Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Why isn't Sharron Angle in jail? [DOMESTIC TERRORISM]

12357

Posts

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    I'm pretty much a federalist because I'm yet to see a state government that isn't fucked is a far more profound way than our federal government is.

    Michigan and New Jersey, among others, would like a word with you.

    And let's not forget California.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Philly, while typically and somewhat rightly decried as an overly bureaucratic hellhole, does a far sight better with its own governance than the Pennsylvania state government does with it's handling of Philadelphia.

    My position on our continued involvement with the state can be summed up pretty well by my title.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • XaevXaev Registered User
    edited November 2010
    I'm pretty much a federalist because I'm yet to see a state government that isn't fucked is a far more profound way than our federal government is.

    Michigan and New Jersey, among others, would like a word with you.

    And let's not forget California.

    I think you guys are misinterpreting him; he's saying that the state governments are worse than the federal government.

    Steam - Lysus || XBL - Veax || PSN - Lysus || WoW - Lysus (Korgath - US) || Guild Wars - Lysus Yjirkar || Starcraft II - Lysus.781 || League of Legends - Lysus
    Feel free to add me on whatever network, it's always more fun to play with people than alone
  • FencingsaxFencingsax Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    I'm pretty much a federalist because I'm yet to see a state government that isn't fucked is a far more profound way than our federal government is.

    Michigan and New Jersey, among others, would like a word with you.

    And let's not forget California.

    Nexus is saying that states are more fucked than the federal. California definitely qualifies.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Oh, oops.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Ask Republicans what they thought of Oregon's efforts to provide it's citizens with health care.

    Or, for that matter, what they thought of "RomneyCare" when he ran in the republican primary.

    whoops.jpg

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    if the rapture don't come cousin, then pass the guns
    I'll burn'em for the return of my investment funds
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Anyway. The general point is this:

    I, like most people, realize that it is possible to hold an antifederalist political position. I think it produces a bunch of bad outcomes and generally is a fucking dumb thing to believe in WRT a lot of policy areas, but fine, I acknowledge that you can hold that position without being intellectually dishonest.

    with that said

    The antifederalist position hasn't been the substantive position of the Republican Party in the last thirty years at least. That just isn't how the party's elected representatives have voted or governed, and if you think it is, you're wrong. Both parties have been thoroughly statist and thoroughly in favor of the exercise of federal power since the 70s (really earlier than that, but to avoid having to split hairs I'll say the 70s.) You cannot find me a point of meaningfully antifederalist piece of Republican policy within that time frame, because it doesn't exist.

    States' rights is a wonderful piece of rhetoric that conservatives have used to great effect to oppose all manner of liberal legislation, but they have no problem at all exercising federal power in favor of policy that they do support. Dress this up as a result of "the big tent" all you want, but people are just going to continue to laugh at you about it.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    if the rapture don't come cousin, then pass the guns
    I'll burn'em for the return of my investment funds
  • ZythonZython Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    When "progressive" policies are adopted on the federal level, the conservative basically has to suck it up or leave the country.

    Where were you to say this about regressive policies when the Republicans were in power?

    3DS Friend Code: 4854-6465-0299 | Wii U: zython
    Steam: pazython
    Lv 90 Tauren Shaman Lv 90 Pandaren Monk
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Zython wrote: »
    Arturick wrote: »
    When "progressive" policies are adopted on the federal level, the conservative basically has to suck it up or leave the country.

    Where were you to say this about regressive policies when the Republicans were in power?

    I'm curious who these Republican politicians for small government are. God knows it hasn't been any of the ones in power.

    PSN: allenquid
  • ElitistbElitistb Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    That said, marriage impacts the federal government, most notably in terms of taxation of a household vs. taxation of individuals. So, the government must choose at some point to officially define marriage, reduce taxes for any group of individuals who describe themselves as married, or change the tax laws to eliminate the marriage benefit.

    If this were a concern, then people should be advocating against marriage having a tax impact at all. Otherwise granting gays marriage rights has the exact same effect as another 3-5% of the population being married.

    The tax impact argument is and always has been a total smokescreen.

    steam_sig.png
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Hahahaha. No they don't. State's rights is a boondoggle and always has been.
    How so? Our entire system of Federalism was explicitly set up to limit certain powers to the states.

    There are some powers the feds don't have and there are certain government programs that are best administered on the local and/or state level.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Hahahaha. No they don't. State's rights is a boondoggle and always has been.
    How so? Our entire system of Federalism was explicitly set up to limit certain powers to the states.

    There are some powers the feds don't have and there are certain government programs that are best administered on the local and/or state level.

    Of course, nobody has ever proven this, and historically everyone crying "states' rights!" has instantly flip-flopped when a state did things they didn't like.

  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Hahahaha. No they don't. State's rights is a boondoggle and always has been.
    How so? Our entire system of Federalism was explicitly set up to limit certain powers to the states.

    There are some powers the feds don't have and there are certain government programs that are best administered on the local and/or state level.

    Of course, nobody has ever proven this, and historically everyone crying "states' rights!" has instantly flip-flopped when a state did things they didn't like.

    At least liberals tend to be fairly consistent (also intellectually honest) with what they want the government doing and what they don't want the government doing.

    steam_sig.png
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    First, the question of which healthcare system is better based on whether they depend on money is a dishonest question. All healthcare systems depend on money (money being an abstraction for calculating the value of resources). The question is whether the money is spent by the individual, a corporation that acts as an intermediary for the individual, or the government acting as intermediary for the individual. You are inserting the subjective assumption that being denied healthcare because you lack money is morally superior to being denied healthcare because the government lacks the money.

    This is an impressive non answer. Of course healthcare is going to cost someone money. The point is we decide how that money is spent based purely on who has the most of it. Tell me how to delivers more effective care than one that spends money based on the need and effectiveness of the treatment.

    sig.jpg
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    I'm pretty much a federalist because I'm yet to see a state government that isn't fucked is a far more profound way than our federal government is.

    Michigan and New Jersey, among others, would like a word with you.

    And let's not forget California.

    Nexus is saying that states are more fucked than the federal. California definitely qualifies.

    Jersey's govt sucks pretty bad

    no where near as bad as NYs tho

    where a man can get rewarded for betraying his own party and impossible to remove when he's convicted of smashing his gf in the face with a bottle

  • ArturickArturick Registered User
    edited November 2010
    First, the question of which healthcare system is better based on whether they depend on money is a dishonest question. All healthcare systems depend on money (money being an abstraction for calculating the value of resources). The question is whether the money is spent by the individual, a corporation that acts as an intermediary for the individual, or the government acting as intermediary for the individual. You are inserting the subjective assumption that being denied healthcare because you lack money is morally superior to being denied healthcare because the government lacks the money.

    This is an impressive non answer. Of course healthcare is going to cost someone money. The point is we decide how that money is spent based purely on who has the most of it. Tell me how to delivers more effective care than one that spends money based on the need and effectiveness of the treatment.

    All healthcare is based on effectiveness, need, and available resources. You are presupposing a moral distinction between an individual, a corporation, and a government deciding how to handle the situation.

    A government, because it can seize capital from citizens, is assumed to have the greatest potential pool of resources, but it's actions must be a matter of settled law, so it will have the most rigid guidelines on how to dispense those resources. It is the system assumed to be best funded, but with arguably the least individual control

    An insurance corporation receives capital from numerous members, and is somewhere in between the government and the individual in terms of resources. It will have bureaucratic guidelines for coverage, but could make special dispensations at the judgement of the corporate heads, since it's guidelines can be changed or overlooked without the legal process of government action. Since multiple insurance companies exist, an individual can shop for a particular combination of coverage and cost. So, it is a moderate source of resources and individual control.

    An individual can come from a broad array of wealth categories, but is assumed to possess the least resources in comparison to the corporation and the government. The individual's access to care is limited by what resources he can obtain and his ability to negotiate a contractual agreement with a physician. The individual then decides what efforts are necessary or "worth the cost" without constraint by any set of guidelines but his own needs, capabilities, and preferences. So the individual buyer has the greatest freedom with the least resources.

    Now, the liberal finds it morally repugnant when the individual cannot pay for a particular treatment. The conservative finds it morally repugnant when government bureaucrats rule out potentially effective treatments because it's not in the budget. And EVERYONE hates the insurance companies, but that hatred is sort of compartmentalized with our hatred of everyone else we do business with, because it's not in human nature to feel that you haven't been somehow cheated.

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    I'm pretty much a federalist because I'm yet to see a state government that isn't fucked is a far more profound way than our federal government is.

    Michigan and New Jersey, among others, would like a word with you.

    And let's not forget California.

    Nexus is saying that states are more fucked than the federal. California definitely qualifies.

    Jersey's govt sucks pretty bad

    no where near as bad as NYs tho

    where a man can get rewarded for betraying his own party and impossible to remove when he's convicted of smashing his gf in the face with a bottle
    Pretty sure that guy lost his primary to a real Democrat eventually, though.

  • LizardLizard Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    I'm sure right now Harry Reid is sighing in relief that his life and property are safe.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    First, the question of which healthcare system is better based on whether they depend on money is a dishonest question. All healthcare systems depend on money (money being an abstraction for calculating the value of resources). The question is whether the money is spent by the individual, a corporation that acts as an intermediary for the individual, or the government acting as intermediary for the individual. You are inserting the subjective assumption that being denied healthcare because you lack money is morally superior to being denied healthcare because the government lacks the money.

    This is an impressive non answer. Of course healthcare is going to cost someone money. The point is we decide how that money is spent based purely on who has the most of it. Tell me how to delivers more effective care than one that spends money based on the need and effectiveness of the treatment.

    All healthcare is based on effectiveness, need, and available resources. You are presupposing a moral distinction between an individual, a corporation, and a government deciding how to handle the situation.

    A government, because it can seize capital from citizens, is assumed to have the greatest potential pool of resources, but it's actions must be a matter of settled law, so it will have the most rigid guidelines on how to dispense those resources. It is the system assumed to be best funded, but with arguably the least individual control

    An insurance corporation receives capital from numerous members, and is somewhere in between the government and the individual in terms of resources. It will have bureaucratic guidelines for coverage, but could make special dispensations at the judgement of the corporate heads, since it's guidelines can be changed or overlooked without the legal process of government action. Since multiple insurance companies exist, an individual can shop for a particular combination of coverage and cost. So, it is a moderate source of resources and individual control.

    An individual can come from a broad array of wealth categories, but is assumed to possess the least resources in comparison to the corporation and the government. The individual's access to care is limited by what resources he can obtain and his ability to negotiate a contractual agreement with a physician. The individual then decides what efforts are necessary or "worth the cost" without constraint by any set of guidelines but his own needs, capabilities, and preferences. So the individual buyer has the greatest freedom with the least resources.

    Now, the liberal finds it morally repugnant when the individual cannot pay for a particular treatment. The conservative finds it morally repugnant when government bureaucrats rule out potentially effective treatments because it's not in the budget. And EVERYONE hates the insurance companies, but that hatred is sort of compartmentalized with our hatred of everyone else we do business with, because it's not in human nature to feel that you haven't been somehow cheated.

    You're dodging the question again with a bunch of irrelevant nonsense. Why is a system that uses private wealth as the gateway to access better than one that uses need and effectiveness?

    sig.jpg
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    First, the question of which healthcare system is better based on whether they depend on money is a dishonest question. All healthcare systems depend on money (money being an abstraction for calculating the value of resources). The question is whether the money is spent by the individual, a corporation that acts as an intermediary for the individual, or the government acting as intermediary for the individual. You are inserting the subjective assumption that being denied healthcare because you lack money is morally superior to being denied healthcare because the government lacks the money.

    This is an impressive non answer. Of course healthcare is going to cost someone money. The point is we decide how that money is spent based purely on who has the most of it. Tell me how to delivers more effective care than one that spends money based on the need and effectiveness of the treatment.

    All healthcare is based on effectiveness, need, and available resources. You are presupposing a moral distinction between an individual, a corporation, and a government deciding how to handle the situation.

    A government, because it can seize capital from citizens, is assumed to have the greatest potential pool of resources, but it's actions must be a matter of settled law, so it will have the most rigid guidelines on how to dispense those resources. It is the system assumed to be best funded, but with arguably the least individual control

    An insurance corporation receives capital from numerous members, and is somewhere in between the government and the individual in terms of resources. It will have bureaucratic guidelines for coverage, but could make special dispensations at the judgement of the corporate heads, since it's guidelines can be changed or overlooked without the legal process of government action. Since multiple insurance companies exist, an individual can shop for a particular combination of coverage and cost. So, it is a moderate source of resources and individual control.

    An individual can come from a broad array of wealth categories, but is assumed to possess the least resources in comparison to the corporation and the government. The individual's access to care is limited by what resources he can obtain and his ability to negotiate a contractual agreement with a physician. The individual then decides what efforts are necessary or "worth the cost" without constraint by any set of guidelines but his own needs, capabilities, and preferences. So the individual buyer has the greatest freedom with the least resources.

    Now, the liberal finds it morally repugnant when the individual cannot pay for a particular treatment. The conservative finds it morally repugnant when government bureaucrats rule out potentially effective treatments because it's not in the budget. And EVERYONE hates the insurance companies, but that hatred is sort of compartmentalized with our hatred of everyone else we do business with, because it's not in human nature to feel that you haven't been somehow cheated.

    You're dodging the question again with a bunch of irrelevant nonsense. Why is a system that uses private wealth as the gateway to access better than one that uses need and effectiveness?

    Especially when the metrics show the private wealth system performs abysmally. Please, stop with the paeans to libertarianism, and answer the question.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Does the conservative not find it repugnant when corporate bureaucrats rule out a treatment because they don't want to pay for it?

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Hahahaha. No they don't. State's rights is a boondoggle and always has been.
    How so? Our entire system of Federalism was explicitly set up to limit certain powers to the states.

    There are some powers the feds don't have and there are certain government programs that are best administered on the local and/or state level.

    You'll note that when the system was set up, the colonies/states were fiercely independent and didn't trust each other, so such a system was required. It wasn't set up that way because it was better (and there was a pretty significant argument about this among the Founders, which was won by the Federalists, if you'll recall), but because it was required.

    More to the point, state's rights is a phrase people use when the federal government does something they don't like. Like say slavery is wrong.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    First, the question of which healthcare system is better based on whether they depend on money is a dishonest question. All healthcare systems depend on money (money being an abstraction for calculating the value of resources). The question is whether the money is spent by the individual, a corporation that acts as an intermediary for the individual, or the government acting as intermediary for the individual. You are inserting the subjective assumption that being denied healthcare because you lack money is morally superior to being denied healthcare because the government lacks the money.

    This is an impressive non answer. Of course healthcare is going to cost someone money. The point is we decide how that money is spent based purely on who has the most of it. Tell me how to delivers more effective care than one that spends money based on the need and effectiveness of the treatment.

    All healthcare is based on effectiveness, need, and available resources. You are presupposing a moral distinction between an individual, a corporation, and a government deciding how to handle the situation.

    A government, because it can seize capital from citizens, is assumed to have the greatest potential pool of resources, but it's actions must be a matter of settled law, so it will have the most rigid guidelines on how to dispense those resources. It is the system assumed to be best funded, but with arguably the least individual control

    An insurance corporation receives capital from numerous members, and is somewhere in between the government and the individual in terms of resources. It will have bureaucratic guidelines for coverage, but could make special dispensations at the judgement of the corporate heads, since it's guidelines can be changed or overlooked without the legal process of government action. Since multiple insurance companies exist, an individual can shop for a particular combination of coverage and cost. So, it is a moderate source of resources and individual control.

    An individual can come from a broad array of wealth categories, but is assumed to possess the least resources in comparison to the corporation and the government. The individual's access to care is limited by what resources he can obtain and his ability to negotiate a contractual agreement with a physician. The individual then decides what efforts are necessary or "worth the cost" without constraint by any set of guidelines but his own needs, capabilities, and preferences. So the individual buyer has the greatest freedom with the least resources.

    Now, the liberal finds it morally repugnant when the individual cannot pay for a particular treatment. The conservative finds it morally repugnant when government bureaucrats rule out potentially effective treatments because it's not in the budget. And EVERYONE hates the insurance companies, but that hatred is sort of compartmentalized with our hatred of everyone else we do business with, because it's not in human nature to feel that you haven't been somehow cheated.

    You're dodging the question again with a bunch of irrelevant nonsense. Why is a system that uses private wealth as the gateway to access better than one that uses need and effectiveness?

    Especially when the metrics show the private wealth system performs abysmally. Please, stop with the paeans to libertarianism, and answer the question.

    This is one step away from "money is a measure of person's worth to society at large!"

    the GOP shouldn't give a rats ass about them since they won't vote for them. If someone won't vote for you they might as well not exist.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    This is one step away from "money is a measure of person's worth to society at large!

    What do you expect from the party of Rand?

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    Now, the liberal finds it morally repugnant when the individual cannot pay for a particular treatment. The conservative finds it morally repugnant when government bureaucrats rule out potentially effective treatments because it's not in the budget.

    I don't find either of those things to be morally repugnant. That would be like saying that it's morally repugnant for a road to have a pothole, or for lightning to strike a tree and set it on fire. What you describe are unfortunate circumstances, not the results of grave misbehavior on the part of human beings.

    However, if there's a way to fix potholes, or a way to control forest fires, it would be morally superior to attempt to do so. The calculus in each case is simple - fewer potholes is better than more potholes, fewer forest fires is better than more forest fires, and fewer sick people is better than more sick people.

    So the question in each case is, given finite resources for preventing (or remediating) these unfortunate circumstances, how are our resources best spent? Well, the preponderance of evidence shows that countries with national taxpayer-subsidized health care systems spend less per capita yet have superior outcomes than the US. Within the US, national taxpayer-subsidized health care systems (Medicare and the VA) spend less per patient yet have superior outcomes than private systems.

    Consequently, even if it is not morally repugnant when somebody gets sick, it is pragmatically superior to implement a national taxpayer-subsidized health care system.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    If the Invisible Hand intended for someone to be healed, it would have given them the means to pay for the service.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Your supposition that government regulation is inherently inflexible is simply wrong. While government is legally obligated to operate within the law regulations can always be tweaked without a bill being passed. And likewise they can be worded in such a way that gives government employees some latitude is decision making.

    Somewhere down the line there's almost always going to be someone making a judgment call. Lots of things in government are automated but there's usually a way to appeal to a real person or roads for exceptions to be made. The government is not an immutable blob anymore than the private sector is.

  • ArturickArturick Registered User
    edited November 2010
    You're dodging the question again with a bunch of irrelevant nonsense. Why is a system that uses private wealth as the gateway to access better than one that uses need and effectiveness?

    You're asking me a question that does not make sense to me. You're asking me to defend a hypothetical situation where need and effectiveness are not taken into consideration because of the source of funding. Need and effectiveness are huge factors in any contractual relationship between a patient and doctor.

    Am I supposed to say that need and effectiveness aren't important and here's why?

    Is your point that individual wealth should not be a determining factor in access to goods and services?

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    [

    You're asking me a question that does not make sense to me. You're asking me to defend a hypothetical situation where need and effectiveness are not taken into consideration because of the source of funding. Need and effectiveness are huge factors in any contractual relationship between a patient and doctor.
    Don't play dumb, you made this claim not 3 pages ago. Need and proof of effect won't get you a procedure, the amount of money in your pocket will. You defended that reality then spent 3 pages running away from it.
    Is your point that individual wealth should not be a determining factor in access to goods and services?


    In health care, yes. Your personal wealth should not determine if you get to live.

    sig.jpg
  • ArturickArturick Registered User
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    [

    You're asking me a question that does not make sense to me. You're asking me to defend a hypothetical situation where need and effectiveness are not taken into consideration because of the source of funding. Need and effectiveness are huge factors in any contractual relationship between a patient and doctor.
    Don't play dumb, you made this claim not 3 pages ago. Need and proof of effect won't get you a procedure, the amount of money in your pocket will. You defended that reality then spent 3 pages running away from it.
    Is your point that individual wealth should not be a determining factor in access to goods and services?


    In health care, yes. Your personal wealth should not determine if you get to live.

    I didn't say that need and effectiveness are the sole matters of consideration in any system. Resources must be available from some source. Need and effectiveness are taken into consideration before resources are allocated.

    So, are you saying that personal wealth should not be allowed to influence duration and quality of life?

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    Arturick wrote: »
    [

    You're asking me a question that does not make sense to me. You're asking me to defend a hypothetical situation where need and effectiveness are not taken into consideration because of the source of funding. Need and effectiveness are huge factors in any contractual relationship between a patient and doctor.
    Don't play dumb, you made this claim not 3 pages ago. Need and proof of effect won't get you a procedure, the amount of money in your pocket will. You defended that reality then spent 3 pages running away from it.
    Is your point that individual wealth should not be a determining factor in access to goods and services?


    In health care, yes. Your personal wealth should not determine if you get to live.

    I didn't say that need and effectiveness are the sole matters of consideration in any system. Resources must be available from some source. Need and effectiveness are taken into consideration before resources are allocated.

    So, are you saying that personal wealth should not be allowed to influence duration and quality of life?

    Need is not considered in allocating health care resources in this country. Not even close. Go to a hospital and try to get full care without insurance, they'll stabilize you then tell you to fuck right off. Resources outside basic charity and social services are allocated in America entirely based on the wealth of the individual. Normally this is fine, as long as a minimal access to goods and services is available for all, but with health care its unacceptable.

    I'm saying that lack of personal wealth should have no effect on one's access to health care, nothing more, nothing less.

    sig.jpg
  • FencingsaxFencingsax Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    More properly, lack of personal wealth should not influence those things.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • ArturickArturick Registered User
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    Arturick wrote: »
    [

    You're asking me a question that does not make sense to me. You're asking me to defend a hypothetical situation where need and effectiveness are not taken into consideration because of the source of funding. Need and effectiveness are huge factors in any contractual relationship between a patient and doctor.
    Don't play dumb, you made this claim not 3 pages ago. Need and proof of effect won't get you a procedure, the amount of money in your pocket will. You defended that reality then spent 3 pages running away from it.
    Is your point that individual wealth should not be a determining factor in access to goods and services?


    In health care, yes. Your personal wealth should not determine if you get to live.

    I didn't say that need and effectiveness are the sole matters of consideration in any system. Resources must be available from some source. Need and effectiveness are taken into consideration before resources are allocated.

    So, are you saying that personal wealth should not be allowed to influence duration and quality of life?

    Need is not considered in allocating health care resources in this country. Not even close. Go to a hospital and try to get full care without insurance, they'll stabilize you then tell you to fuck right off. Resources outside basic charity and social services are allocated in America entirely based on the wealth of the individual. Normally this is fine, as long as a minimal access to goods and services is available for all, but with health care its unacceptable.

    I'm saying that personal wealth should have no effect on one's access to health care, nothing more, nothing less.

    But why are the services and goods provided by doctors and hospitals uniquely the province of government, and not the numerous other things that contribute to duration and quality of life?

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    More properly, lack of personal wealth should not influence those things.

    Yes, thanks you. I've edited accordingly.

    sig.jpg
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    Arturick wrote: »
    Arturick wrote: »
    [

    You're asking me a question that does not make sense to me. You're asking me to defend a hypothetical situation where need and effectiveness are not taken into consideration because of the source of funding. Need and effectiveness are huge factors in any contractual relationship between a patient and doctor.
    Don't play dumb, you made this claim not 3 pages ago. Need and proof of effect won't get you a procedure, the amount of money in your pocket will. You defended that reality then spent 3 pages running away from it.
    Is your point that individual wealth should not be a determining factor in access to goods and services?


    In health care, yes. Your personal wealth should not determine if you get to live.

    I didn't say that need and effectiveness are the sole matters of consideration in any system. Resources must be available from some source. Need and effectiveness are taken into consideration before resources are allocated.

    So, are you saying that personal wealth should not be allowed to influence duration and quality of life?

    Need is not considered in allocating health care resources in this country. Not even close. Go to a hospital and try to get full care without insurance, they'll stabilize you then tell you to fuck right off. Resources outside basic charity and social services are allocated in America entirely based on the wealth of the individual. Normally this is fine, as long as a minimal access to goods and services is available for all, but with health care its unacceptable.

    I'm saying that personal wealth should have no effect on one's access to health care, nothing more, nothing less.

    But why are the services and goods provided by doctors and hospitals uniquely the province of government, and not the numerous other things that contribute to duration and quality of life?

    Because you absolutely need to have access to medical care through out your life. Privately run health care insurance has failed this country miserably because a profit motive is antithetical to the purpose of providing health insurance.

    For some insane reason we give the keys to the gateway for health care in this country to companies that make money by not letting people get in.

    Food companies don't make money by preventing you from eating. Car companies don't make money by preventing you from getting a car. Health insurance companies hold the reigns of our health care system and they're motivated to deny that same good by the very nature of their existence.

    That is why the government should be the one paying for medical care.

    sig.jpg
  • ArturickArturick Registered User
    edited November 2010
    Because you absolutely need to have access to medical care through out your life.

    It is then the government's responsibility to provide anything that is necessary for survival?

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    Because you absolutely need to have access to medical care through out your life.

    It is then the government's responsibility to provide anything that is necessary for survival?

    Don't cut out 95% then break out weak right wing responses.

    sig.jpg
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    Because you absolutely need to have access to medical care through out your life.

    It is then the government's responsibility to provide anything that is necessary for survival?

    Yes, the government should not let its citizens die in the streets.

    This has been another episode of Simple Answers To Goosey Questions.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    Because you absolutely need to have access to medical care through out your life.

    It is then the government's responsibility to provide anything that is necessary for survival?

    Yes. Yes. My God yes it is the government's responsibility to ensure its people don't die when it's preventable.

    PSN: allenquid
  • ArturickArturick Registered User
    edited November 2010
    Arturick wrote: »
    Because you absolutely need to have access to medical care through out your life.

    It is then the government's responsibility to provide anything that is necessary for survival?

    Don't cut out 95% then break out weak right wing responses.

    I cut out the part about the functionality of insurance companies because it's a separate issue from the need for government to be the primary funding party of health care. I'm interested in guiding philosophies of the issue.
    Yes. Yes. My God yes it is the government's responsibility to ensure its people don't die when it's preventable.

    Is there a standard that a citizen must meet to enjoy these benefits, or is citizenship (presumably determined by birth) sufficient to qualify?

Sign In or Register to comment.