIDS is still spreading, therefore, African people like having AIDS."
I only provided an example of people who prefer their lives in poverty...I don't get where you're going with that analogy.
-
I'm not assuming. I know from experience that many prefer it that way.
you're missing the point. First off I doubt its "many". Second the number is irrelevant because you cant assume "all", and because its no way to develop social policy and its no way to run a modern nation.
If you want to run Somalia, on the other hand, yea, it could work.
-
you're missing the point. First off I doubt its "many". Second the number is irrelevant because you cant assume "all", and because its no way to develop social policy and its no way to run a modern nation.
If you want to run Somalia, on the other hand, yea, it could work.
Ok then, you're the expert. Welly for president!
-
Ok then, you're the expert. Welly for president!
lol, again you're missing the point. There are ways to make sure that aid programs help develop skills rather than merely being handouts. There are lots of different kinds of experiments with doing that. But none of them throw their hands up in the air and walk away, as you're suggesting. Thats the difference between responsible social policy, and, well, anarchism.
-
I know that's why a lot of Irish emigrated to the USA...are you denying that fact?
The logical conclusion from your original post on the matter was that when it came to the million or so people who died in that famine, it was their fault for not running to Boston or Liverpool.
In addition, given that the reference would be lost on many people around here, it also comes across as a less-than-subtle attempt at a swipe at me, and a pretty **** one at that.
-
I only provided an example of people who prefer their lives in poverty...I don't get where you're going with that analogy.
How do you know that they prefer to live in poverty? The 'argument' you used to back up this assertion had as meaningful a correlation as my AIDS analogy.
-
lol, again you're missing the point. There are ways to make sure that aid programs help develop skills rather than merely being handouts. There are lots of different kinds of experiments with doing that. But none of them throw their hands up in the air and walk away, as you're suggesting. Thats the difference between responsible social policy, and, well, anarchism.
Where did I suggest throwing our hands in the air and walking away from these people? I actually never talked about what we should do - only about the problem. But if you want my opinion on that, I'll give it to you as well. I do think programs should be in place to help educate poor folks and get them jobs. Once they have work a big part of the problem will be solved.
-
How do you know that they prefer to live in poverty? The 'argument' you used to back up this assertion had as meaningful a correlation as my AIDS analogy.
It's meaningful because it's one of many real life examples of people who prefer their lives in poverty so...wtf are you talking about??
-
Well if the parents didn't get COBRA to ensure their kids would be safe I think that would be a case of neglect.
You seem to be uninformed. When one is suddenly unemployed is not the time one can afford 2500 per month on Cobra for a family of 4. Cobra by itself costs more than unemployment benefits for a family of 4.
-
You seem to be uninformed. When one is suddenly unemployed is not the time one can afford 2500 per month on Cobra for a family of 4. Cobra by itself costs more than unemployment benefits for a family of 4.
I agree that it's expensive, and that is a problem, but if I needed I would do what it took to afford it.
Edit: And I was laid off and out of work for 3 months, and had to pay for COBRA, so I know from experience.
-
You don't seem to be the sharpest knife in the drawer, so let me labor the point for you -
You explain that something isn't working -
For example - there are a lot of street kids in many post-eastern block countries in Europe. There have been countless efforts and organizations set up over the years to try to get them off the streets but in most cases they fail.
So, there could be countless reasons why they failed. Sometimes the efforts and interventions of the developed world fail. Sometimes they just didn't look at the bigger picture. Sometimes they don't consider various local issues. Sometimes the good efforts are hijacked by corruption and inefficiency at various labels. Oh, maybe even it is possible that the people want to be poor. But without considering why it failed, you suddenly conclude -
This is because the kids prefer their lives on the streets.
Which is a groundless assertion, because you've provided no valid argument as for why this is the actual explanation for the situation out of all possible explanations. So, consider once again my hypothetical AIDS analogy.
"Countless programs and billions of dollars have been invested in stopping the spread of AIDS in Africa. But AIDS is still spreading"
Here, again, we have a description of a problem. A complex issue with many possible explanations. In fact, it is most likely that a whole smörgåsbord of them are to blame. But suddenly the random conclusion is drawn -
"Therefore, African people like having AIDS."
And we have a statement which is related the first part, but isn't explained or validated by it. Thus without any further elaboration, it looks stupid, and so does what you said.
-
Without a job, one would have to sell property. Would you sell your keyboards ... an only car ... sell your house; would you stop paying your gas/electric/phone to afford health insurance for healthy kids? This is not an idle philosophical choice for many people. There are points at which it's ludicrous to say failure to buy health insurance is neglect.
-
This is the other side of it. The last I checked, the amount of uninsured (in health terms) Americans is greater than the amount of impoverished ones. There are situations where families are busting their balls to make a decent living, but can't afford health insurance on top of it all. Why should they be deprived of health care?
-
Edit: And I was laid off and out of work for 3 months, and had to pay for COBRA, so I know from experience.
I see your 3 months unemployment, and raise you 21 months, plus two special-needs kids. Let me tell you from MY experience, skipping food and shelter are far more neglectful than discarding COBRA.
-
ch_123 --
Watch the documentary I mentioned (or one of many others) - both the kids and organizers are interviewed. You'll see that what I'm saying is exactly what they said. I provided examples in real life that backed up my opinion, and it does make sense. So...the only one that looks stupid here (and in many of your other posts) is you.
-
I see your 3 months unemployment, and raise you 21 months, plus two special-needs kids. Let me tell you from MY experience, skipping food and shelter are far more neglectful than discarding COBRA.
There are lots of other things you can do: relocate, change professions, increase education, etc. to turn those 21 months into much less. it's all up to the person affected. You can't depend on the government to make your decisions for you.
-
You seem to be living in a fantasy world. I won't be letting you make my decisions for me either.
EDIT: Consider for a moment that I've tried each of those solutions you suggested. Where's the money for two years of COBRA coming from?
-
You seem to be living in a fantasy world. I won't be letting you make my decisions for me either.
I know other folks who have done those things, so I know its not a fantasy.
-
ch_123 --
Watch the documentary I mentioned (or one of many others) - both the kids and organizers are interviewed. You'll see that what I'm saying is exactly what they said. I provided examples in real life that backed up my opinion, and it does make sense. So...the only one that looks stupid here (and in many of your other posts) is you.
Your case is only as good as how you present it, so I stand by what I said. For example you say -
The Christian church there (Orthodox, not Catholic) gets them homes, food, etc., but the kids end up back on the street. And yes, they have ceased some of the programs because of this.
But you know what, something tells me that if I actually bothered watching that documentary, I would find that the issue was something far more complicated than just "they want to be poor". I mean, giving people food and somewhere to stay is not a solution for poverty. There are plenty of people who are impoverished who have somewhere to stay, and can find food. People need purpose, and that's something that is far harder to implement than just some priests giving people a place to live. I don't know what the answer is there, but hey, if someone like me knew how to fix these problems, I'm sure the experts would have fixed the world many times over by now.
But either way, the validity or not of your point is irrelevant. What you are ultimately doing here is advocating a certain political agenda, and blaming people for not fitting in to your view of the world, and then engaging in ad-hominem attacks against people who question your position. Except, when it comes to blaming people who are genuinely out of luck for being lazy and sucking off people's generosity so that people don't feel bad about depriving them of their most basic human rights, you just look like an ****ing arsehole.
-
Except, when it comes to blaming people who are genuinely out of luck for being lazy and sucking off people's generosity so that people don't feel bad about depriving them of their most basic human rights, you just look like an ****ing arsehole.
Actually I never blamed such people ...but if I'm wrong then quote where exactly I did. I just mentioned part of the problem.
-
I know other folks who have done those things, so I know its not a fantasy.
But we don't live in a one-size-fits-all fantasy world. What works for one person won't guarantee another the same success. People in different situations require different solutions. What may appear as neglect to a rich person who can meet all his needs is hardly guaranteed to be neglect for a less-fortunate individual.
-
But we don't live in a one-size-fits-all fantasy world. What works for one person won't guarantee another the same success. People in different situations require different solutions. What may appear as neglect to a rich person who can meet all his needs is hardly guaranteed to be neglect for a less-fortunate individual.
All I'm saying is there are always plenty of options to do better.
-
What happens when those options are explored and found inadequate?
The trouble with arguments like yours is the base assumption that your experience is universal. Because you have always met your needs without XXX is no basis to postulate everyone else can meet their needs without XXX. Especially with millions of individuals who stand as evidence to the contrary.
-
There are lots of other things you can do: relocate, change professions, increase education, etc. to turn those 21 months into much less.
1) Relocate - takes money. You still are unemployed, so what good does that really do? What if you move to a ****tier city?
2)Change professions - Often requires education, especially in a market where people are losing jobs they are already qualified for. see 3.
3) increase education - takes money, generally. Also takes TIME. May not work out.
I know other folks who have done those things, so I know its not a fantasy.
Wow, people have moved, gotten different jobs, and educated themselves? Obviously EVERYONE can do those things if some guy on the internet knows people that have accomplished these tasks.
Thousands of people have gotten pga tour cards, why isn't that on your list. TONNES of people have done it so obviously EVERYONE CAN.
-
Where's my PGA card? I want to play golf professionally.
Starting tomorrow.
-
I mean why cant you? Obviously you don't want it bad enough. Lazy bum.
-
I think the word 'can't' is a big part of the problem. I've found that people who use this word all the time get nowhere in life. It's those that know that there's nothing that can't be done, who are the ones who consistently succeed.
-
Right, I'm obviously too lazy to find work, obviously have not relocated, obviously have not re-educated, and obviously have not changed professions because I'm still unemployed. It's only because I think I can't.
There were 810 applicants for one Wal-mart "greeter" position near me. Psychology PhDs, MBAs and literally a rocket scientist in line were interviewed for the local news. Fast food is populated by college grads here in Silicon Valley. This is not a fantasy world.
-
I'm not assuming. I know from experience that many prefer it that way.
Your experience is as a do-gooder ... nothing wrong with that, but you don't necessarily get to know the "lazy poor" properly that way. As it happens I've gotten to know a few of the very poor on a no-strings basis - varying from a guy who preferred to die from gangrene to losing his leg, a number of alcoholics (and other substance abuse users), a traditional English tramp (who did rather more casual work than you would assume), and a number of young people who just fell through the cracks.
They're not all quite as grasping for handouts as that; in fact they're often far more generous than you would believe. Indeed a number feel quite embarrassed by the need for handouts and would cover their embarrassment by pretending to themselves and others that they were entitled to handouts. This will be the source of some of the attitude you see at soup-kitchens.
"Down and Out In Paris and London" is a dated, but very good read by George Orwell on the life of those on the underbelly of society.
-
Right, I'm obviously too lazy to find work, obviously have not relocated, obviously have not re-educated, and obviously have not changed professions because I'm still unemployed.
There were 810 applicants for one Wal-mart "greeter" position near me. Psychology PhDs, MBAs and literally a rocket scientist in line were interviewed for the local news. Fast food is populated by college grads here in Silicon Valley. This is not a fantasy world.
I'm not talking about you - just people in general. I don't really know much about your situation. And those folks you mentioned - I'm sure there are other issues leading to the fact that they can't get jobs. It's a big country and there are plenty of job opportunities for people as educated as them. One thing I've noticed in particular is some people don't interview well, for example. Also some people can't work well with others, etc., etc.
-
conversely, We have moved, increased our education and thankfully continue to hold down great jobs. Why am I not gripped by the same desire to **** on those below me (economically speaking)?
The day I can shop for a 60" TV and can't be bothered to share the wealth with those less fortunate or have the gall to complain that poor people have free healthcare is the day I want my wife to leave me, and my company to fire me and to get the HIV. Maybe then Ill have some idea of why a country should be there to help it's countrymen, not ignore them (or worse, to make a profit off their backs).
-
there are other issues leading to the fact that they can't get jobs. It's a big country and there are plenty of job opportunities for people as educated as them. One thing I've noticed in particular is some people don't interview well, for example. Also some people can't work well with others, etc., etc.
But I understood you to say that people like this, who can't work well with others, who don't interview well, people who are out of work, all/any would be guilty of child neglect if they (had children and) went without COBRA. What did I miss?
-
As a french, I'm still surprised that a minimal health care as you seem to get now can bring so much bad opinions.
For us, it's a normal thing, even if our governement try to takes it a bit down. Everybody pays a few so that ill people can be cured, and it seems to me as normal.
A society that doesn't help people to be sane, to have food, work and somewhere to live is not a society but a jungle. Even in jungle, animals have a kind of solidarity between each species.
About the "if you want you can" speech about employement, I've heard some people making this statement too here, even if it tends to disappear a bit with crisis.
Though it's totally irrelevant, getting educated does not assure a good job anymore, relocating s mostly useless as there is crisis everywhere, change profession is mostly useless as there will be people in your new branch that have more experience and also search job.
massive unemployement is a tool for capitalism to make pressure on working people and it's extremly used
getting a job, if you're poor or even middle class, middle aged with family can look like the quest of the graal
-
But I understood you to say that people like this, who can't work well with others, who don't interview well, people who are out of work, all/any would be guilty of child neglect if they (had children and) went without COBRA. What did I miss?
No, I'm saying that if they didn't do what it took to take care of their family, that's kind of neglectful isn't it?
-
And then we go to the bit where we realize once again the difference between what is necessary, and what people are actually genuinely capable of, and the argument thus flies around in circles over and over again.
-
Everybody pays a few so that ill people can be cured, and it seems to me as normal.
as far as health insurance goes, this is really the point. Its an economic decision, ultimately, to get everyone in the pool so that each individual pays less and the overall health delivery system is far more efficient, common costs are shared commonly and the economic advantage is huge.
You dont need to be a 'humanitarian' to realize the huge economic advantage for the entire nation, both individuals and collectively. There simply is no downside. Its a lot like the climate change argument in that regard - you dont have to be a do-gooder to realize that improving the efficiency of our engines benefits everything up and down the line, including putting hard cash into our pockets.
So when repubs oppose things like that, they have virtually no argument to stand on, simply opposition for its own sake, for the sake of whipping up fear for the party to win elections, thats it. They're selling america and the american people up the river when they do that. Some 'patriots'.
-
as far as health insurance goes, this is really the point. Its an economic decision, ultimately, to get everyone in the pool so that each individual pays less and the overall health delivery system is far more efficient, common costs are shared commonly and the economic advantage is huge.
You dont need to be a 'humanitarian' to realize the huge economic advantage for the entire nation, both individuals and collectively. There simply is no downside. Its a lot like the climate change argument in that regard - you dont have to be a do-gooder to realize that improving the efficiency of our engines benefits everything up and down the line, including putting hard cash into our pockets.
So when repubs oppose things like that, they have virtually no argument to stand on, simply opposition for its own sake, for the sake of whipping up fear for the party to win elections, thats it. They're selling america and the american people up the river when they do that. Some 'patriots'.
Lol - 'there simply is no downside' - you have got to be kidding me. EVERY government-run program has upsides and downsides. These include decreased quality of care for many people and increased taxes (do you have any idea how much they'll increase). I'm sure most doctors will love the fact that their salaries will be cut in half and their insurance costs will skyrocket. We have a different culture and we've had it for a long time - and going to a government-run healthcare program involves a huge culture change. While I think it's the right thing for other countries I don't think it's the right thing for us. But that's just my opinion.
-
Poor people getting healthcare at the expense of doctors and insurance agents earning less money? Me and my militia are going to shoot some feds if that one happens!
Plenty of doctors rolling in the dough in the pinko bastion in which I currently reside.
-
Poor people getting healthcare at the expense of doctors and insurance agents earning less money? Me and my militia are going to shoot some feds if that one happens!
Plenty of doctors rolling in the dough in the pinko bastion in which I currently reside.
It's not like they can't get it - they can get it if they pay for it (or get a job that pays for it).
Anyway, I got curious about doctors salaries in different countries so I found this (http://www.worldsalaries.org/generalphysician.shtml). Really interesting...
-
so keyboard, which one of these (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-john-b-larson/10-major-new-health-refor_b_736766.html)"horrible" healthcare reforms do you oppose?
Starting today, insurers will be required to:
•Keep you covered when you get sick: Simple mistakes or typos will no longer be grounds for insurance companies to cancel your insurance.
•Cover kids with pre-existing conditions: Your kids can no longer be denied health coverage just because they have a pre-existing condition like hay fever, asthma, or previous sports injuries. This protection extends to all plans, except "grandfathered" plans in the individual market.
•Allow young adults to stay on their parents' plan up to age 26: Even if their first few jobs don't provide health benefits, your kids can still remain covered by your insurance.
•Remove lifetime limits: You will no longer need to worry about your health insurer limiting the amount of coverage available through their plan if you face an expensive medical condition. This will help Americans who develop chronic conditions from taking drastic measures to avoid medical bankruptcy.
•Phase out annual limits: Many plans include annual dollar limits on how much medical coverage can be obtained per year. On all non-"grandfathered" plans in the individual market, these limits will be phased out over the next three years.
For any insurance plan that goes into effect after September 23, 2010, your insurance company must:
•Pay for preventive care like mammograms and immunizations: Addressing problems before they start can help keep you healthier, and new insurance plans will now cover many preventative tests and immunizations without any copayment.
•Give you a better appeals process for insurance claims: Now you'll have a guaranteed and fair path to help you receive the benefits you paid for if insurance companies deny your claim.
•Let you choose your own doctor: Health reform makes it clear that you can choose any available participating primary care provider as your provider, and any available participating pediatrician to be your child's primary care provider.
•Provide easier access to OB-GYN services: Women will no longer be required to have a referral from a primary care provider before seeking coverage for obstetrical or gynecological (OB-GYN) care from a participating OB-GYN specialist.
•Allow you to use the nearest emergency room without penalty: If an emergency arises while you're away, you will no longer have to drive home to your in-network provider to receive in-network benefits.
Many other new benefits of the law have already taken effect, including rebate checks for seniors in the donut hole and tax credits for small businesses. Keep watching, as more rights, protections and benefits for Americans are on the way now through 2014.
I'm waiting for you to give obama credit...
-
Responsible and hard working people will benefit from HCR. Not just lazy bums!
For example. Imagine someone who would like to start a small business. Without HCR, this person might be stuck working a full-time job just for the health plan (perhaps because someone in the family has a medical condition that would make private insurance too expensive.) With HCR, this person can start a business and be the next Warren Buffett.
That should make the Ayn Rand fans happy right?
Another benefit. Prior to HCR, I would be less inclined to see a doctor about my RSI. As soon as I tell a doctor, it becomes a "pre-existing condition" that could make it difficult to find insurance later. With HCR, it's no problem.
-
Actually I think most of those things seem good...but they don't really compose a "universal healthcare plan" so to speak. I guess we'll see how it all plays out in years to come...
-
keyboard, you sound like someone who's too young (or too rich) to have had either a family to take care of or a job to keep.
-
Responsible and hard working people will benefit from HCR. Not just lazy bums!
For example. Imagine someone who would like to start a small business. Without HCR, this person might be stuck working a full-time job just for the health plan (perhaps because someone in the family has a medical condition that would make private insurance too expensive.) With HCR, this person can start a business and be the next Warren Buffett.
That should make the Ayn Rand fans happy right?
Another benefit. Prior to HCR, I would be less inclined to see a doctor about my RSI. As soon as I tell a doctor, it becomes a "pre-existing condition" that could make it difficult to find insurance later. With HCR, it's no problem.
Many of my views come from the fact that a very close family member of mine, who literally came from a very poor upbringing, worked to the bone and became very successful (including starting a successful business while working a full-time job for the benefits). So, what I'm saying is anything can be done; it's only a matter of will. The framework already in place in America allows these achievements and I truly believe that anyone can achieve what they set out to.
-
Actually I think most of those things seem good...
are you willing to give credit where its due? You do know that the repubs nearly across the board opposed all of this.
but they don't really compose a "universal healthcare plan" so to speak
they're part and parcel of the comprehensive plan to ensure that a) individuals who have insurance are themselves covered fairly and fully; b) individuals who dont have insurance can get affordable insurance by being part of a larger pool of applicants, thus sharing the costs around (which is the whole point of insurance and how its supposed to work).
Its actually a measure of obama's centrism that his plan is still an open-market plan, by the way. You'll still be getting your insurance from private corporations, there is no "government" health coverage at all in this. All government does is enforce the rules as written so the playing field and competition (ie, capitalism) works the way it should. So much for communism.
-
keyboard, you sound like someone who's too young (or too rich) to have had either a family to take care of or a job to keep.
You are correct that I don't have a family...but I know others that do and share my views. And I do have a job to keep, I work hard and have done so all my life.
are you willing to give credit where its due? You do know that the repubs nearly across the board opposed all of this.
You seem to think I'm a Bush-lover...I'm definitely not, but I don't think Obama is much better. Like I said, we have to see how it plays out in the future. Those things seem good from reading them, but how they will play out in reality has yet to be seen.
-
I love the way keyboard is so enthusiastic about throwing the poor and the sick under the bus. (So much for catholicism).
You should really run for office one day keyboard, you'll make sarah palin look like FDR.
-
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11204 (http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11204)
CHARLIE ROSE: OK. Do you still believe that health care reform as
passed by the Congress will reduce the deficit?
PETER ORSZAG: Ultimately if it’s executed well, if it’s implemented
well. And it’s worth pausing on the three basic options here.
You can ration care. Not going to happen. You can have consumer-
directed health care like Representative Ryan has proposed. The problem
with that -- so the idea is add more consumers’ skin in the game. The
problem with that is the vast majority of health care costs are high cost
cases. The top 25 percent of Medicare beneficiaries ranked by cost, 85
percent of the total cost. The whole purpose --
CHARLIE ROSE: The top 25 percent of Medicare beneficiaries where the
money is spent for the top 25 percent is --
PETER ORSZAG: Is 85 percent of overall cost. The other 75 percent of
the people or 15 percent of the cost. That’s where you’re concentrating
the consumer cost sharing because you’re never going to say, oh, you’re
going into the hospital and you’re in the emergency room and I’m sorry you
have 50 percent cost sharing.
The whole purpose of insurance is to protect against those high cost
cases.
CHARLIE ROSE: We have found out that’s ripe with capacity of
political rhetoric to take advantage of it.
PETER ORSZAG: So the point is there’s only limited traction, much
less so than the idea initially seems from that approach.
And then you’re left with the third bucket, which is how do you get at
that 85 percent of cost. And it is my very firm belief that what you need
to do is to be affecting what doctors recommend, because in most of those
cases the health care you get is what your doctor recommends for those high
cost cases.
And that involves better information, so better evidence-based
medicine and computer systems that have decision support software on them,
and it involves a change in incentive facing those --
CHARLIE ROSE: Do doctors agree with you on this?
PETER ORSZAG: I think the vast majority of doctors recognize that we
need to move toward a fee-for-value system rather than --
CHARLIE ROSE: Why do you think so many people -- not everybody,
clearly -- believed that you missed the boat in terms of cost containment
here, that, yes, you delivered more access but no you failed to get your
hands around cost containment.
PETER ORSZAG: I think two explanations. The first is that that third
bucket of trying to get at provider incentives is messy. There’s not like
a simple here’s exactly how you do fee-for-value. Here’s exactly how you
do pay-for-performance. So it’s evolutionary. It’s harder to explain.
And in fact on that point, I would just say for those who say there
should be more cost containment, my question is, what else would you have
done specifically? What specifically what you have done? And typically
you don’t get very much in terms of specific responses to that.
The second explanation is more of a political economy one, which is
that you always have this tension in health care between access and
cost/quality. Different parts of the policy process lean one way or the
other.
The House leans more towards coverage, the Senate leans more towards
cost and quality. I think not a small part of the explanation here is
during that summer of 2009, the Senate was delayed because of its internal
negotiations from the finance committee. The only bill out there was the
House bill.
And the perceptions were formed based on that House bill. And
legitimately that leaned way more towards coverage. It didn’t have the
excise tax in it. He didn’t have the Medicare commission in it. A lot of
the things that the Senate then added and that were part of the final bill
weren’t there, and so legitimately people thought it kind of tilted in one
direction and those first impressions are hard to correct.
Health care reform makes sense for the large majority of the American population.
Republicans are for some reasons voting against their own interests which seems very irrational.
-
Give me your tired, your poor huddled masses,
So I may throw them into Hudson Bay.
Or under a bus, at least.
How dare they set foot here, land of the rich and home of the fearful.
Those lazy bums!
--lady liberty as she turns off her torch so the immigrants dont find new york.
-
I love the way keyboard is so enthusiastic about throwing the poor and the sick under the bus. (So much for catholicism).
You should really run for office one day keyboard, you'll make sarah palin look like FDR.
If you can quote where I talked about throwing the poor and sick under the bus, I'd love to see it. There's nothing stopping them from getting healthcare but themselves. Anyone can get jobs and be successful in this country. Period.
-
Republicans are for some reasons voting against their own interests which seems very irrational.
worse, they're going to get some 40% of the nation to vote against their own interests. You're going to see poor people without insurance going hurr durr big guvmnt big guvmnt! and voting for the insurance companies and their republican cronies.
Its been done before. Its amazing to watch it happen. The republican cynicism and cynical manipulation of the poor and sick is startling and hypnotizing to watch as it unfolds. Its as cynical and self-destructive and anti-american as when the far-left cheers for suicide bombers.
This is what our poor old nation is stuck between. The lunatic far right which has already taken over the RNC, and the far-left that daily heaps vitriol on a centrist like obama.
-
worse, they're going to get some 40% of the nation to vote against their own interests. You're going to see poor people without insurance going hurr durr big guvmnt big guvmnt! and voting for the insurance companies and their republican cronies.
Its been done before. Its amazing to watch it happen.
Boy, you really seem to know a lot about politics.
-
Boy, you really seem to know a lot about politics.
you should try reading newspapers sometime ;)
-
you should try reading newspapers sometime ;)
I read news every day. I can already tell which political slant the news you read has.
-
Hey, guess my slant.
Collectively spending more for less value[1] (http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/mlm/healthscatter2.png) because got mine, **** you.
You know what would really solve this health care issue? Tax cuts.
Global warming? Tax cuts.
Financial Crisis? Tax cuts.
War on Terror? Tax cuts.
Gay Marriage? Tax cuts.
Recession? Tax cuts.
Pollution? Tax cuts.
Jobs? Tax cuts.
-
Responsible and hard working people will benefit from HCR. Not just lazy bums!
Good. That means I don't have to decide which I am.
Anyone can get jobs and be successful in this country. Period.
People with disabilities will disagree with you there.
-
People with disabilities will disagree with you there.
That's why we have disability benefits which are already provided by the government.
-
I love the way keyboard is so enthusiastic about throwing the poor and the sick under the bus. (So much for catholicism).
Hey, look at what Mother Teresa really did in Calcutta. Throwing the poor and sick under the bus is all part of the package. You get Sainthood if you throw enough of them... I hear it's a bit like a Catholic equivalent of an Xbox achievement.
-
Hey, look at what Mother Teresa really did in Calcutta. Throwing the poor and sick under the bus is all part of the package. You get Sainthood if you throw enough of them... I hear it's a bit like a Catholic equivalent of an Xbox achievement.
I guess you view working to help the poor, sick, orphaned, and dying for 45 years as a bad thing...but then, it makes about as much sense as most of the other bull**** you spout on here.
I'm curious, since you like to criticize people who do good for others so much, what good have you ever done for anybody else?
-
...but then, it makes about as much sense as most of the other bull**** you spout on here.
Pot, Kettle: Black, Over.
-
worse, they're going to get some 40% of the nation to vote against their own interests. You're going to see poor people without insurance going hurr durr big guvmnt big guvmnt! and voting for the insurance companies and their republican cronies.
Its been done before. Its amazing to watch it happen. The republican cynicism and cynical manipulation of the poor and sick is startling and hypnotizing to watch as it unfolds. Its as cynical and self-destructive and anti-american as when the far-left cheers for suicide bombers.
This is Texas to a tee (not Texas Tea, that's something different). We are one of, if not the, poorest state in the union, and we are probably the most Republican in country. We have a population that desperately needs reformed healthcare, education, etc., but the dumbasses around here can't vote in their own best interest, and they keep wondering why healtcare costs go up, education gets worse, etc. Hell, we have a group that is starting a protest against the state board of education because they feel that the history books have too much of a Muslim slant and don't preach Christianity enough. *facepalm* Not surprising, though, since we are a state that is pushing for Creationism in Science class.
-
I guess you view working to help the poor, sick, orphaned, and dying for 45 years as a bad thing...but then, it makes about as much sense as most of the other bull**** you spout on here.
I'm guessing you have not actually read much about Teresa's practices. They're easy to characterize [and have been, even by some of her "employees"] as misguided, hypocritical and often dangerous at best. Personally, I'm also tending towards immoral, cruel, cynical and self-aggrandizing (ab)use of the unfortunate.
And unfortunately, there's some very influential Catholic subset that's still working like that today.
PS: Your "people can get whatever they want if they want it hard enough" is dangerous magical thinking that can easily lead you to indifference to or blaming of the unfortunate "they just don't WANT to get better!", ignorance of dangers "I WANT to stay healthy and in a job, so I don't HAVE to plan for when I get sick or lose my job", and when you eventually do end up without a job and money and sick, you can take comfort in the fact that it's all your own fault. It's just the same cruel idiocy that's in The Secret.
-
That's why we have disability benefits which are already provided by the government.
Why are those okay, and health care is not?
-
Why are those okay, and health care is not?
Because disabled people are to be pitied, whereas sick people have only themselves to blame. Obviously.
-
Because disabled people are to be pitied, whereas sick people have only themselves to blame. Obviously.
I've already explained my stance on it and why. And if that's what you think I said, you completely misinterpreted me (like most others who disagree with what I said). That statement in no way characterizes my stance.
I'm also tending towards immoral, cruel, cynical and self-aggrandizing (ab)use of the unfortunate
Examples plz?
PS: Your "people can get whatever they want if they want it hard enough" is dangerous magical thinking that can easily lead you to indifference to or blaming of the unfortunate "they just don't WANT to get better!", ignorance of dangers "I WANT to stay healthy and in a job, so I don't HAVE to plan for when I get sick or lose my job", and when you eventually do end up without a job and money and sick, you can take comfort in the fact that it's all your own fault.
Well, the folks I know who share my same beliefs have always landed on their feet in hard times. I've found the same to be true in my life. I guess you would take that as luck, but I firmly believe it's due to our values.
-
Examples plz?
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."
Guess who said that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Missionary_Position_%28book%29#Missionaries_of_Charity). Those are not words of someone who's out to actually help people get better. It's IMHO a perfect example of what's wrong with her morality.
-
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."
Guess who said that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Missionary_Position_%28book%29#Missionaries_of_Charity). Those are not words of someone who's out to actually help people get better. It's IMHO a perfect example of what's wrong with her morality.
You obviously don't understand anything about Christianity - we have a concept that good always comes from suffering. I won't go into it much because I don't really care if you understand it or not but you are misinterpreting her.
-
You obviously don't understand anything about Christianity - we have a concept that good always comes from suffering. I won't go into it much because I don't really care if you understand it or not but you are misinterpreting her.
I'm afraid I understand it a bit too well. I just don't agree with it at all. I also note that that quote is actually WORSE than what you profess. She's claiming it's GOOD for poor people to stay poor. YOU are only arguing they're not working hard enough to fix it.
By the way, here's some more criticism. http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/
-
I'm afraid I understand it a bit too well. I just don't agree with it at all.
By the way, here's some more criticism. http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/
There are countless examples in the world of good resulting from bad, fortune resulting from misfortune to back up the concept. But I won't go into that. I can tell you already know how to use Google.
-
There are countless examples in the world of good resulting from bad, fortune resulting from misfortune to back up the concept. But I won't go into that. I can tell you already know how to use Google.
Well, that explains a lot of your position, at least.
-
Well, the folks I know who share my same beliefs have always landed on their feet in hard times. I've found the same to be true in my life. I guess you would take that as luck, but I firmly believe it's due to our values.
I had a money-grubbing conservative cousin who used to say this about poor people. "Its their values". "If I were in their position i'd work hard and get a job! Why cant they just do that? Obviously they dont want to!"
Statements like that just reflect how little concept she had of the world outside her own life. And the fact that she's never faced real adversity in her own life.
Its people like that who get attracted to Palin-esque fear-mongering. "They're leeching off your tax dollars! The victims are the enemy!" "The most helpless folk are the biggest threat!"
Classic scapegoating. Its a form of human sacrifice to our gods.
I suppose we shouldnt be surprised by keyboard's lack of either economic sense or compassion (helping the poor and sick is as much an economic investment as anything else). His views are probably more common out there than we like to admit. After all, people keep showing up to hear Palin talk.
keyboard you keep missing the point. No doubt some kids like living on the street (for now). And no doubt some people who are currently poor are capable of learning new skills and lifting themselves out of poverty. But those are the easy cases, even tho those are the ones you keep fixating upon. The question is how does a society deal with all the others? Throw them under the bus? Thats what you've suggested so far, and thats what people here are responding to. You keep saying you havent said anything about solutions -- well lets hear it. Whats your solution? You do know there are some 10% of americans right now who cant find a job who are actively looking according to government unemployment statistics. Should we take them off government help? And the 50 million uninsured americans and their children - should we repeal healthcare? Whats your solution? If you dont see the help either in economic terms as an investment, or in terms of simple compassion, then how would you like to view the problem?
-
I had a money-grubbing conservative cousin who used to say this about poor people. "Its their values". "If I were in their position i'd work hard and get a job! Why cant they just do that? Obviously they dont want to!"
Statements like that just reflect how little concept she had of the world outside her own life. And the fact that she's never faced real adversity in her own life.
Unlike your cousin I and many people I know have faced adversity like you've most likely never known. And instead of whining or crying about it or admitting defeat we rose above our challenges. This includes people who were born poor and came from nothing. So we know from experience that anything can be done with hard work and drive. And I'm the one missing the point?
I won't remark on the rest of your rant as it's nothing but fodder. I think my point has been made.
-
I won't remark on the rest of your rant as it's nothing but fodder. I think my point has been made.
dude you havent made any point. You merely keep repeating that the poor and the sick are "whiners". I'm asking you to please make a point and give us something concrete to respond to. Here is your opportunity to tell us how you'd like to approach these social issues.
Unless you dont have any other ideas, in which case, yea, you pretty much want to throw them under the bus, and thats indeed your answer?
As Obama keeps telling the republicans, its not enough to be obstructionist, lets hear some positive ideas.
-
dude you havent made any point. You merely keep repeating that the poor and the sick are "whiners". I'm asking you to please make a point and give us something concrete to respond to. Here is your opportunity to tell us how you'd like to approach these social issues.
Unless you dont have any other ideas, in which case, yea, you pretty much want to throw them under the bus, and thats indeed your answer?
As Obama keeps telling the republicans, its not enough to be obstructionist, lets hear some positive ideas.
The point is that anyone can do anything that they put their minds to, no matter that their upbringing or situation. Period. Our only obstacles, are the ones that WE put in front of us. No fear mongering there. How's that for positive?
Actually, someone else says it quite a bit more eloquently here (http://home.xnet.com/~ansible/attitude.html).
-
what's the use of living in society if there is no fraternity and help from others ?
keyboardlover : facing adversity is not the same if you're coming from lower or higher classes. many statistics, i don't know for the us but in france, show that if you're poor you'll stay poor because everything is done to let you down and your chances to level up are almost inexistant. if, this case, in our country, that have quite a social policy is true, i can't even imagine how it is in your country
-
what's the use of living in society if there is no fraternity and help from others ?
keyboardlover : facing adversity is not the same if you're coming from lower or higher classes. many statistics, i don't know for the us but in france, show that if you're poor you'll stay poor because everything is done to let you down and your chances to level up are almost inexistant. if, this case, in our country, that have quite a social policy is true, i can't even imagine how it is in your country
I suspect it is much different in France. I haven't lived in another country so I don't know (although I have a lot of French friends, and friends elsewhere in Europe). I know it has a lot to do with how many opportunities are present, and opportunities are presented via capitalism. When socialist issues restrict capitalism, it restricts economic growth and opportunities. That's one of the many reasons why many Europeans I know have moved here.
-
Have none of you read Atlas Shrugged? Bootstrapping yourself out of poverty is possible and the only thing stopping people are themselves. The sole determining factor on whether someone can escape poverty through hard work is willpower. Not education, not culture, not segregation, not government policies but lack of willpower alone is what keeps poor people poor.
It's that simple.
-
When socialist issues restrict capitalism, it restricts economic growth and opportunities. That's one of the many reasons why many Europeans I know have moved here.
You are aware of the restrictions to immigration in the US, right? It's not easy going to the US if you're not already pretty much guaranteed to get a decent job. I don't particularly have an issue with those policies, but it does mean that the Europeans you're talking about are the ones that probably were already pretty successful in their home countries, or would have been (if they were students or just starting work when they immigrated). And yes, they may stand to gain more in the US - if only because tax rates and the like in the US are generally more pleasing to the middle class and higher - but good for them for going for it.
-
Have none of you read Atlas Shrugged? Bootstrapping yourself out of poverty is possible and the only thing stopping people are themselves. The sole determining factor on whether someone can escape poverty through hard work is willpower. Not education, not culture, not segregation, not government policies but lack of willpower alone is what keeps poor people poor.
It's that simple.
No its not that simple. But without the will the likelihood of the rest falling into place is slim to nill.
-
Have none of you read Atlas Shrugged?
I tried. I think that should be enough.
-
You are aware of the restrictions to immigration in the US, right? It's not easy going to the US if you're not already pretty much guaranteed to get a decent job. I don't particularly have an issue with those policies, but it does mean that the Europeans you're talking about are the ones that would probably were already pretty successful in their home countries, or would have been (if they were students or just starting work when they immigrated). And yes, they may stand to gain more in the US - if only because tax rates and the like in the US are generally more pleasing to the middle class and higher - but good for them for going for it.
If you consider 'having nothing' in their home country 'pretty successful' then you are correct about my friends.
-
If you consider 'having nothing' in their home country 'pretty successful' then you are correct about my friends.
So they had no education, no money no nothing? If they really came from France, how on earth did they get a green card? Or did they come in illegally?
Edit: I'm serious, by the way. I've asked around a bit last year to see how hard it would be for me to get in the US. "Hard" was about the consensus.
-
what's the use of living in society if there is no fraternity and help from others ?
there's also the simple fact that other's health (economic and physical) affects us all. There's a reason why we mandate vaccinations for certain diseases. Cuz they're contagious. You cant leave those things up to the individual, or leave them as unfunded mandates where each locality has to come up with the funds on their own (some will be able to, some wont).
Situations like that require a national response, a national agency to ensure compliance, and national funds to fund these things. The results benefit all of us by preventing plagues from breaking out.
Things like that, keyboard seems to have little or no interest in. Neither does palin - hell, palin probably thinks we should just pray to god when a plague breaks out-- or that its punishment for sin. (ie, "their own damn fault").
Same with our economic interests. Its in all our interests to keep the unemployed from flooding the streets. First the practical benefits - imagine the rise in crime (if not outright class war) if the unemployed couldnt get food or food stamps or heat in the winter. Second if they lose those benefits then even those capable of retraining themselves for the job market wouldnt even have that chance. Its entirely in the national and economic interest to have federal standards and social policies to deal with these things in a standard way.
Of course palin (and probably keyboard) would like to simply throw them in the street and if they get out of line mow them down with machine guns in the name of security.
so its not just about a feeling of fraternity - tho i agree thats a civilized thing to feel. There are tangible, practical benefits that we ignore at our peril.
-
Same with our economic interests. Its in all our interests to keep the unemployed from flooding the streets. First the practical benefits - imagine the rise in crime (if not outright class war) if the unemployed couldnt get food or food stamps or heat in the winter. Second if they lose those benefits then even those capable of retraining themselves for the job market wouldnt even have that chance. Its entirely in the national and economic interest to have federal standards and social policies to deal with these things in a standard way.
This is more or less the way I look at it, too. Plus I think having people starving in the street takes away a bit off the charm of those nice neon lights. :)
-
So they had no education, no money no nothing? If they really came from France, how on earth did they get a green card? Or did they come in illegally?
Edit: I'm serious, by the way. I've asked around a bit last year to see how hard it would be for me to get in the US. "Hard" was about the consensus.
Well I'm not talking about France actually, regarding the folks I know who were originally quite poor. There are various ways to get a green card, depending on the country you come from. Some are harder than others. Some got it through difficult ways that I won't discuss. I have one friend that got it quite easily through the green card lottery.
Situations like that require a national response, a national agency to ensure compliance, and national funds to fund these things. The results benefit all of us by preventing plagues from breaking out.
Things like that, keyboard seems to have little or no interest in. Neither does palin - hell, palin probably thinks we should just pray to god when a plague breaks out-- or that its punishment for sin. (ie, "their own damn fault").
Of course palin (and probably keyboard) would like to simply throw them in the street and if they get out of line mow them down with machine guns in the name of security.
Dude, stop misquoting me. I never said that. The only fear mongering I see from anyone here, is from you.
Same with our economic interests. Its in all our interests to keep the unemployed from flooding the streets. First the practical benefits - imagine the rise in crime (if not outright class war) if the unemployed couldnt get food or food stamps or heat in the winter. Second if they lose those benefits then even those capable of retraining themselves for the job market wouldnt even have that chance. Its entirely in the national and economic interest to have federal standards and social policies to deal with these things in a standard way.
Yea...but creating jobs is 'bad bad capitalism', so we're better off taking the easy way out and giving them money from the taxes of hardworking people. Makes complete sense to me.
-
This is more or less the way I look at it, too. Plus I think having people starving in the street takes away a bit off the charm of those nice neon lights. :)
"Civilization is three meals and 24 hours away from barbarism."
-
Well, the folks I know who share my same beliefs have always landed on their feet in hard times. I've found the same to be true in my life. I guess you would take that as luck, but I firmly believe it's due to our values.
The point is that anyone can do anything that they put their minds to, no matter that their upbringing or situation. Period. Our only obstacles, are the ones that WE put in front of us. No fear mongering there. How's that for positive?
Pardon my vulgarity, but you don't know ****. You've admittedly never even been out of the U.S. (or did I misunderstand you?). You have no f-ing clue what life is like for people in most of the world, yet you splash platitudes and absolutes without a thought or a care in the world.
I've seen **** that would - or should - bring you to tears. People trying to raise families and make better lives for their children in conditions that you've never seen in your worst nightmares.
Your inability to understand that not everyone's life can be gawdamn puppies and rainbows - like yours and mine are - means that you don't understand how f-ing fortunate you are to have won the Time-and-Space Lottery and to be born in the late 20th Century and to live in the U.S. of A. I could actually forgive you for looking down on the poor, everyone is entitled to be an *******. But I absolutely can not stand the pig-ignorance you're displaying about how f-ing lucky you are to be who and where you are. Not only is it ignorant, but it's ungrateful, because millions of good men and women have struggled and died - and continue to do so today - so that you can have all these things you have for as little effort as you have them, and - yes - so you can go on about how lazy the poor are.
Jeebus...
-
Pardon my vulgarity, but you don't know ****. You've admittedly never even been out of the U.S. (or did I misunderstand you?). You have no f-ing clue what life is like for people in most of the world, yet you splash platitudes and absolutes without a thought or a care in the world.
You are incorrect that I've never been outside the country, or seen/experienced hardships outside the country. So in reality, you are the one without a clue.
I've seen **** that would - or should - bring you to tears. People trying to raise families and make better lives for their children in conditions that you've never seen in your worst nightmares.
Well I haven't been to the Middle East so you've probably seen worse than me. But granted, I've seen and experienced tough times outside this country.
Your inability to understand that not everyone's life can be gawdamn puppies and rainbows - like yours and mine are - means that you don't understand how f-ing fortunate you are to have won the Time-and-Space Lottery and to be born in the late 20th Century and to live in the U.S. of A. I could actually forgive you for looking down on the poor, everyone is entitled to be an *******. But I absolutely can not stand the pig-ignorance you're displaying about how f-ing lucky you are to be who and where you are. Not only is it ignorant, but it's ungrateful, because millions of good men and women have struggled and died - and continue to do so today - so that you can have all these things you have for as little effort as you have them, and - yes - so you can go on about how lazy the poor are.
I already said it's different in other countries - my point was about the United States. I never said I was ungrateful for anything - in reality I'm grateful for everything I have. I'm not 'looking down on anybody' ...seems you are the ignorant one. Did you actually read any of my recent posts?
-
how f-ing fortunate you are to have won the Time-and-Space Lottery
Among all the great things said in Shawn's post, I think this point gets lost on just about everyone. This is poignant both in terms of where and when you were born but who your parents are and their plight. Fortunately, I have parents that were able to take our family from a fairly poor (money-wise, anyway), military life to something better when my dad retired from the Air Force. All things being equal, I got a much better education on the bases than I ever would have in civilian life at my parents' income. I just happened to be lucky that worked out for me; it could have easily gone another direction.
Even now, with a great job and living in a low-cost-of-living area, I still haven't been able to escape personal strife. Decisions I have made over the past several years are still causing problems for me today. I had a nasty break up with my ex-fiancé which left me with a house I cannot afford. Some fortunate things occurred that allowed me to escape that situation without too many scars, but my credit is going to take a heavy hit regardless, and I know it's still going to haunt me over the next several years. That said, I have prepared for this, and eliminated as much debt as possible, leaned up my expenses, and I am moving on prepared for future battles. This would not have been possible if I were in a worse state financially.
-
Overall I think his post was highly ignorant as I never said that I didn't think I was lucky to live here; in fact I believe just the opposite. But it's not just luck; I and my ancestors created our own success -- and the same goes for the folks I know who have decided to move here from others countries. We create our own success and it's up to our decisions what state we end up in. But, I already made that point before.
-
Did you actually read any of my recent posts?
Sadly, I read all of them. I understand why you're desperately clinging to your viewpoints, but they don't mesh with reality.
-
We create our own success and it's up to our decisions what state we end up in. But, I already made that point before.
It's an incorrect point, and an incorrect point of view.
Your decisions have have some effect on your situation, but they don't create it. Far too much is up to blind, stupid luck. All you have done so far in this world is beat the odds. Hopefully, you will continue to do so.
-
Sadly, I read all of them. I understand why you're desperately clinging to your viewpoints, but they don't mesh with reality.
I'm not desperately clinging to anything - what I said is reality (for me). Of course, reality for anyone is nothing more than our perception of it. Yours is obviously different from mine. So, to call me ignorant means that you are the pot calling the kettle black =)
It's an incorrect point, and an incorrect point of view.
Your decisions have have some effect on your situation, but they don't create it. Far too much is up to blind, stupid luck. All you have done so far in this world is beat the odds. Hopefully, you will continue to do so.
I couldn't disagree more. Blind, stupid luck is not what creates success or failure. Do you think Bill Gates is as rich as he is solely because of blind, stupid luck? I think it has more to do with his intelligence and drive. But that just makes sense to me.
-
I'm not desperately clinging to anything - what I said is reality (for me). Of course, reality for anyone is nothing more than our perception of it. Yours is obviously different from mine.
But you are. By refusing to understand that everyone's lot in life - including yours - is largely determined by luck, you don't have to admit that despite their best efforts and abilities, people end up in situations from which they are incapable of emerging without assistance.
-
I know it has a lot to do with how many opportunities are present, and opportunities are presented via capitalism. When socialist issues restrict capitalism, it restricts economic growth and opportunities. That's one of the many reasons why many Europeans I know have moved here.
what kind of socialism are you talking about ? if it's about the countries of the warsaw pact, people could not simply immigrate.
if it's west european social capitalism, it did not throw much people out, just that some wanted to try something else
-
And this, folks, is why capitalism is popular...not because it works, but because people actually believe it works.
Well done.
If it didn't work, the USA wouldn't have all the wonderful opportunities that both I and Shawn mentioned before. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak.
-
I couldn't disagree more. Blind, stupid luck is not what creates success or failure. Do you think Bill Gates is as rich as he is solely because of blind, stupid luck? I think it has more to do with his intelligence and drive. But that just makes sense to me.
Bill Gates was unbelievably lucky! Change one tiny thing about his life and he's nothing.
Let's try:
1. Move his date of birth back 10 years.
2. Drop his I.Q. 15 points.
3. Move his childhood home to a trailer park in Alabama.
4. Make him black.
5. Etc., etc., etc.
Build Gates was unfathomably lucky to be have the background and abilities he had at the time and place he had them. Sure, he worked hard. But my Dad has been breaking his ass for sixty-five years and he's still lays carpet for a living...
-
If it didn't work, the USA wouldn't have all the wonderful opportunities that both I and Shawn mentioned before. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak.
just guessing, you're white, middle class, and have parents that had quite good jobs
am i wrong ?
-
If it didn't work, the USA wouldn't have all the wonderful opportunities that both I and Shawn mentioned before. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak.
Looking at all the epic fail in the economy right now (financial markets, housing markets, unemployment, etc.), I'm not so sure.
-
Looking at all the epic fail in the economy right now (financial markets, housing markets, unemployment, etc.), I'm not so sure.
Capitalism works if it is closely monitored and regulated. Unrestrained capitalism is a disaster.
-
Capitalism works if it is closely monitored and regulated. Unrestrained capitalism is a disaster.
Well said.
-
Capitalism works if it is closely monitored and regulated. Unrestrained capitalism is a disaster.
yea even adam smith said that.
nor should every aspect of society to be looked upon as a profit-making engine. Adam smith noted that too.
so never mind socialism, if the capitalists would just understand and follow capitalism we'd be a lot better off.
-
Capitalism works if it is closely monitored and regulated. Unrestrained capitalism is a disaster.
I agree with that...but too many constraints limits growth. And I don't agree with you about Bill Gates - I think that what happens in life is meant to happen. But, I also think that Bill Gates could have easily made choices in life that didn't result in Microsoft becoming a reality. On the other hand, I believe that a poor black youth with the same drive could have become the next Bill Gates. It has happened, and it will continue to happen in the future. We all shape our destinies.
Looking at all the epic fail in the economy right now (financial markets, housing markets, unemployment, etc.), I'm not so sure.
Depends how you look at it...a lot of opportunites are popping up in some sectors at the same time they're disappearing from others. That's life.
-
I agree with that...but too many constraints limits growth. And I don't agree with you about Bill Gates - But, I also think that Bill Gates could have easily made choices in life that didn't result in Microsoft becoming a reality.
Easily.
On the other hand, I believe that a poor black youth with the same drive could have become the next Bill Gates. It has happened, and it will continue to happen in the future.
You're smoking weed if you believe that. It's happened? Really? Name a single black computer entrepreneur without going to Google. Better yet, 'splain me this: There are 500 companies on the Fortune 500 list, and only 8 have black CEOs. Since 12% of the country is black, 60 CEOs should be black. What's the problem?
We all shape our destinies. ... I think that what happens in life is meant to happen.
So, which is it?
Insh'Allah, eh..?
Since we've drifted so far afield, let's keep in mind that we're trying to point out the fallacy of the concept that people who are disadvantage choose to be disadvantaged (i.e.: end up disadvantaged through their own choices and/or remain in that state due to their own choices) and, therefore, are not deserving of healthcare.
-
You're smoking weed if you believe that. It's happened? Really? Name a single black computer entrepreneur without going to Google. Better yet, 'splain me this: There are 500 companies on the Fortune 500 list, and only 8 have black CEOs. Since 12% of the country is black, 60 CEOs should be black. What's the problem?
Um...what?? All I'm saying is that it COULD have have happened. If you seriously believe that's impossible, then you must be smoking the weed my friend. Are you forgetting all the minorities in this world who have already 'done the impossible' (including Barack Obama)?? What industry it is isn't relevant. Here's a list of famous black entrepreneurs (http://www.blackentrepreneurship.com/hall_of_fame.cfm)...but do I really have to google this stuff for you?
Since we've drifted so far afield, let's keep in mind that we're trying to point out the fallacy of the concept that people who are disadvantage choose to be disadvantaged (i.e.: end up disadvantaged through their own choices and/or remain in that state due to their own choices) and, therefore, are not deserving of healthcare.
I don't think we've really drifted...it just seems like you're continuing to try to throw fodder because I tore your argument a new *******. It didn't have legs to stand on in the first place. I already made my point. I never said people who are disadvantaged choose to be disadvantaged (would love to see you try to quote me on that) - all I said is that everyone can get out of their situation if they have the will, drive, attitiude, etc. If you in fact have read my posts, you obviously haven't understood a single word.
-
Um...what?? All I'm saying is that it COULD have have happened. If you seriously believe that's impossible, then you must be smoking the weed my friend. Are you forgetting all the minorities in this world who have already 'done the impossible' (including Barack Obama)?? What industry it is isn't relevant. Here's a list of famous black entrepreneurs (http://www.blackentrepreneurship.com/hall_of_fame.cfm)...but do I really have to google this stuff for you?
The point he was making was that there a disproportionately small amount of wealthy/powerful black people. A list of a few proves absolutely nothing.
I never said people who are disadvantaged choose to be disadvantaged (would love to see you try to quote me on that) - all I said is that everyone can get out of their situation if they have the will, drive, attitiude, etc. If you in fact have read my posts, you obviously haven't understood a single word.
You've attempted to undermine the idea that poor people deserve free healthcare by a) saying that anyone can dig themselves out of the hole they are in (despite ignoring the fact that it simply isn't possible for every poor person to do so) and b) going on multiple, nonsensical rants about poor people being lazy. The insinuation you make is clear to just about everyone - if you are poor, it's because you didn't try to not be, so it's your own fault for being poor. No matter how hard you run around in circles and hurl names at everyone, that is the logical conclusion of what you are saying.
-
The point he was making was that there a disproportionately small amount of wealthy/powerful black people. A list of a few proves absolutely nothing.
His original argument proves nothing as well. It's not impossible for minorities to make it to the top and many already have and continue to do so. That's what my point was.
You've attempted to undermine the idea that poor people deserve healthcare by a) saying that anyone can dig themselves out of the hole they are in (despite ignoring the fact that it simply isn't possible for every poor person to do so) and b) going on multiple, nonsensical rants about poor people being lazy. The insinuation you make is clear to just about everyone - if you are poor, it's because you didn't try to not be, so it's your own fault for being poor.
I never said poor people don't deserve healthcare (wow does anyone actually read my posts??) I said that they should work to get it like everyone else. I believe that it's possible for the majority of poor folks to do so (unless there are very debilitating circumstances that really make it the margin of success so thin that it's near impossible). But my point is that all the great people in the world who HAVE already risen up don't believe in words like 'can't' and 'impossible' - because they've already done it and will continue to do so.
I'm not insinuating anything; what I said is what I meant. Any insinuation you derive from it is your own concept and not a representation of mine. And the insinuations now just look like throwing fodder. The point was already made.
-
I never said poor people don't deserve healthcare (wow does anyone actually read my posts??)
English 101 (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/insinuation)
I said that they should work to get it like everyone else. I believe that it's possible for the majority of poor folks to do so (unless there are very debilitating circumstances that really make it the margin of success so thin that it's near impossible). But my point is that all the great people in the world who HAVE already risen up don't believe in words like 'can't' and 'impossible' - because they've already done it and will continue to do so.
I'm not insinuating anything; what I said is what I meant. Any insinuation you derive from it is your own concept and not a representation of mine. And the insinuations now just look like throwing fodder. The point was already made.
Well, I would argue that a large, large number of poor people are poor because of those "debilitating circumstances". You don't elaborate on what should happen if these 'debilitating circumstances' are the case, which is probably because the validity of what you're saying depends on almost all impoverished Americans (which counts for an amount of people greater than the population of many small-to-medium sized countries) are in that situation because they are too lazy to get proper work. A claim that I find somewhat unfathomable.
For the sake of argument, let us assume, a priori, that a large majority of impoverished Americans continue to remain impoverished because of "debilitating circumstances". Should the government then provide free healthcare to them?
On a different train of thought, what you are suggesting is that something like 15-20% of America's population undergo a 'rags to riches' conversion in order to pay their healthcare bills. Simple economics dictates that if it was really possible for the average person to become insanely rich irrespective of circumstances, then everyone would be, and then all these riches would have no value.
So, the reality is that some people have different talents. Sometimes they are certain skills, sometimes it's just raw drive. But all people aren't equal, and neither are their ability to make money. Furthermore the nature of wealth is that you tend to become richer at someone else's expense, so there are always going to be poor people, even in the most developed economies in the best of times, and a dream of a society where, even if all the poor people only just manage to push themselves into a situation where they can just about get by, is largely unrealistic.
-
ch_123 -- Your insinuations do nothing to rattle my argument and you know it.
For the sake of argument, let us assume, a priori, that a large majority of impoverished Americans continue to remain impoverished because of "debilitating circumstances". Should the government then provide free healthcare to them?
We already do...ever heard of Medicaid and Disability Benefits? Oh that's right, probably not since you don't live here.
On a different train of thought, what you are suggesting is that something like 15-20% of America's population undergo a 'rags to riches' conversion in order to pay their healthcare bills. Simple economics dictates that if it was really possible for the average person to become insanely rich irrespective of circumstances, then everyone would be, and then all these riches would have no value.
Nope, I never suggested that. Your insinuations are getting pretty retarded at this point. And your last point just isn't true; the fact is that any one person in this country can be successful no matter what their background. There are a lot of ways to be successful and a lot of ways to do it. If they have the drive, will, ambition, etc., they can do it. And they have, and do, and will continue. Boy, I really don't like repeating myself :D
So, the reality is that some people have different talents. Sometimes they are certain skills, sometimes it's just raw drive. But all people aren't equal, and neither are their ability to make money. Furthermore the nature of wealth is that you tend to become richer at someone else's expense, so there are always going to be poor people, even in the most developed economies in the best of times, and a dream of a society where, even if all the poor people only just manage to push themselves into a situation where they can just about get by, is largely unrealistic.
What you just said here is conflicting - the fact that people have different talents only reinforces my argument that anyone can succeed IN THEIR OWN WAY! Not all people are equal, but anyone can attain success in their own way. And I know all about people getting rich at other's expenses, because I'm one of the many taxpayers who pays for Obama to have a $70k+ date night in new york city, and a $500k+ vacation in Martha's Vineyard, among other insane expenses. And this is the same guy who has the nerve to talk about 'spreading wealth'?? So yes, there will always be people making more or making less - but it's also true that anyone can make more here if they do the things I already said. Financial independence should be the goal of every American (I know it is for me). But statistics show that most Americans consistently make bad decisions and wind up in debt (i.e. not paying off credit cards, variable rate mortgages, etc.) What if they made smart decisions instead? Boy the country would be a lot different then wouldn't it? But they don't, and that's a big part of why poverty continues.
-
I never said poor people don't deserve healthcare (wow does anyone actually read my posts??) I said that they should work to get it like everyone else.
So poor people deserve healthcare as long as they're not poor?
-
So poor people deserve healthcare as long as they're not poor?
No...everyone deserves healthcare, but everyone should have to pay or work for it (unless covered by Medicaid, Medicare, Disability, etc.)
By the way, I'm not sure the point has been clearly made already that we already pay taxes for Medicaid which most poor folks have. I'm not a big fan of when these people use their Medicaid money to buy rediculous grills for their teeth (http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/04/27/gvse0501.htm) instead of going to the dentist (yes there are cases of this) but for the most part, I think the program makes sense (at least in theory). Obviously, it needs to be better regulated. I don't believe that better regulation of current government programs is part of Obama's agenda.
-
I never said poor people don't deserve healthcare (wow does anyone actually read my posts??) I said that they should work to get it like everyone else.
And if they don't earn enough money to pay for healthcare or insure themselves, then **** 'em, right? You can claim you don't mean that, but it is the logical conclusion from your arguments. Your refusal to take your own propositions seriously does not prevent anyone else from seeing that they're sociopathic*.
EDIT: * I'm not claiming YOU are. I am claiming your stated conclusions do not match your principles and in all likelihood you're just claiming whatever you find personally pleasing. If you want to convince anyone, be more consistent.
-
By the way, I'm not sure the point has been clearly made already that we already pay taxes for Medicaid which most poor folks have.
Well, this could be the basic problem: You're wrong...
Medicaid takes care of indigent disabled, elderly and children. It doesn't provide benefits for the your run-of-the-mill poor person. 70% of Medicaid money goes to the elderly and the disabled, the remainder to poor children and pregnant women (poor children 'by proxy').
http://www.kff.org/medicaid/upload/Key%20Medicare%20and%20Medicaid%20Statistics.pdf
-
On a different train of thought, what you are suggesting is that something like 15-20% of America's population undergo a 'rags to riches' conversion in order to pay their healthcare bills. Simple economics dictates that if it was really possible for the average person to become insanely rich irrespective of circumstances, then everyone would be, and then all these riches would have no value.
+1
Nope, I never suggested that. Your insinuations are getting pretty retarded at this point. And your last point just isn't true; the fact is that any one person in this country can be successful no matter what their background. There are a lot of ways to be successful and a lot of ways to do it. If they have the drive, will, ambition, etc., they can do it. And they have, and do, and will continue.
Are you familiar with the concept of a bell curve? It's a simple fact that some folks are going to be on the top, some are going to be on the bottom and most are going to be somewhere in the middle.
Are you maintaining that we can cut the tail off the economic bell curve and make it so that everyone can be in the fat part, or higher?
Boy, I really don't like repeating myself :D
You'll have to keep repeating yourself until you make sense. The last time I saw someone argue in circles like you, they were a hard core Randroid. Are you?
-
ch_123 -- Your insinuations do nothing to rattle my argument and you know it.
Your powers of mind reading are as good as your powers of rational argument. I'll let you interpret that as you will.
What you just said here is conflicting - the fact that people have different talents only reinforces my argument that anyone can succeed IN THEIR OWN WAY! Not all people are equal, but anyone can attain success in their own way.
Some talents are obviously more useful than others. And even if people have talent, there are varying magnitudes of talent. So people's talents don't always translate into the ability to make money, and not everyone has the relevant critical mass of talent to go somewhere with it. Again, common sense, if it was so easy for everyone to be rich, we would all be.
But statistics show that most Americans consistently make bad decisions and wind up in debt (i.e. not paying off credit cards, variable rate mortgages, etc.) What if they made smart decisions instead? Boy the country would be a lot different then wouldn't it? But they don't, and that's a big part of why poverty continues.
I think a lot of people's problems are forced on them by external circumstances, particularly at the moment. While you were hiding under a rock for the past few years, a global banking collapse has unleashed a chain of events that has forced a ****load of people around the globe into debt who would otherwise be a-ok.
-
I've been following this thread but without getting involved because I just don't have too much time to formulate arguments for the time being. Plus, I am try to avoid confrontation on the forums unless I really really have to.
Keybaordlover: I am not saying that you are not entitled to your opinions. Some people do believe that USA is the land of opportunities where everyone can succeed if they want. There's nothing wrong believing this.
I also avoided getting involved in this thread because I don't know how things work in USA. That said, I think you are influenced by availability heuristic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic).
-
keyboard you keep ignoring the main question that naturally comes up in the wake of your statements: what do you want to do with the bottom end of the economic and health bell curve? Do you want to cut them off?
You say you want them to pay for healthcare - there will always be a 5% unemployment (when economists say "full employment" they actually mean 95% employment, as you know. There is no such thing as full employment in a capitalist society). 5% unemployment is considered a huge success and thats at the best of times (which occur but rarely). Thats, um, 15-20 million people unemployed at the best of times. Lets just start with them as an illustration of the point: are you saying those 15 million unemployed people, who will always be with us, should be cut off?
this is the question that you refuse to answer. What would you like to do with the bottom tail? They cant work not because they're lazy but because the capitalist system will not provide 100% jobs, by definition.
You answer has been to keep repeating the american dream idea: if you work hard enough you can succeed. Great, we all believe in the american dream to some extent. That does not however answer this question.
-
I don't believe that better regulation of current government programs is part of Obama's agenda.
why? Cuz glenn beck told you so?
if you actually followed the health care summit on c-span (a considerably better source of information on the positions of the president and the two parties than glenn beck) you'd have seen just how many resources obama put aside to ensure compliance.
you know, regulation and oversight that the repubs and glenn beck attack as "big govment! big govment! hurrrrrrr!"
when you make statements like the above its so clear that you havent a clue what "obama's agenda" is, that you're simply projecting various myths about the democrats ("tax and spend! hurrrrrr!") that idiots like beck and palin promote like donkeys.
-
Well, this could be the basic problem: You're wrong...
Medicaid takes care of indigent disabled, elderly and children. It doesn't provide benefits for the your run-of-the-mill poor person. 70% of Medicaid money goes to the elderly and the disabled, the remainder to poor children and pregnant women (poor children 'by proxy').
Actually, you're wrong. Medicaid is only available to people with a limited income (https://146.123.140.205/MedicaidEligibility/) (i.e., poor).
Are you familiar with the concept of a bell curve? It's a simple fact that some folks are going to be on the top, some are going to be on the bottom and most are going to be somewhere in the middle.
Are you maintaining that we can cut the tail off the economic bell curve and make it so that everyone can be in the fat part, or higher?
My thoughts on that are quite clearly mentioned that in my last post.
You'll have to keep repeating yourself until you make sense. The last time I saw someone argue in circles like you, they were a hard core Randroid. Are you?
Unlike you, my arguments are well-formed and my main points have already been made. All you do is continue to throw meaningless fodder.
I think a lot of people's problems are forced on them by external circumstances, particularly at the moment. While you were hiding under a rock for the past few years, a global banking collapse has unleashed a chain of events that has forced a ****load of people around the globe into debt who would otherwise be a-ok.
I already touched on this, but many people weren't 'forced into debt' for various reasons. I believe it had more to do with individual financial situations than the economy, but that's just me.
keyboard you keep ignoring the main question that naturally comes up in the wake of your statements: what do you want to do with the bottom end of the economic and health bell curve? Do you want to cut them off?
I don't believe you already asked that but if you did, my apologies :D
If you read my posts you'd see that I already believe that the majority of the bottom half of the bell curve has the abilities to do better (those not already taken care of by current programs). And I gave reasons why. End of story.
why? Cuz glenn beck told you so?
if you actually followed the health care summit on c-span (a considerably better source of information on the positions of the president and the two parties than glenn beck) you'd have seen just how many resources obama put aside to ensure compliance.
No, I don't pay much attention to muckrakers on either side. I find this information via the news (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/feb2010/medi-f20.shtml). Where are your sources?
-
If you read my posts you'd see that I already believe that the majority of the bottom half of the bell curve has the abilities to do better (those not already taken care of by current programs). And I gave reasons why. End of story.
ok, so you do believe they should be simply cut off.
wonderful, then I have my answer, and I'm glad you're not running for office :)
-
I already touched on this, but many people weren't 'forced into debt' for various reasons. I believe it had more to do with individual financial situations than the economy, but that's just me.
Right, so are you implying that the huge increase of people with financial issues that happened after the banking collapse started was co-incidental to the banking collapse, or are you acknowledging that this was a serious issue, and are just stating the obvious (i.e. that some people made bad financial decisions) in a thinly-veiled attempt to imply that it isn't?
-
Right, so are you implying that the huge increase of people with financial issues that happened after the banking collapse started was co-incidental to the banking collapse, or are you acknowledging that this was a serious issue, and are just stating the obvious (i.e. that some people made bad financial decisions) in a thinly-veiled attempt to imply that it isn't?
I think that it is and was a big issue and was partly caused by both bad financial decisions on the part of individuals and unethical corporate decisions. I mean, obviously they shouldn't give mortgages to people they know can't afford them but they did (and still do). But at the same time, I think it's up to individuals to be smart about decisions (especially home buying and credit cards) and do their research and try to make the right decisions.
A lot of Americans don't save money, don't invest or make bad investment decisions. Why? Because everyone is different.
-
I believe it had more to do with individual financial situations than the economy, but that's just me.
dude, when you say things like the above it shows how little attention you've actually paid to the events that caused the worst financial disaster in this country since the great depression. Seriously. At this point you're like oranjoos with his conspiracy theories about 9/11. Incredibly ill-informed and obviously so (in)secure in your views that you'll simply see any additional information as a personal threat to your self confidence.
and by the way once again you're blaming the individual victims, in this case the personal investors. As if they hadnt been lied to and manipulated, as if there is not a differential of power in the information flows in our financial industry, as if those differentials of power have no effect on national outcomes.
what does it say when the chiefs of those giant financial corporations themselves admit their wrongdoing and the effects it had -- and you dont!
-
dude, when you say things like the above it shows how little attention you've actually paid to the events that caused the worst financial disaster in this country since the great depression. Seriously. At this point you're like oranjoos with his conspiracy theories about 9/11. Incredibly ill-informed and obviously so (in)secure in your views that all you'll simply see any additional information as a personal threat to your self confidence.
My grandparents grew up in the Great Depression. I've talked to them at length about it. The current situation PALES in comparison. I've already made my points and backed them up, but you can continue to throw fodder if you want. It makes no difference to me.
-
So in your beautiful world, keyboard, basically there is no such thing as "crime". Its always the victim's fault.
You shouldnt have been out that late.
You shouldnt have worn that dress.
-
I think that it is and was a big issue and was partly caused by both bad financial decisions on the part of individuals and unethical corporate decisions. I mean, obviously they shouldn't give mortgages to people they know can't afford them but they did (and still do). But at the same time, I think it's up to individuals to be smart about decisions (especially home buying and credit cards) and do their research and try to make the right decisions.
To give an example, I know quite a few people who were in the process of selling land and/or houses built on their land when the collapse came along, destroyed the property market, and were all but bankrupted as a consequence. Where exactly did they bring this on themselves?
-
My grandparents grew up in the Great Depression. I've talked to them at length about it. The current situation PALES in comparison.
speaking of fodder, how is that relevant? Its still the worst financial disaster we've faced since the great depression. That isnt opinion, its a fact, based on how economists rank recessions.
-
Keyboardlover argues like a five year old. If he spent as much time making good arguments as he did talking about making them, he might actually make some sense.
-
So in your beautiful world, keyboard, basically there is no such thing as "crime". Its always the victim's fault.
You shouldnt have been out that late.
You shouldnt have worn that dress.
this is really what it comes down to. Ayn rand style solipsism, and a belief that its always the victims fault; and by arguing "righteously" for some kind of innate superhuman agency, they become incapable of addressing even the problem of simple crime. This is the stuff dictators are made of, of course.
-
Keyboardlover argues like a five year old. If he spent as much time making good arguments as he did talking about making them, he might actually make some sense.
yes, in the sense that he's arguing 'from the gut' rather than from collecting diverse sources of information. He's "lashing out" based on his feelings, which he thinks are a "righteous" defense of human agency and will power (every man a Superman, neitzche style). Great, except when it comes to the question of mankind's social relations, when this approach turns out to be incapable of taking into account the complexities of power relations, and presents mankind as nihilistically isolated and alienated in a war of all against all.
the only possible result of such thinking is to either become a sheep or a fascist. (Which were, incidentally, the two stark choices neitzche saw).
-
To give an example, I know quite a few people who were in the process of selling land and/or houses built on their land when the collapse came along, destroyed the property market, and were all but bankrupted as a consequence. Where exactly did they bring this on themselves?
In the USA, the housing market had been down for at least a year before the banking collapse happened.
And Welly - I fail to see the relevancy in any of your posts either.
To both of you - my posts have substance and backing for my points and yours do not so...I'm not really sure what else there is to say. All you do is throw fodder and insults. How juvenile is that??
-
When you start projecting the failings of your arguments on to the people have caught you on them, that's when you should just stop.
What facts? As pointed out above, your arguments have no substance and make you look like a sociopath. Do you want some sort of academic citation about how to have basic respect for people less fortunate for you?
-
When you start projecting the failings of your arguments on to the people have caught you on them, that's when you should just stop.
And...at what point did I do that?
What facts? As pointed out above, your arguments have no substance and make you look like a sociopath. Do you want some sort of academic citation about how to have basic respect for people less fortunate for you?
I doubt my arguments make me look like that to anyone with a clue in their brain. But I already knew that you weren't among that flock.
-
When you start projecting the failings of your arguments on to the people have caught you on them, that's when you should just stop.
but see how consistent he is on this. He's always shifting responsibility. The poor have themselves to blame. The sick have themselves to blame. And of course, its others who never have a point to make. Its the basic way he interfaces with the world.
Do you want some sort of academic citation about how to have basic respect for people less fortunate for you?
i think he actually is expecting that. BUT - he wouldnt believe it even if such a thing could be produced and presented to him. Because his apriori assumption is that man is or ought to be Superman - in all cases and contexts. Just like ayn rand, just like neitzche. Its a very "binary" approach to the world, and he's bought into it hook line and sinker. Its his starting assumption and he holds to it "righteously", like a religion.
-
I've found in life that more often than not, the people who blame everybody else for all their problems in the world are typically the ones that never get anywhere. Obviously I don't know enough about either one of you to make a judgement, but I'm willing to bet that you both fall into that category.
-
Its his starting assumption and he holds to it "righteously", like a religion.
there's only one treatment for someone afflicted with such a religion: time. Why time? Because with time comes travails. And its personal adversity that will ultimately shake any solid faith -- including one like this.
but thats something that can only come from the experience of impossible hardships, not from us "talking" to him. He's "immune" to arguments based on reason right now, or appeals to conscience. But when his sense of Being changes, thats when his mind will follow.
-
there's only one treatment for someone afflicted with such a religion: time. Why time? Because with time comes travails. And its personal adversity that will ultimately shake any solid faith -- including one like this.
Lol bro - I've met more adversity in life than you have any clue to speculate about. And I didn't complain about it or about what brought it on me. I met the challenges and rose above them. That's just the way I live my life. Maybe I'm a dreamer, but I think these are the principles that should be taught to people.
-
the people who blame everybody else for all their problems in the world are typically the ones that never get anywhere.
tell me, why do you think it has to be all one or the other?
why do you think there are people who only blame others, and people who only blame themselves?
is there no way to live in between? what might such a living, and thought process, look like?
-
And...at what point did I do that?
To both of you - my posts have substance and backing for my points and yours do not so...I'm not really sure what else there is to say. All you do is throw fodder and insults. How juvenile is that??
I doubt my arguments make me look like that to anyone with a clue in their brain. But I already knew that you weren't among that flock.
I don't see too many people here agreeing with you on that one. Either everyone here is wrong, or you are wrong. I like the more probable answer of those two options.
I've found in life that more often than not, the people who blame everybody else for all their problems in the world are typically the ones that never get anywhere.
So like the way you blame poor people for not fitting into your view of the world? Get off your box.
Obviously I don't know enough about either one of you to make a judgement, but I'm willing to bet that you both fall into that category.
You refuse to judge us and then judge us in the same sentence. I'd get that checked out by a doctor if I were you.
-
That's just the way I live my life.
yea all 15 years of it so far ;)
I distinctly get the feeling we're having an argument with a 10th grader who just stumbled across rush limbaugh's first book in the bargain bin at borders.
-
tell me, why do you think it has to be all one or the other?
why do you think there are people who only blame others, and people who only blame themselves?
is there no way to live in between? what might such a living, and thought process, look like?
I said 'in my experience' and 'typically'. You seem to have worrysome issues with comprehension.
By, the way, I'm in my late 20s. Probably about the same age as you.
More fodder. Sigh...
-
I said 'in my experience' and 'typically'. You seem to have worrysome issues with comprehension.
and you have worrisome issues with answering the question...
-
and you have worrsyome issues with answering the question...
The question is worthless because I don't think those things and never said that I did. How on earth did you get into grad school with these comprehension issues? There are issues with the American education system indeed...
-
I distinctly get the feeling we're having an argument with a 10th grader who just stumbled across rush limbaugh's first book in the bargain bin at borders.
I actually see a lot of this on campus with the undergrads. They all have a copy of the neitzche reader in their back pocket. When they first come across neitzche its like a revelation to them, just like I think it was for some people who read rush limbaugh or ayn rand for the first time, to see in print what they suspected all along - that they were awesome and everyone else had to be chumps who deserved whatever they got. For a kid, its a tremendously empowering thing to think and feel.
Its a seriously fatalistic, nihilistic, and aristocratic attitude and can do real damage in the wrong hands.
-
I love how Keyboardlover turned this discussion about healthcare turned into an argument about poor people, and then into a match where he calls everyone who disagrees with him (I could have left out the 'who disagrees with him' bit there and still refer to the same people) a retard or whatever. For bonus combo points, people who are particularly bad at arguing wiill jump between these nested layers of abstraction, often in the same sentence, in order to confuse the **** out of anyone who is trying to figure what they are talking about... Which is usually nothing at the end of the day.
-
We all should just get North Korean health care: a chain saw and some band aids. Hey-They spend less than $1 per person with health care there.
-
I love how Keyboardlover turned this discussion about healthcare turned into an argument about poor people, and then into a match where he calls everyone who disagrees with him (I could have left out the 'who disagrees with him' bit there and still refer to the same people) a retard or whatever. For bonus combo points, people who are particularly bad at arguing wiill jump between these nested layers of abstraction, often in the same sentence, in order to confuse the **** out of anyone who is trying to figure what they are talking about.
I'm pretty sure someone mentioned poor people before I did. And...the rest of your statement is petty fodder. Wouldn't expect anything more of you at this point :D
-
some good news...
"AP Poll: Repeal? Many wish health law went further" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100925/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_poll)
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's health care overhaul has divided the nation, and Republicans believe their call for repeal will help them win elections in November. But the picture's not that clear cut.
A new AP poll finds that Americans who think the law should have done more outnumber those who think the government should stay out of health care by 2-to-1.
I also think this is one of those laws that will find support grow rather than decrease over time. Not unlike the mandatory seatbelt law in some states. In Massachusetts, there was 2-1 opposition to the law right before it went into effect ("how dare government force me to wear my seatbelt! Hurrrr!"). 2 years after the law went into effect, support for it was at 80%.
-
Many wish health law went further"
..."regardless of whether they support the law, oppose it or remain neutral."
Not really good or bad news...just makes sense to me.
-
..."regardless of whether they support the law, oppose it or remain neutral."
Not really good or bad news...just makes sense to me.
its good news if it means people like you are in a 2-1 minority :)
the real good news is this:
75 percent who want substantial changes in the system
the status quo is not going to do, and the repubs want a return to the status quo.
-
its good news if it means people like you are in a 2-1 minority :)
How do you even know I'm in that boat??
"Americans who think the law should have done more outnumber those who think the government should stay out of health care by 2-to-1."
All that says is that more people (who either oppose, support, or remain neutral) believe it should have done more, than those who don't and just think the government should stay out. I oppose it, and I believe it should have done more, so actually I'm not in that minority! :D
**Cue Welly's brain exploding**
Isn't math fun?
-
I believe it should have done more, so actually I'm not in that minority! :D
do tell -- given how you've been repeating that sick people have only themselves to blame, how is it that you wanted the law to have "done more"? Care to explain?
-
He wants it to do more to blame sick people?
-
do tell -- given how you've been repeating that sick people have only themselves to blame, how is it that you wanted the law to have "done more"? Care to explain?
Did I ever actually say that sick people have only themselves to blame for getting sick? You're an expert at putting words in other people's mouths, you should run for office! :D
Ch_123 can't be your vice president fortunately, since he wasn't born here :D
But nah, I'm done with this thread. I've said my peace. You can take it as admitting defeat if you want, but I'm confident that those who actually read and understand the thread will know that it's not.
And frankly if there are things you really want to discuss with me further, you're more than welcome to PM me (that goes for everyone).
-
Did I ever actually say that sick people have only themselves to blame for getting sick? You're an expert at putting words in other people's mouths, you should run for office! :D
But nah, I'm done with this thread. I've said my peace.
hahahahahaha! ok, you've said that the poor and the sick have to cure themselves and be productive and are not entitled to tax payer support or standard governmental policies overseeing their benefits. and yes, you've said your piece.
if there's anything more to your (increasingly mysterious and secretive and "abstracted") opinions, you simply havent said it out loud. For some reason.
But nah, I'm done with this thread. I've said my peace. You can take it as admitting defeat if you want, but I'm confident that those who actually read and understand the thread will know that it's not.
And frankly if there are things you really want to discuss with me further, you're more than welcome to PM me (that goes for everyone).
yea, whats with that secretiveness? Are you a cult member or something? "You all know what I mean. wink wink". I also love how you say "thats not what i've said!" (after saying exactly that) and then refuse to say what you've said. More mystery!
-
hahahahahaha! ok, you've said that the poor and the sick have to cure themselves and be productive and are not entitled to tax payer support or standard governmental policies overseeing their benefits. and yes, you've said your piece.
if there's anything more to your (increasingly mysterious and secretive and "abstracted") opinions, you simply havent said it out loud. For some reason.
Wow...did I say that Welly? Did I really? I never see any quotes on these things from either of you. Masters of propoganda, just like Hitler was :D
-
Wow...did I say that Welly? Did I really? I never see any quotes on these things from either of you.
dude the quotes are in full view in the thread above. And rather than saying "is that what I said?" why dont you clarify it right here? I keep repeatedly giving you opportunities to be clear, and you repeatedly walk away from them.
Masters of propoganda, just like Hitler was :D
wow, godwin for the win. I guess the thread has run its course.
-
opportunity #5, by my count:
if you think we've misrepresented your position on the sick and poor and the proper role of the federal government in dealing with them, can you clarify it here now? What would you do about, for instance, the 5% unemployed (who come out to 15 to 20 million people) even during times of "full employment" who cant afford healthcare?
This is the second time i'm asking that as clearly as possible, and I suspect it will be the second time that you absolutely refuse to give a clear answer, and will only insinuate that their position does not deserve federal support or oversight.
-
dude the quotes are in full view in the thread above. And rather than saying "is that what I said?" why dont you clarify it right here? I keep repeatedly giving you opportunities to be clear, and you repeatedly walk away from them.
Quotes from me, regarding what you constantly accuse me of saying, are definitely not there. I already clarified my points, so there's nothing really more for me to say.
wow, godwin for the win. I guess the thread has run its course.
Wow...that is weird...
-
If you think we've misrepresented your position on the sick and poor and the proper role of the federal government in dealing with them, can you clarify it here now? What would you do about, for instance, the 5% unemployed (who come out to 15 to 20 million people) even during times of "full employment" who cant afford healthcare?
This is the second time i'm asking that as clearly as possible, and I suspect it will be the second time that you absolutely refuse to give a clear answer, and will only insinuate that their position does not deserve federal support or oversight.
Did you read what I wrote about working to create jobs and more opportunities, via capitalism? So that every person who is able-bodied and can work can afford healthcare? Is that not clear enough to you? You keep claiming you read my posts but keep posting as if you haven't.
So if you want to continue this with me, PM me. Why continue to ask the same tired questions that have already been answered in this thread? It just makes it confusing to read, and it makes you look kind of dumb dude.
-
opportunity #6:
you said, "everyone deserves healthcare, but everyone should have to pay or work for it (unless covered by Medicaid, Medicare, Disability, etc.)"
to which I said, "You say you want them to pay for healthcare - there will always be a 5% unemployment (when economists say "full employment" they actually mean 95% employment, as you know. There is no such thing as full employment in a capitalist society). 5% unemployment is considered a huge success and thats at the best of times (which occur but rarely). Thats, um, 15-20 million people unemployed at the best of times. Lets just start with them as an illustration of the point"
to which you said, "If you read my posts you'd see that I already believe that the majority of the bottom half of the bell curve has the abilities to do better (those not already taken care of by current programs). And I gave reasons why. End of story."
which of course doesnt answer the question. To restate the question: would you be in favor of federal benefits or oversight for those 15 to 20 million or not?
We understand clearly based on your quotes above that you think they can and should work to pay for the benefits. But here we are talking about people who -- by economic laws of capitalism itself - cannot find work all the time. What should happen to them while they're looking for a job and cannot afford healthcare? How about health insurance for their children during that time? Clear answer forthcoming?
-
Wow...did I say that Welly? Did I really? I never see any quotes on these things from either of you. Masters of propoganda, just like Hitler was :D
Reductio ad Hiterlum! I love this guy! He brings back great memories of my early secondary school debating days...
-
Reductio ad Hiterlum! I love this guy! He brings back great memories of my early secondary school debating days...
Doesn't appear that your skills have improved since then :D
Welly - I don't see a PM from you yet ;)
-
Welly - I don't see a PM from you yet ;)
and you wont see one... no reason for this to be a secret conversation...
-
There are several fatal assumptions there about how good I am at arguing, and how good I was way back when in that first sentence.
And why all this secrecy? If you're so confident that you are right, why don't you post your great arguments out in public for all to see? In fact, you said you were tired of this thread, why are you still here?
-
opportunity #7...
opportunity #6:
you said, "everyone deserves healthcare, but everyone should have to pay or work for it (unless covered by Medicaid, Medicare, Disability, etc.)"
to which I said, "You say you want them to pay for healthcare - there will always be a 5% unemployment (when economists say "full employment" they actually mean 95% employment, as you know. There is no such thing as full employment in a capitalist society). 5% unemployment is considered a huge success and thats at the best of times (which occur but rarely). Thats, um, 15-20 million people unemployed at the best of times. Lets just start with them as an illustration of the point"
to which you said, "If you read my posts you'd see that I already believe that the majority of the bottom half of the bell curve has the abilities to do better (those not already taken care of by current programs). And I gave reasons why. End of story."
which of course doesnt answer the question. To restate the question: would you be in favor of federal benefits or oversight for those 15 to 20 million or not?
We understand clearly based on your quotes above that you think they can and should work to pay for the benefits. But here we are talking about people who -- by economic laws of capitalism itself - cannot find work all the time. What should happen to them while they're looking for a job and cannot afford healthcare? How about health insurance for their children during that time? Clear answer forthcoming?
-
And why all this secrecy? If you're so confident that you are right, why don't you post your great arguments out in public for all to see? In fact, you said you were tired of this thread, why are you still here?
Just trolling ;)
-
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_rNtF7HnCzrY/TBzzHUSoSGI/AAAAAAAAACo/qiAyqN9AhCY/s1600/What+Trolls+Want+You+To+Think.png)
-
And why all this secrecy? If you're so confident that you are right, why don't you post your great arguments out in public for all to see? In fact, you said you were tired of this thread, why are you still here?
I already did. Some smarter folks already understood my point and didn't post further (like Patrick mentioned). You and Welly seem to be the dumbest of the lot.
-
PROTIP: When someone opens with -
Keybaordlover: I am not saying that you are not entitled to your opinions.
They're politely suggesting that you're talking out of your ass.
-
PROTIP: When someone opens with -
They're politely suggesting that you're talking out of your ass.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3057/2367515373_515ff7a325.jpg)
-
keyboard lover is using an inductive reasoning (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning ) which means that the only thing that counts is his own experience, it's totally non refutable and can always bring some more arguments till infinite.
this kind of reasoning has been put down by all epistemologists as it can't prove anything
i think debating furthermore can be just for fun as nothing really interesting can come from it
-
keyboard lover is using an inductive reasoning (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning ) which means that the only thing that counts is his own experience, it's totally non refutable and can always bring some more arguments till infinite.
this kind of reasoning has been put down by all epistemologists as it can't prove anything
i think debating furthermore can be just for fun as nothing really interesting can come from it
Makes sense to me. You're probably right.
(http://www.wowowow.com/files/imagecache/300x/2009_0114_getty_obama_thumbs_upCROP.jpg)
-
nyt editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/26/opinion/26sun1.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp)tears republican "pledge to america" platform a new *******.
-
Some smarter folks already understood my point and didn't post further (like Patrick mentioned).
you mean where he said you suffer from the availability heuristic (http://geekhack.org/showpost.php?p=226621&postcount=203)? yea, he's right.
-
you mean where he said you suffer from the availability heuristic (http://geekhack.org/showpost.php?p=226621&postcount=203)? yea, he's right.
Yea. that's clearly the case. As you say "hurr hurrrrrrrrr"
(http://www.starzlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/obama-sad1.jpg)
Obama's plan is a much tougher sell (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/white-house/Obama-tries-again-to-sell-his-health-plan--962830-103565559.html) than Welly would have you believe with all his bull****.
-
i dont know keyboard, look at your 'opposition' for instance. it seems mainly based on the insistence that the poor and the sick are 'whiners'. I'm sure some percentage of americans will buy that, but not sure you're going win elections with it.
as far as whats a tougher sell, when 75% of americans are against the status quo in healthcare, and the repubs are campaigning on a platform of returning to the status quo, well, that gives the dems selling opportunities. Whether they successfully run with them and bring them home is another matter, but its nice to have them.
-
i dont know keyboard, look at your 'opposition' for instance. it seems mainly based on the insistence that the poor and the sick are 'whiners'. I'm sure some percentage of americans will buy that, but not sure you're going win elections with it.
as far as whats a tougher sell, when 75% of americans are against the status quo in healthcare, and the repubs are campaigning on a platform of returning to the status quo, well, that gives the dems selling opportunities. Whether they successfully run with them and bring them home is another matter, but its nice to have them.
This guy definitely gets it.
(http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/obama-laughing.jpg)
pikapika was right...continuing to post in this thread IS fun!
-
you're making even less sense than usual... not that you've completed a single thought in this entire thread. Oh well.
-
you're making even less sense than usual... not that you've completed a single thought in this entire thread. Oh well.
(http://my-funspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/obama_superman_awesome.jpg)
-
There are so many hilarious ones...I had no idea :D
-
Only problem is that ObamaCare doesn't cover constipation :(
(http://media.canada.com/24be34eb-ecfe-4969-88c2-5aa898db4139/sad_obama.jpg)
Supposedly, Obama's condition developed from constantly lying through his teeth every day for years and years. That's just a rumor though.
-
lol, keyboard, so your true colors are coming out. All this was for you was an opportunity for some cheap obama bashing. No wonder you're against healthcare.
-
so keyboard, do you think obama is a US citizen? :) Come on, surprise me!
-
lol, keyboard, so your true colors are coming out. All this was for you was an opportunity for some cheap obama bashing. No wonder you're against healthcare.
Nah, I already made my point. Since you continue to troll, I figure the most fun way to fight trolling is with more trolling.
Plus, I think that
YOU'RE AWESOME =)
(http://www.mauricebroaddus.com/uploaded_images/obama-sunglasses-2-795181.jpg)
-
says the troll.
this was a thread about healthcare until you derailed it. if you dont want to talk about healthcare (you never did, obviously) why are you still posting on this thread?
all my posts have to do with healthcare of its consequences - yours dont. So who's trolling? Douchebag.
Feel free to go start your own thread called "my favorite pics of obama". Why the **** are you posting them here?
Asswipe.
-
says the troll.
this was a thread about healthcare until you derailed it. if you dont want to talk about healthcare (you never did, obviously) why are you still posting on this thread?
all my posts have to do with healthcare of its consequences - yours dont. So who's trolling? Douchebag.
Who's trolling? Well, who created the troll-bait thread in the first place? ;)
Well, you did buddy
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_LjLCeoIqeHo/SRS3jqugNUI/AAAAAAAAAJI/i--z0mkathM/s320/barack_obama_pointing_110508.jpg)
-
this is brilliant. So to cap off his stellar run of sociopathic nonsense, keyboardlover has just accused me of trolling:
a) in my own thread
b) and because i was staying on topic.
what the **** is wrong with you?!
-
want to bring it on keyboard? I'm looking forward to the next thread that you open.
-
want to bring it on keyboard? I'm looking forward to the next thread that you open.
Bring it on?! Oh it's already been bah-rought!
(http://sonoranweeklyreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Obama-angry-snearing-re-DirtyTricks.jpg)
Seriously Welly, don't get sentimental. It's only teh Internets.
-
this is brilliant. So to cap off his stellar run of sociopathic nonsense, keyboardlover has just accused me of trolling:
a) in my own thread
b) and because i was staying on topic.
what the **** is wrong with you?!
Dude, I can't be a sociopath. I like ice cream. Sociopaths don't like ice cream.
Do you like ice cream? Hell, even Obama likes ice cream.
(http://www.libnot.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/obama-ice-cream.jpg)
Getting back on topic, Obama recently completely rewrote his bill. The title has changed from 'Healthcare for everyone' to 'Ice cream for everyone' after senior advisors told him that the original bill wasn't feasable. Unfortunately, healthcare will remain the same but the ice cream WILL be a reality. Expect a 15% tax increase however, as the import of all this ice cream from China will NOT be cheap.
-
Republicans: 0
Internet: 1
-
we know from experience that anything can be done with hard work and drive. And I'm the one missing the point?
Levitate your body using only your mind. Teleport to my home today and show me. Come on, I want to see you.
There are less extreme things that can't be done. Your arguments in this vein are sloppy and easily proven wrong.
-
Republicans: 0
Internet: 1
Clearly.
Levitate your body using only your mind. Teleport to my home today and show me. Come on, I want to see you.
There are less extreme things that can't be done. Your arguments in this vein are sloppy and easily proven wrong.
Two highly relevant and thought-provoking statements. Well done!
Obama approves:
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44438000/jpg/_44438606_clapping_getty416.jpg)
There was a pretty famous guy once who said nothing is impossible...who was it...?
Oh yea, Albert Einstein.
-
want to bring it on keyboard? I'm looking forward to the next thread that you open.
(http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg57/mercgoldstein/obama.jpg)
Seriously though, I don't get why you think I don't like Obama. I like Obama as a person. I just wish he'd spend more time creating policies that will have some kind of positive benefit (unlike free ice cream) and spend less time on his burgeoning movie career.
(http://blog.nj.com/southjersey_impact/2008/11/large_obama-president-of-awesome.jpg)
-
(http://trollcats.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/deflection_trollcat.jpg)
-
What an interesting Lolcat.
(http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j99/mocowboysfan/Obama-close-up-arrogant-sneer.jpg)
I wonder how many Lolcats Shawn has saved on his hard drive, just waiting for the right opportunity to use them?
(http://www.maglaj.net/slike/obama_sad.jpg)
-
After all of this, all I have to say is that Shawn Stafford wins the thread.
-
After all of this, all I have to say is that Shawn Stafford wins the thread.
I agree. His lolcat was brilliant!
Edit: If the ice cream wasn't silly enough, now Obama wants to watch you fap (http://www.examiner.com/law-enforcement-in-national/obama-administration-seeks-more-eavesdropping-on-internet).
-
a gen-u-ine troll. Kinda sad that thats all he is after carrying this thread 15 pages longer than it should have gone.
-
I wouldnt be surprised if he's a racist little **** too.
-
5 star thread.
Agreed =)
-
After all of this, all I have to say is that Shawn Stafford wins the thread.
It seems evident that the arguments opposing the majority of informed rational arguments is not itself informed rational argument.
-
It seems evident that the arguments opposing the majority of informed rational arguments is not itself informed rational argument.
Exactly.
-
It seems evident that the arguments opposing the majority of informed rational arguments is not itself informed rational argument.
Exactly.
Uh huh.
-
Hmm... After 30 years I'm brushing up on algebra so I can CLEP my way into some math credits I need for the Army. So, let me flex my newly-recovered match muscles...
It seems evident that the arguments opposing the majority of informed rational arguments is not itself informed rational argument.
Okay, if we let i represent 'informed rational arguments'...
and o represent those arguments opposing informed rational arguments...
Then we can say i ≠ o.
So, if i ≠ o, then clearly an argument opposed to an informed rational argument can not itself be a rational argument (o ≠ i).
Exactly.
(http://www.cadetstuff.org/images/LOGIC.jpg)
For the record and speaking as an Obama supporter, this ****e is all WIN:
(http://blog.nj.com/southjersey_impact/2008/11/large_obama-president-of-awesome.jpg)
-
Hmm... After 30 years I'm brushing up on algebra so I can CLEP my way into some math credits I need for the Army. So, let me flex my newly-recovered match muscles...
After 30 years you had to brush up on algebra in order to be able to compare two variables? I thought you were a programmer? And...what is a 'match muscle'?
The American education system has certainly not failed this guy!
For the record and speaking as an Obama supporter, this ****e is all WIN
Well duh, that's why I posted it. Glad to see we're on the same page. It took Welly a while, but I think he's come around too.
-
Intelligence.
(http://www.obamainspires.me/images/Obama%20brain.JPG)
Obama haz it too.
-
After 30 years you had to brush up on algebra in order to be able to compare two variables? I thought you were a programmer? The American education system has certainly not failed this guy!
Sadly, there's a difference between writing code and writing algebraic equations. Anyway, you try letting a middle-school science cool for 30 years and then try bootstrapping yourself to a college level in it.
Well duh, that's why I posted it. Glad to see we're on the same page. It took Welly a while, but I think he's come around too.
We both think Obama is awesome? Sweet! That means now we can start swapping recipes and wishing Bill Clinton could run again...
-
We both think Obama is awesome? Sweet! That means now we can start swapping recipes and wishing Bill Clinton could run again...
Bill Clinton was pretty awesome. Remember when he bombed Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile_strikes_on_Afghanistan_and_Sudan_(August_1998)) and got the Taliban all angry with us? That was an epic win.
(http://www.profbob.com/images/Bill%20Clinton%20thumbs%20up.jpg)
Did you know Osama Bin Laden was a commander in this conflict?
And people wonder why he had such a big chip on his shoulder when he lead the 9/11 attacks...
-
I love that man SO MUCH...
-
Last time I was a board junkie, it was an NVIDIA fanboi site where they were all rich republican teenagers parroting their parents' conservative values and buying $400 video cards. They talked like this about Reagan/Bush.
-
Conservatives still go on about Reagan like he was God's other son.
-
You have to admit it - Reagan had pretty cool hair.
-
Conservatives still go on about Reagan like he was God's other son.
I find that Democrats still do the same about Clinton and Obama (except for the smart ones I know, who've realized Obama is a liar and that Clinton was the one who brought on 9/11.) Funny how the same Democrats who claim Clinton was great complain about Bush starting innappropriate wars. When I tell them about Clinton bombing Afghanistan I like to sit back and listen to the sound of their brains melting out their ears.
Plus Clinton listens to Michael Bolton. That's just creepy.
(http://geekwhat.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/clinton-sax.jpg)
Nancy Pelosi is bringing yet even MORE credibility to Obama's plans - by telling college grads to sit back and relax (http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=hdkUSU8zDk) instead of going out to get jobs. Once they have you lazy and not working - that's when the mind control begins! ;)
-
If we didn't have the NHS in this country I would be dead right now!
-
I find that Democrats still do the same about Clinton and Obama (except for the smart ones I know, who've realized Obama is a liar and that Clinton was the one who brought on 9/11.)
1. Show me a President in the last thirty years who didn't lie. They're politicians...
2. "... Clinton was the one who brought on 9/11.) ..." Time to crimp a little more tinfoil on your antennae. (And don't bother ****ting a bunch of 9/11 conspiracy/blame sites at me, I don't have the time or patience.)
Funny how the same Democrats who claim Clinton was great complain about Bush starting innappropriate wars. When I tell them about Clinton bombing Afghanistan I like to sit back and listen to the sound of their brains melting out their ears.
Oh, I see what you did there. Happily, I'm a lifelong Republican and therefore immune to your cunning ploy.
Of course, I like to point out that corporation-busting, unionizing and environmental activism were all Republican values. Most GOPers with no sense of the history of our party (which is most GOPers) turn blue when that comes up.
Sadly for the GOP, for the last twenty years or more the Democrats have championed traditional Republican values better than the Republican Party...
-
Sadly for the GOP, for the last twenty years or more the Democrats have championed traditional Republican values better than the Republican Party...
I always KNEW Obama was a Republican in disguise!
(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/60620/thumbs/s-BARACK-THE-ELEPHANT-large.jpg)
-
If we didn't have the NHS in this country I would be dead right now!
If you didn't have NHS in your country, my mom wouldn't be able to walk right now.
Glad to see you back, Lam.
-
If we had healthcare reform two years ago, my son wouldn't have had to go to court to get his hospital, rehabilitation and medical equipment bills paid for.
-
The inevitable question: why didn't these people already have healthcare?
-
Because healthcare is neither affordable nor available to everyone, despite their best efforts. That's what the reform is supposed to fix, and it will.
-
Because healthcare is neither affordable nor available to everyone, despite their best efforts. That's what the reform is supposed to fix, and it will.
And we have come full circle.
-
Is that what they call a "circular argument?"
-
I think this is why, when all is said and done, it all comes down to opinion.
-
Indeed.
And one is clearly wrong :)
Exactly.
-
Indeed.
And one is clearly wrong :)
Damn, son.
-
If your reaction to my saying
Because healthcare is neither affordable nor available to everyone, despite their best efforts. That's what the reform is supposed to fix, and it will.
is the following:I think this is why, when all is said and done, it all comes down to opinion.
then we are left with two very simple 'opinions':
1. Everyone deserves access to basic healthcare, regardless of their station in life.
2. Only those who can afford access to healthcare deserve it.
And, unless I've been on a five-day acid trip, you're of opinion '2'..?
-
If your reaction to my saying is the following: then we are left with two very simple 'opinions':
1. Everyone deserves access to basic healthcare, regardless of their station in life.
2. Only those who can afford access to healthcare deserve it.
And, unless I've been on a five-day acid trip, you're of opinion '2'..?
2.
...and those who can't are already taken care of by programs we already have and pay taxes for. We discussed this already man!
-
2.
...and those who can't are already taken care of by programs we already have and pay taxes for. We discussed this already man!
WTF? No, they're not. My son is a perfect example, as are 2 million other college graduates with no work: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/CollegeAndFamily/CutCollegeCosts/no-one-needs-you-class-of-2010.aspx?page=1.
-
WTF? No, they're not. My son is a perfect example, as are 2 million other college graduates with no work: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/CollegeAndFamily/CutCollegeCosts/no-one-needs-you-class-of-2010.aspx?page=1.
The programs are not perfect, and as I said, should be improved...not cut like Obama is doing (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/12/medicare-cuts-hypocrisy-g_n_459930.html).
Anyway, regarding the jobs we need to create more. See my bit on capitalism restraints and the importance of increased competition in our market. If there are enough, frankly the kids have no excuse. If they want to be lazy and live at home with mom and dad and not work (like Nancy Pelosi is recommending), I don't want to pay taxes for their healthcare.
-
The programs are not perfect, and as I said, should be improved...not cut like Obama is doing (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/12/medicare-cuts-hypocrisy-g_n_459930.html).
Again: WTF? Do you bother to read what you're recommending as supporting your positions, or do you assume that nobody else will?
Anyway, what should hard-working, capable and ambitious people do for healthcare while they're unemployed?
-
Again: WTF? Do you bother to read what you're recommending as supporting your positions, or do you assume that nobody else will?
Good call...bad resource. I had a good one for that issue but I can't remember it now. Anyway, regarding the jobs it's so different depending on your industry and experience right now. I have a good one, yet I get contacted by anywhere from 1-5 recruiters on a daily basis telling me they have openings and asking if I'm interested. I guess I'm just...lucky? No, I'm in a good industry, and I have marketable skills which I worked hard to get.
Edit: here (http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/20/60-plus-association/medicare-cuts-health-care-law-will-hurt-seniors-sa/)'s a better source.
-
Anyway, regarding the jobs it's so different depending on your industry and experience right now. I have a good one, yet I get contacted by anywhere from 1-5 recruiters on a daily basis telling me they have openings and asking if I'm interested. I guess I'm just...lucky? No, I'm in a good industry, and I have marketable skills which I worked hard to get.
What about the 300 million Americans who aren't you?
-
What about the 300 million Americans who aren't you?
They should also make an effort to get educated and experience and make themselves marketable. Of course, I also think that doing what you want to do is extremely important. It just doesn't always pay well.
-
Ask all those Wal-Mart employees about their health insurance.
Oh wait...
-
They should also make an effort to get educated and experience and make themselves marketable.
And what if their best efforts or the job market fail them?
-
Good call...bad resource. I had a good one for that issue but I can't remember it now. Edit: here (http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/20/60-plus-association/medicare-cuts-health-care-law-will-hurt-seniors-sa/)'s a better source.
Better? Not so much:Getting back to the Truth-O-Meter, the 60 Plus ad says that the new health care law "will cut $500 billion from Medicare. That will hurt the quality of our care." The ad loses points for accuracy because the $500 billion aren't actual cuts but reductions to future spending for a program that will still grow significantly in the next 10 years. The ad also says those cuts will "hurt the quality" of seniors' care. But we find that to be a highly contentious subject, and the 60 Plus ad doesn't hint at any of the ways that the reductions are ways to make Medicare more efficient. Finally, the ad doesn't mention any of the benefits to seniors, such as improved prescription drug coverage. The ad seems more intent on attacking the health care law than accurately describing this complicated piece of legislation. Because it leaves critical facts out of its description in a way that gives a misleading impression, we rate the statement Barely True.
-
And what if their best efforts or the job market fail them?
Everyone should take responsibility and be accountable for themselves.
I can't be expected to be responsible for anyone else's failure or success - nor should anyone else.
If it's the job market - see 'we need to create more jobs and healthy competition' via capitalism - which I mentioned at least 3 times now.
-
Everyone should take responsibility and be accountable for themselves. I can't be expected to be responsible for anyone else's failure or success - nor should anyone else.
So, we're back to Opinion #2, which is the essence of Conservatism: I've got mine, you can go **** yourself.
Awesome. You're a fine American...
-
So, we're back to Opinion #2, which is the essence of Conservatism: I've got mine, you can go **** yourself.
Awesome. You're a fine American...
Here's a military analogy:
You know how the Marines all throw their rifles up in the air at the same time and catch them? Each marine only has to catch their own rifle. Can you imagine what would happen if one of them was like 'Oh ****...I can't do it today. Can you catch my rifle for me?' Somehow, I just don't think that would fly. They are expected to throw and catch only their rifle - not anyone else's.
No matter what you think, it's NOT 'Got mine, **** everyone else'.
It's 'I got mine by making the right decisions - if someone else can't do the same, it ain't my fault.'
-
Here's a military analogy: You know how the Marines all throw their rifles up in the air at the same time and catch them? Each marine only has to catch their own rifle. Can you imagine what would happen if one of them was like 'Oh ****...I can't do it today. Can you catch my rifle for me?' Somehow, I just don't think that would fly. They are expected to throw and catch only their rifle - not anyone else's.
Proof you know **** about the military or the Brotherhood of Arms. Shut up, now.
It's 'I got mine by making the right decisions - if someone else can't do the same, it ain't my fault.'
Here's a military analogy for you: Why should I put my ass on the line to defend your freedoms? If you can't or won't defend them for yourself, not my problem.
-
Here's a military analogy for you: Why should I put my ass on the line to defend your freedoms? If you can't or won't defend them for yourself, not my problem.
Damn.
-
Here's a military analogy for you: Why should I put my ass on the line to defend your freedoms? If you can't or won't defend them for yourself, not my problem.
Because you chose too? And anyway I can and will defend them for myself - but an organized military has greater strength from a strategic advantage. That's why we have one. Bad example.
-
Here's a military analogy for you: Why should I put my ass on the line to defend your freedoms? If you can't or won't defend them for yourself, not my problem.
i'd agree with that 100%. One of my biggest pet peeves is the laziness of my fellow liberals (never mind the selfishness of conservatives). The laziness of liberals is complicit with the selfishness of conservatives, in a lot of ways.
Obama just said something along those lines (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/28/politics/main6907246.shtml). As I keep saying, if the tea partiers win, in a democracy, we honestly have only ourselves to blame and no one else.
-
Because you chose too? And anyway I can and will defend them for myself
Nut up or shut up.
-
Nut up or shut up.
Of course you're not in the Marines so I can see that and a lot of things going over your head...
-
Of course you're not in the Marines so I can see that and a lot of things going over your head...
Wrong.
Again.
-
(http://www.comictreadmill.com/CTMBlogarchives/2007Images/Atom11BSmoochies.jpg)
GET A ROOM, YOU TWO!
-
Wrong.
Again.
About what exactly?
GET A ROOM, YOU TWO!
Lol...that's why I had asked people to PM me (to cut down on the trolling)
Welly PMed me but only asked me if I went on OCN and "A/S/L"?
Since I don't want him and pedobear climbin' through my windows & snatchin' my people up, I didn't give him that information ;)
-
(http://www.cadetstuff.org/images/stanford_marine_blues.jpg)
You were saying about things going over my head..?
-
Oh...thought you were Army...my bad.
(Hope you're not too offended...I have some Marine friends so I know why you would be).
-
And, anyway, what we were talking about was why I should defend your freedoms when you're too lazy, not ambitious enough or haven't made the right choices to defend your own...
-
And, anyway, what we were talking about was why I should defend your freedoms when you're too lazy, not ambitious enough or haven't made the right choices to defend your own...
Actually believe it or not I wanted to join the Marines when I was in high school. But I have some health issues and when I discussed them with the recruiter on the phone, he told me the corps wasn't for me. I suspect he was right...everyone has their place in this world don't they?
-
Actually believe it or not I wanted to join the Marines when I was in high school. But I have some health issues and when I discussed them with the recruiter on the phone, he told me the corps wasn't for me. I suspect he was right...everyone has their place in this world don't they?
A tough break. So, why should I defend your freedoms? Your health issues aren't my problem...
-
Ah, pre-existing conditions.
Exactly the sort of thing that won't be declined with your new system.
They're not declined with my existing insurance either.
A tough break. So, why should I defend your freedoms? Your health issues aren't my problem...
Already explained that one...because you chose to join the military.
-
Oh...thought you were Army...my bad.(Hope you're not too offended...I have some Marine friends so I know why you would be).
I am in the Army, and I'm just as proud to serve in this uniform as I ever was to put on Dress Blues.
-
They're not declined with my existing insurance either.
They would have been if you'd had a break in coverage. Even a single day.
-
Son of a *****! You mean my tax dollars are paying Shawn Stafford to defend keyboardlover's lame ass and not just mine?!?!? Mother****er.
-
I think privatization of healthcare makes more sense than privatization of military (anarchy). But that's just me.
-
I think privatization of healthcare makes more sense than privatization of military (anarchy). But that's just me.
Also not what we're talking about. You posited above that other people's failure to take care of themselves was not your problem. I'm saying that that logically extends to other forms of care, such as my defending your freedoms when you are unable to do so.
Defend your position.
-
Son of a *****! You mean my tax dollars are paying Shawn Stafford to defend keyboardlover's lame ass and not just mine?!?!? Mother****er.
lol! my thoughts exactly
besides pedo-bear is seriously hot for kl's ass. Seriously. he's hunting.
-
he told me the corps wasn't for me
DADT again? damn that supreme court.
-
Also not what we're talking about. You posited above that other people's failure to take care of themselves was not your problem. I'm saying that that logically extends to other forms of care, such as my defending your freedoms when you are unable to do so.
Defend your position.
Read what I said, then think about it. It is my position.
"Logically", this doesn't extend to the military, since privatized military would be anarchy. I'm pretty sure most of the nation would not want a privatized military.
****in logic! How does it work?
-
The main reason why I oppose Obamacare is the government just can't afford it. We're already over $12,000,000,000,000,000.00 (Or $12 trillion) in debt and they think we can afford to spend another $1,000,000,000,000,000.00 on health care? Social Security, Medicare, and other welfare programs are already shaping up to cause a significant crisis later on (Many estimate unfunded liabilities exceed $100,000,000,000,000,000.00). I feel the costs of this health care reform in the long run will far outweigh the benifits. We bailed out the banks and automakers, and our grandchildren will be bailing out the government, thanks to us.
-
DADT again? damn that supreme court.
You're getting wittier...keep working on it! You'll get there!
-
During the ceasefire I would simply like to respond to Lam47's post, oh, like 10 pages ago.
omg, lammy's back?! Cool!!
-
You're getting wittier...keep working on it! You'll get there!
your ass is looking rounder and firmer... I'll get there...
-
your ass is looking rounder and firmer... I'll get there...
(http://geekhack.org/image.php?u=1349&dateline=1272083255)
+
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_f3SZ5Tu916o/S8oMjXM7bVI/AAAAAAAAQfA/WHq5GqoU3vA/s400/pedobear.png)
=
(http://static.open.salon.com/files/home-alone1243399120.png)
-
The main reason why I oppose Obamacare is the government just can't afford it.
Okay, that's different from saying that the poor or unlucky don't deserve healthcare. This is based on ignorance, not on being a ****. Ignorance we can fix...
My wife has worked her entire career in healthcare (pharmaceuticals, healthcare-industry data systems, insurance providers), and she will tell you that you're already paying for universal healthcare, you're just doing it in an uncontrolled way.
Follow along...
Everyone in this country is guaranteed emergency room care. If you walk into an emergency room at any hospital in this country, the have to treat you until you are medically stable regardless of your ability to pay. That is an indisputable fact. That is the law.
When someone takes emergency room treatment and doesn't pay (for whatever reason), any costs the hospital can't recoup from various government programs for the indigent it then spreads among those who can pay in the form of additional overhead costs. These overhead costs go into everything: room costs, food costs, pharmaceuticals, supplies, etc.
So, you can see that you're already paying for healthcare for the indigent. You're paying in the form of hospital costs that go against your taxes and against your healthcare premiums via hospital charges.
Healthcare reform intends to do several things to solve this problem (and others).
First: By giving people access to non-emergency care, it encourages them to take well visits with a doctor to stay healthy, and to handle routine illnesses via doctor visits before they become emergencies.
Second: Since all the costs are being paid for, they hospital has to justify everything they charge, they can't hide actual costs in general overhead fees. Believe it or not: hospitals and doctors will actually steal from insurance companies via overcharging if they can get away with it. This gives them less of a chance to get away with it.
Another interesting fact about healthcare: 90% of healthcare costs in this country go to 10% of people: the elderly and the permanently disabled. And the vast majority of that goes to the elderly. If you know anything about risk pools, you know that in order for any sort of insurance costs to be reasonable, you have to have a big pool of people, most of whom are going to be cheap to pay for.
That's why privatization won't work. We have a massive bubble of Medicare costs coming as the Boomers age. Unless pretty much everyone in the country is part of the insurance pool that supports their costs, we're going to have to let them die in the streets or break the bank.
Costs will come down, but only if the government has oversight on enough of a percentage of the population to make itself felt. My wife says that Medicare is one of the most cost-effective and cost-sensitive programs out there. They absolutely get their money's worth out of the providers!
There's a lot of bull**** flying around about government bureacracy and how the government can't run a healthcare system, but that's also smoke and mirrors. That bureacracy already exists, both within and without the government; we call it the health insurance industry. And the government isn't going to 'run' the system, they merely want to make sure that everyone is getting paid for. We have that today: we call it Medicare. And, there are a lot of folks and their families being taken care of my the DOD health care system, TriCare and the VA; the government has a little experience doing this sort of stuff.
-
Let's just say that if the government can't switch over TV without the program going broke, I don't even want to think about what they've got in store for health care.
-
Let's just say that if the government can't switch over TV without the program going broke, I don't even want to think about what they've got in store for health care.
WTF? Do you even read your posts before you click 'Submit'? I provide you with concrete reasons why healthcare reform is necessary and good and all you can say is this?
(http://trollcats.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/fail_trollcat.jpg)
We're done here. Return to your lives, Citizens.
-
Well, you got to admit I had a point there.
-
Hey! Now you owe me 40 bucks you jerk!
-
Hey! You owe me 0.000013 cents you jerk!
-
Since I watch US TV 95% of the time
You are exactly the demographic I'm concerned about!
-
You are exactly the demographic I'm concerned about!
Because we know all [strike]cheapskate[/strike] frugal Canadian keyboard-collecting watchers of US television—who aren't in the army or the marines—certainly all sit on their asses instead of work for a living, and are coming to the states to get free Obama-care.
Disjointed argument is disjointed.
-
Because we know all cheapskate Canadian keyboard-collecting watchers of US television—who aren't in the army or the marines—certainly all sit on their asses instead of work for a living, and are coming to the states to get free Obama-care.
Disjointed argument is disjointed.
And that post was meant seriously.
Sarcasm. At least Kishy gets it :\
-
Shawn, just remember numbers are like women. If they are under 13 it's best to do them in your head.
Hahahaha. Thanks for that.
[long argument about emergency care snipped]
So, you can see that you're already paying for healthcare for the indigent.
You're forgetting that because KL has the right moral values, he won't ever need emergency care, or if he did, it would be his own damn fault. In other words: we don't need hospitals. Even if they are profitable.
-
You're forgetting that because KL has the right moral values, he won't ever need emergency care, or if he did, it would be his own damn fault. In other words: we don't need hospitals. Even if they are profitable.
20 posts later, we still have someone who has absolutely no clue regarding my position in the matter. Intelligence for the win!
-
20 posts later, we still have someone who has absolutely no clue regarding my position in the matter. Intelligence for the win!
I would like to know your position, but the last 20 pages have been you posting pictures of Obama. So don't blame me for that.
EDIT: Oh, and I forgot about your admission of trolling.
-
I would like to know your position, but the last 20 pages have been you posting pictures of Obama. So don't blame me for that.
Yea, my position was made before that...and I guess kind of clarified a bit after that (after more questioning). It's a long thread, but you should read it before posting about something already covered.
Plus, the Obama pics are hella lulz so if anything, it's worth re-readiing just for them ;)
-
Yea, my position was made before that...and I guess kind of clarified a bit after that (after more questioning). It's a long thread, but you should read it before posting about something already covered.
I have read all of it. For my sins, probably. You still haven't made any clear argument. Your premises are logical but IMHO anti-social, and your conclusions are non-existent and your final claims mostly involve discarding the more obvious problems with your premises without any ground. This is not how one makes a convincing or even understandable argument.
-
I have read all of it. For my sins, probably. You still haven't made any clear argument. Your premises are logical but IMHO anti-social, and your conclusions are non-existent and your final claims mostly involve discarding the more obvious problems with your premises without any ground. This is not how one makes a convincing or even understandable argument.
You're really tempting me to post another Obama pic at this point... (sorry Welly)
Other people already got my point; if you'd like to clarify something already covered than ask me via PM.
-
You're really tempting me to post another Obama pic at this point... (sorry Welly)
Whatever.
Other people already got my point
No they don't. Or "In your head!"
if you'd like to clarify something already covered than ask me via PM.
I'll ask you to answer here, in public: what should be done about the people who don't have enough money and yet need medical attention, and how does that square up with your principles?
-
I'll ask you to answer here, in public: what should be done about the people who don't have enough money and yet need medical attention, and how does that square up with your principles?
For the 987070973th time, low-income folks are ALREADY covered under Medicaid which I ALREADY pay taxes for! It's a crappy system, yes, but I think it should be improved. That said, much of the money is still unfortunately wasted for non-medical reasons!
These are all things I've already said...hence why I asked you to re-read the thread.
-
For the 987070973th time, low-income folks are ALREADY covered under Medicaid which I ALREADY pay taxes for! It's a crappy system, yes, but I think it should be improved. That said, much of the money is still unfortunately wasted for non-medical reasons!
These are all things I've already said...hence why I asked you to re-read the thread.
And you've conveniently ignored the second EDIT: actually both parts of the question. Please continue.
-
And you've conveniently ignored the second EDIT: actually both parts of the question. Please continue.
Your post has trollish characteristics. Please either re-read the thread or PM me. Case closed.
-
Your post has trollish characteristics. Please either re-read the thread or PM me. Case closed.
You're one to talk. All I really want to know is how you can get from your principles to "medicare [etc] should be improved [and how and to what]". You're doing exactly what I said above: claiming vague conclusions that don't appear to make any sense in your stated world view.
-
You're one to talk. All I really want to know is how you can get from your principles to "medicare [etc] should be improved [and how and to what]". You're doing exactly what I said above: claiming vague conclusions that don't appear to make any sense in your stated world view.
You're correct that I didn't really make a final conclusion...all I did was list reasons why I oppose universal healthcare in this country (and I only listed some of them - imagine how long this thread could have been!)
I don't need to make a final conclusion, or talk about all the things that can be improved in Medicare (though I already mentioned some) - this isn't a freaking term paper. I made points and backed them up. If you'd like to know more, PM me.
Or buy my book. Coming 2012 on hardback ;)
-
You're correct that I didn't really make a final conclusion...all I did was list reasons why I oppose universal healthcare in this country (and I only listed some of them - imagine how long this thread could have been!)
I don't need to make a final conclusion - this isn't a freaking term paper. I made points and backed them up. If you'd like to know more, PM me.
Or buy my book. Coming 2012 on hardback ;)
Oh very well. I'll just conclude you've actually not thought about this at all.
-
Oh very well. I'll just conclude you've actually not thought about this at all.
Cool, whatever helps you sleep at night.
-
Folks, honestly, this thread was dead after 5 pages. The only reason we're at page 27 right now is because of KL's incessent (and utterly incomprehensible) trolling. I'm amazed to see so many people try to reason with him when he's so obviously not interested in reason.
KL, man, you're the new MW! More power to ya.
For now I'm taking the unprecedented step of closing my own thread. Why? Because if KL posts another obama pic in here, I'll have to have butt sex with him for 5 years and then strangle him. And while I might enjoy that (and hell, maybe he will too), I'd hate to put my GH friends through that again.
So as for the rest of you, may I offer you one of many other impossible threads here at geekhack this evening? There is the palestine-israel thread for your arguing pleasure, always a good candidate. There is the alternate energy thread of course, something about rare earth minerals posted there recently, might want to check it out. There is our classic Religion thread (50+ pages!) that I understand has been resurrected recently. And I understand the Islam thread hasnt been touched for 4 whole days, might want to make a contribution there.
I'd like to suggest these further topics, for any enterprising arguers to open in a new thread:
--female circumcision: beloved tradition or male oppression?
--Hitler: misunderstood artist or single-testicled sociopath?
--Kashmir: pakistan occupied cesspool or Indian occupied cesspool?
--Tibet: cultural genocide or actual genocide?
...and many more. We've got impossible topics galore and for each one there will be a KL standing by to take youse all on.
Or why not just head on over to kishy's song of the week thread and enjoy some music? Perhaps discuss kurt cobain suicide theories?
I hear Jessica Alba's boobs are the main topic in the Facebook Movie thread. Fascinating!