So as long as the military and police keeps gaining power and the [strike]trains[/strike] transportation system runs on time you don't see why any one would object to those expansions, seemingly ignoring the concept of civil rights, but your own personal worldview thinks that anything the government does to benefit individuals financially is bad.
Where have I ever said I did not support civil rights? You're inferring that from my example of differing viewpoints as to what constitutes acceptable Federal responsibility? Get off your high horse. You're making a inferences that have no basis in what I said. Example: I never said that "anything the government does to benefit individuals financially is bad". I offered a few key examples of how people can differ in interpretation and scope and you wish to undercut the argument by making fascist references.
Well, at the risk of going off-topic, maybe you could clarify the issue for us by simply stating whether or not you believe in the concept of human rights?
Just to be specific, this is the concept that says things like slavery and religious intolerance (i.e. stoning someone to death for openly saying you should pray to another god) are inherently immoral.
I don't recall ever saying a public plan was more cost-efficient.
Perhaps I'm mixing you up with one of the other (two) conservatives on here. But I distinctly recall you gloatingly posting a report saying that health care reform—if the public plan is dropped—would be less cost-efficient. I remember asking you if that means you support the public plan, and you said something like "I was opposed to the health care reform bills with the public plan, but I'm even more opposed to them without it."
1) I'm not going to engage in a debate where I am asked to publicly denounce religious stoning and slavery as a precondition to you or anyone else accepting my faith. You're the one presupposing malice on the intent of someone based on their religion, not me.
2) You are mixing me up, or least my comment. I did say I was more against the reform now not because I was supporting it before, but because as it stood within the context of that post, it would do nothing to address the overall cost of care or the number of individuals covered, but would increase individual plan costs considerably. In essence, a bad situation got worse.
So as long as the military and police keeps gaining power and the [strike]trains[/strike] transportation system runs on time you don't see why any one would object to those expansions, seemingly ignoring the concept of civil rights, but your own personal worldview thinks that anything the government does to benefit individuals financially is bad.
Where have I ever said I did not support civil rights? You're inferring that from my example of differing viewpoints as to what constitutes acceptable Federal responsibility? Get off your high horse. You're making a inferences that have no basis in what I said. Example: I never said that "anything the government does to benefit individuals financially is bad". I offered a few key examples of how people can differ in interpretation and scope and you wish to undercut the argument by making fascist references.
Shame on you.
If you can't conceive why someone might have opposed the expansion of "domestic terrorism fighting" either you don't believe in rights, you're entirely disingenuous or you're just are particularly ignorant. In each of those cases, you deserve whatever scorn you get.
2) You are mixing me up, or least my comment. I did say I was more against the reform now not because I was supporting it before, but because as it stood within the context of that post, it would do nothing to address the overall cost of care or the number of individuals covered, but would increase individual plan costs considerably. In essence, a bad situation got worse.
This doesn't contradict my characterization.
Here's a more general characterization of your approach to health-care reform. You're a nitpicker, and you're an opportunistic nitpicker. You say you are opposed to federal involvement in health insurance. You say you're opposed to health reform because of cost concerns. But when it's shown that reform without the public plan will be more costly, you say you're more opposed to it—not that you weren't opposed to it with the cost-saving public plan.
You seem to oscillate between the "cost" reason and the "anti-government involvement" reasons as the opportunity requires you. You don't seem to have any reason to oppose government involvement in and of itself beyond an asserted, naive ideology that you have yet to remotely support. And in light of your complete unwillingness to propose an alternative health care reform system—something you could support—it's very difficult to believe you are debating here in good faith.
And, of course, it's interesting that after three or four times of asking for a direct answer, you did not in any sense explain your feelings on human rights. Are you opposed to slavery and stoning unbelievers? I mean, the Bible explicitly commands both. This isn't a trick question, and surely you can understand how your unwillingness to give a simple answer might lead one to suspect that you don't unequivocally support human rights and oppose these things. Maybe when you're done pretending to be offended you'll get around to answering the question.
Also, Rasmussen now says 77 % are in favor of a public option. The question is this - does Rasmussen have a conservative bias or just a shoddy procedure for its census-taking? The former implies an understating of the support, but maybe I'm thinking too superficially.
2) You are mixing me up, or least my comment. I did say I was more against the reform now not because I was supporting it before, but because as it stood within the context of that post, it would do nothing to address the overall cost of care or the number of individuals covered, but would increase individual plan costs considerably. In essence, a bad situation got worse.
This doesn't contradict my characterization.
Here's a more general characterization of your approach to health-care reform. You're a nitpicker, and you're an opportunistic nitpicker. You say you are opposed to federal involvement in health insurance. You say you're opposed to health reform because of cost concerns. But when it's shown that reform without the public plan will be more costly, you say you're more opposed to it—not that you weren't opposed to it with the cost-saving public plan.
You seem to oscillate between the "cost" reason and the "anti-government involvement" reasons as the opportunity requires you. You don't seemm to have any reason to oppose government involveent in and of itself beyond an asserted, naive ideology that you have yet to remotely support. And in light of your complete unwillingness to propose an alternative health care reform system—something you could support—it's very difficult to believe you are debating here in good faith.
And, of course, it's interesting that after three or four times of asking for a direct answer, you did not in any sense explain your feelings on human rights. Are you opposed to slavery and stoning unbelievers? I mean, the Bible explicitly commands both. This isn't a trick question, and surely you can understand how your unwillingness to give a simple answer might lead one to suspect that you don't unequivocally support human rights and oppose these things. Maybe when you're done pretending to be offended you'll get around to answering the question.
Again you are mis-characterizing my positions.
You say you are opposed to federal involvement in health insurance - I am opposed to a public option. Not involvement as a rule. you're opposed to health reform because of cost concerns - I support health reform. I believe cost concerns should be addressed first though. it's shown that reform without the public plan will be more costly, you say you're more opposed to it - I opposed this specific reform. Do not blanketly state I am against all reform. It's not an all or none situation. You don't seemm to have any reason to oppose government involveent in and of itself beyond an asserted, naive ideology that you have yet to remotely support. And in light of your complete unwillingness to propose an alternative health care reform system—something you could support—it's very difficult to believe you are debating here in good faith. - I have certainly outlined it. You may not agree with me, but I have written before about my major concerns and my thoughts on solutions I do support. If you don't like them, fine. But you cannot say I've not said them.
Seriously dude, no. I'm not engaging in your argument about slavery and stoning.
Also, Rasmussen now says 77 % are in favor of a public option. The question is this - does Rasmussen have a conservative bias or just a shoddy procedure for its census-taking? The former implies an understating of the support, but maybe I'm thinking too superficially.
The 77% was SUSA, wasn't it? The key, anyway, seems to be if you include the word "choice" between the public option and private insurers. With the word choice, you get huge support, without it, you get the NBC/WSJ result.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
So as long as the military and police keeps gaining power and the [strike]trains[/strike] transportation system runs on time you don't see why any one would object to those expansions, seemingly ignoring the concept of civil rights, but your own personal worldview thinks that anything the government does to benefit individuals financially is bad.
Where have I ever said I did not support civil rights? You're inferring that from my example of differing viewpoints as to what constitutes acceptable Federal responsibility? Get off your high horse. You're making a inferences that have no basis in what I said. Example: I never said that "anything the government does to benefit individuals financially is bad". I offered a few key examples of how people can differ in interpretation and scope and you wish to undercut the argument by making fascist references.
Shame on you.
If you can't conceive why someone might have opposed the expansion of "domestic terrorism fighting" either you don't believe in rights, you're entirely disingenuous or you're just are particularly ignorant. In each of those cases, you deserve whatever scorn you get.
I reject that argument. If you can't conceive how a rational person can make the distinction between domestic counter-terrorism efforts and fascism, then you're either a willful idiot or a left-wing parrot.
It was posted earlier but the only poll to give a less than 50% support the public option was at the very least slanting the question to get a more desired result.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
2) You are mixing me up, or least my comment. I did say I was more against the reform now not because I was supporting it before, but because as it stood within the context of that post, it would do nothing to address the overall cost of care or the number of individuals covered, but would increase individual plan costs considerably. In essence, a bad situation got worse.
This doesn't contradict my characterization.
Here's a more general characterization of your approach to health-care reform. You're a nitpicker, and you're an opportunistic nitpicker. You say you are opposed to federal involvement in health insurance. You say you're opposed to health reform because of cost concerns. But when it's shown that reform without the public plan will be more costly, you say you're more opposed to it—not that you weren't opposed to it with the cost-saving public plan.
You seem to oscillate between the "cost" reason and the "anti-government involvement" reasons as the opportunity requires you. You don't seemm to have any reason to oppose government involveent in and of itself beyond an asserted, naive ideology that you have yet to remotely support. And in light of your complete unwillingness to propose an alternative health care reform system—something you could support—it's very difficult to believe you are debating here in good faith.
And, of course, it's interesting that after three or four times of asking for a direct answer, you did not in any sense explain your feelings on human rights. Are you opposed to slavery and stoning unbelievers? I mean, the Bible explicitly commands both. This isn't a trick question, and surely you can understand how your unwillingness to give a simple answer might lead one to suspect that you don't unequivocally support human rights and oppose these things. Maybe when you're done pretending to be offended you'll get around to answering the question.
Again you are mis-characterizing my positions.
You say you are opposed to federal involvement in health insurance - I am opposed to a public option. Not involvement as a rule. you're opposed to health reform because of cost concerns - I support health reform. I believe cost concerns should be addressed first though. it's shown that reform without the public plan will be more costly, you say you're more opposed to it - I opposed this specific reform. Do not blanketly state I am against all reform. It's not an all or none situation. You don't seemm to have any reason to oppose government involveent in and of itself beyond an asserted, naive ideology that you have yet to remotely support. And in light of your complete unwillingness to propose an alternative health care reform system—something you could support—it's very difficult to believe you are debating here in good faith. - I have certainly outlined it. You may not agree with me, but I have written before about my major concerns and my thoughts on solutions I do support. If you don't like them, fine. But you cannot say I've not said them.
Seriously dude, no. I'm not engaging in your argument about slavery and stoning.
This is like playing twenty questions, as you selectively engage people and remain coy about your own positions. Please put forth some positive solutions - the comprehensive package you would like to see enacted.
2) You are mixing me up, or least my comment. I did say I was more against the reform now not because I was supporting it before, but because as it stood within the context of that post, it would do nothing to address the overall cost of care or the number of individuals covered, but would increase individual plan costs considerably. In essence, a bad situation got worse.
This doesn't contradict my characterization.
Here's a more general characterization of your approach to health-care reform. You're a nitpicker, and you're an opportunistic nitpicker. You say you are opposed to federal involvement in health insurance. You say you're opposed to health reform because of cost concerns. But when it's shown that reform without the public plan will be more costly, you say you're more opposed to it—not that you weren't opposed to it with the cost-saving public plan.
You seem to oscillate between the "cost" reason and the "anti-government involvement" reasons as the opportunity requires you. You don't seemm to have any reason to oppose government involveent in and of itself beyond an asserted, naive ideology that you have yet to remotely support. And in light of your complete unwillingness to propose an alternative health care reform system—something you could support—it's very difficult to believe you are debating here in good faith.
And, of course, it's interesting that after three or four times of asking for a direct answer, you did not in any sense explain your feelings on human rights. Are you opposed to slavery and stoning unbelievers? I mean, the Bible explicitly commands both. This isn't a trick question, and surely you can understand how your unwillingness to give a simple answer might lead one to suspect that you don't unequivocally support human rights and oppose these things. Maybe when you're done pretending to be offended you'll get around to answering the question.
Again you are mis-characterizing my positions.
You say you are opposed to federal involvement in health insurance - I am opposed to a public option. Not involvement as a rule. you're opposed to health reform because of cost concerns - I support health reform. I believe cost concerns should be addressed first though. it's shown that reform without the public plan will be more costly, you say you're more opposed to it - I opposed this specific reform. Do not blanketly state I am against all reform. It's not an all or none situation. You don't seemm to have any reason to oppose government involveent in and of itself beyond an asserted, naive ideology that you have yet to remotely support. And in light of your complete unwillingness to propose an alternative health care reform system—something you could support—it's very difficult to believe you are debating here in good faith. - I have certainly outlined it. You may not agree with me, but I have written before about my major concerns and my thoughts on solutions I do support. If you don't like them, fine. But you cannot say I've not said them.
Seriously dude, no. I'm not engaging in your argument about slavery and stoning.
This is like playing twenty questions, as you selectively engage people and remain coy about your own positions. Please put forth some positive solutions - the comprehensive package you would like to see enacted.
He wants to address costs! Costs!
COSTS!
Yeah, I know, a public option would address costs pretty nicely by forcing some competition into a market dominated by insurance companies, traditionally some of the worst gougers in capitalist systems. Apparently that's not how he wants to address costs, though.
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) isn't content to fight attempts at government-run health care here -- he wants to destroy it in other countries, too.
The central Louisiana newspaper The Town Talk reports that Vitter was asked at a town hall meeting about the fact that he opposes government health care, but supports re-importing prescription drugs from, as a constituent said, "countries that have socialized medicine." Vitter has campaigned in the past on re-importing drugs from Canada.
"My ultimate goal," Vitter explained, "is to use that (re-importation) to cause that (pricing) system to collapse."
Now Vitter does have a point, in that if the whole United States attempted to free-ride on Canada's prescription subsidies -- with that country having less than a tenth of our population -- then Canada's system would potentially be overwhelmed. More likely, their government would very quickly crack down on re-importation, cutting off the supply to the Yankees.
But who knew Vitter was deliberately trying to destroy Canada's social welfare system, in order to free up their market? This gives a whole new meaning to "Vive le Québec libre."
What the fuck?! This is a sitting US congressman actively trying to bring about the collapse of another nation's infrastructure.
It was posted earlier but the only poll to give a less than 50% support the public option was at the very least slanting the question to get a more desired result.
I don't think that's accurate. The >75% support question was whether it was important for people to have a choice between public and private plans. When the question was changed to whether it was important to create a public plan, support fell to 40-something.
The problem is, the first formulation can be interpreted in two ways, either: a) do you think there should be a public plan (the question, I take, that they really want to get at), or b) assuming a public plan, do you think people should be free to choose between it and private plans. The use of 'choice' in a survey is tricky, because people almost always cue on it and are almost always in favor of it, no matter the question. The second formulation gets at what they want to know more directly.
This is like playing twenty questions, as you selectively engage people and remain coy about your own positions. Please put forth some positive solutions - the comprehensive package you would like to see enacted.
He wants to address costs! Costs!
COSTS!
Yeah, I know, a public option would address costs pretty nicely by forcing some competition into a market dominated by insurance companies, traditionally some of the worst gougers in capitalist systems. Apparently that's not how he wants to address costs, though.
Meanwhile, I've posted summaries and comments and suggestions and information dozens of times in this and the last two healthcare threads. I'm tired of re-linking or repeating. It's boring.
I've stated what I do support and solutions I believe are superior. Can't remember them? Mixed me up with the other three conservatives on this thread? Want to rehash it all again? Like to spout evil capitalism rhetoric?
This is like playing twenty questions, as you selectively engage people and remain coy about your own positions. Please put forth some positive solutions - the comprehensive package you would like to see enacted.
He wants to address costs! Costs!
COSTS!
Yeah, I know, a public option would address costs pretty nicely by forcing some competition into a market dominated by insurance companies, traditionally some of the worst gougers in capitalist systems. Apparently that's not how he wants to address costs, though.
Meanwhile, I've posted summaries and comments and suggestions and information dozens of times in this and the last two healthcare threads. I'm tired of re-linking or repeating. It's boring.
I've stated what I do support and solutions I believe are superior. Can't remember them? Mixed me up with the other three conservatives on this thread? Want to rehash it all again? Like to spout evil capitalism rhetoric?
Whatever.
So all we need to do is look at your post history, and we'll find them. Fair enough.
This is like playing twenty questions, as you selectively engage people and remain coy about your own positions. Please put forth some positive solutions - the comprehensive package you would like to see enacted.
He wants to address costs! Costs!
COSTS!
Yeah, I know, a public option would address costs pretty nicely by forcing some competition into a market dominated by insurance companies, traditionally some of the worst gougers in capitalist systems. Apparently that's not how he wants to address costs, though.
Meanwhile, I've posted summaries and comments and suggestions and information dozens of times in this and the last two healthcare threads. I'm tired of re-linking or repeating. It's boring.
I've stated what I do support and solutions I believe are superior. Can't remember them? Mixed me up with the other three conservatives on this thread? Want to rehash it all again? Like to spout evil capitalism rhetoric?
Whatever.
Piecemeal, and mostly in the negative. If you're going to constantly oppose proposals, you need to offer some positive solutions. At least stop making the thrust of an argument without including the other argument which you may or may not have put somewhere else. Or at least offer analysis for the points you're making. You're doing neither. That's only OK if you're a congressional republican.
This is like playing twenty questions, as you selectively engage people and remain coy about your own positions. Please put forth some positive solutions - the comprehensive package you would like to see enacted.
He wants to address costs! Costs!
COSTS!
Yeah, I know, a public option would address costs pretty nicely by forcing some competition into a market dominated by insurance companies, traditionally some of the worst gougers in capitalist systems. Apparently that's not how he wants to address costs, though.
Meanwhile, I've posted summaries and comments and suggestions and information dozens of times in this and the last two healthcare threads. I'm tired of re-linking or repeating. It's boring.
I've stated what I do support and solutions I believe are superior. Can't remember them? Mixed me up with the other three conservatives on this thread? Want to rehash it all again? Like to spout evil capitalism rhetoric?
Whatever.
Is it really that hard to find your own post? I don't recall you ever explaining anything beyond "I believe government is evil", or citing any actual relevant facts.
This is like playing twenty questions, as you selectively engage people and remain coy about your own positions. Please put forth some positive solutions - the comprehensive package you would like to see enacted.
He wants to address costs! Costs!
COSTS!
Yeah, I know, a public option would address costs pretty nicely by forcing some competition into a market dominated by insurance companies, traditionally some of the worst gougers in capitalist systems. Apparently that's not how he wants to address costs, though.
Meanwhile, I've posted summaries and comments and suggestions and information dozens of times in this and the last two healthcare threads. I'm tired of re-linking or repeating. It's boring.
I've stated what I do support and solutions I believe are superior. Can't remember them? Mixed me up with the other three conservatives on this thread? Want to rehash it all again? Like to spout evil capitalism rhetoric?
Whatever.
So all we need to do is look at your post history, and we'll find them. Fair enough.
That's the hard part, I guess. I know I miss what people say, or they say it in a sub-argument that I'm not following closely and then I ask them to rehash. But I've answered all of these questions before. In fact, I think it was moniker who said "write them out, you'll be asked to repeat them often" or something like that.
This is like playing twenty questions, as you selectively engage people and remain coy about your own positions. Please put forth some positive solutions - the comprehensive package you would like to see enacted.
He wants to address costs! Costs!
COSTS!
Yeah, I know, a public option would address costs pretty nicely by forcing some competition into a market dominated by insurance companies, traditionally some of the worst gougers in capitalist systems. Apparently that's not how he wants to address costs, though.
Meanwhile, I've posted summaries and comments and suggestions and information dozens of times in this and the last two healthcare threads. I'm tired of re-linking or repeating. It's boring.
I've stated what I do support and solutions I believe are superior. Can't remember them? Mixed me up with the other three conservatives on this thread? Want to rehash it all again? Like to spout evil capitalism rhetoric?
Whatever.
Rule 1 of Forums-Information in a thread only exists in that thread. If you go to a separate thread you may have to repeat yourself. Don't be douche about it though because that never goes well.
This is like playing twenty questions, as you selectively engage people and remain coy about your own positions. Please put forth some positive solutions - the comprehensive package you would like to see enacted.
He wants to address costs! Costs!
COSTS!
Yeah, I know, a public option would address costs pretty nicely by forcing some competition into a market dominated by insurance companies, traditionally some of the worst gougers in capitalist systems. Apparently that's not how he wants to address costs, though.
Meanwhile, I've posted summaries and comments and suggestions and information dozens of times in this and the last two healthcare threads. I'm tired of re-linking or repeating. It's boring.
I've stated what I do support and solutions I believe are superior. Can't remember them? Mixed me up with the other three conservatives on this thread? Want to rehash it all again? Like to spout evil capitalism rhetoric?
Whatever.
Is it really that hard to find your own post? I don't recall you ever explaining anything beyond "I believe government is evil", or citing any actual relevant facts.
I've posted 250 times in the last three months. I don't feel like going through them all.
Also, Rasmussen now says 77 % are in favor of a public option. The question is this - does Rasmussen have a conservative bias or just a shoddy procedure for its census-taking? The former implies an understating of the support, but maybe I'm thinking too superficially.
The 77% was SUSA, wasn't it? The key, anyway, seems to be if you include the word "choice" between the public option and private insurers. With the word choice, you get huge support, without it, you get the NBC/WSJ result.
In any health care proposal, how important do you feel it is to give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance--extremely important, quite important, not that important, or not at all important?
-Extremely Important 58%
-Quite Important 19%
-Not That Important 7%
-Not At All Important 15%
extremely important + quite important = 77%
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
This is like playing twenty questions, as you selectively engage people and remain coy about your own positions. Please put forth some positive solutions - the comprehensive package you would like to see enacted.
He wants to address costs! Costs!
COSTS!
Yeah, I know, a public option would address costs pretty nicely by forcing some competition into a market dominated by insurance companies, traditionally some of the worst gougers in capitalist systems. Apparently that's not how he wants to address costs, though.
Meanwhile, I've posted summaries and comments and suggestions and information dozens of times in this and the last two healthcare threads. I'm tired of re-linking or repeating. It's boring.
I've stated what I do support and solutions I believe are superior. Can't remember them? Mixed me up with the other three conservatives on this thread? Want to rehash it all again? Like to spout evil capitalism rhetoric?
Whatever.
It's not evil capitalist rhetoric. It's acknowledgment that government run insurance is cheaper than privately run insurance, because it's not out to make a profit. In the last UHC thread (or perhaps the one before that) I responded to you directly citing car insurance run by the government as opposed to private industry and measurable health statistics in nations with UHC vs your own, but you just ignored me in regards to the car insurance and decided that the statistics didn't mean anything, because you figure people in America care more about babies than other countries, and attempt to bring more to term.
So yeah, I'll just take pot shots at you and I won't really feel bad about it. People are right to say you just circle back on yourself, alternating between a vague cry to cut costs (through methods like tort reform which have done jack shit) and railing against the Evil Big Incompetent Government that you're happy to have run things like the military (and their health care) but not things that, by god, could do a lot to help out most Americans.
This is like playing twenty questions, as you selectively engage people and remain coy about your own positions. Please put forth some positive solutions - the comprehensive package you would like to see enacted.
He wants to address costs! Costs!
COSTS!
Yeah, I know, a public option would address costs pretty nicely by forcing some competition into a market dominated by insurance companies, traditionally some of the worst gougers in capitalist systems. Apparently that's not how he wants to address costs, though.
Meanwhile, I've posted summaries and comments and suggestions and information dozens of times in this and the last two healthcare threads. I'm tired of re-linking or repeating. It's boring.
I've stated what I do support and solutions I believe are superior. Can't remember them? Mixed me up with the other three conservatives on this thread? Want to rehash it all again? Like to spout evil capitalism rhetoric?
Whatever.
Rule 1 of Forums-Information in a thread only exists in that thread. If you go to a separate thread you may have to repeat yourself. Don't be douche about it though because that never goes well.
Except we've had three (or more) back to back heathcare threads that continue the arguments.
How much of that is overdepedence on social safety nets as opposed to individuals have incredibly shitty financial knowledge (and the lack thereof taught in school) in this day and age, though?
No, its probably more that we are no longer content to just let people wither and die as we were before/during the gilded age.
Because I've worked with and for the Republican party, and I've spent a lot of time with religious conservatives (my church is positively full of them), and we don't really take a "fuck them" attitude.
Its a necessity from the political position. You cannot get to that answer without that assumption.
I'll grant you effective... Efficient may be debatable (in regards to the macro-concept of taking money from people and funneling it to the proper outlets without loss). The insurance industry specifically is quite arguably less efficient, but I'm not convinced that's the case on all fronts.
So long as the externality exists, which you've accepted, there is no more efficient way to provide a natural monopoly on a good with the properties such as medical care[I.E. one where the average user cannot judge quality or necessity, where the knowledge of when and where care will be needed is unknown by the consumer, where costs are unknown, and where consumption is not much a matter of choice] than state control and triage disbursement. [I.E. single payer] This is because the efficient solution to the problem is to fix the externality[I.E. tax and subsidize, and include the entire population], the nature of the good requires insurance[you can predict what you'll need and when], and a natural monopoly/oligopoly on insurance that everyone has to buy into provides identical functions in the public and private sector, except that the private sector will have owners who have their profits as an incentive while the public has owners with the public good as an incentive.
any insurance system, except supplementary on top of an existing required baseline coverage, is the equivalent of people(or the govt) paying someone to watch television. The effect that insurance companies are providing adds nothing more to the product except to drive up costs.
Yeah the crazy leftists wanting to keep our civil rights and expand government to better care for us. Those crazy expansionists.
Why does the Left actually think the government is the best at anything? If they want UHC then why not have the government supply us a car, iPhone, XBOX and home for every man, woman and child in the U.S. as well? Think of all the money that would be saved from wasted advertising and fat cat CEOs!!
Cars, phones, and other non-necessary, or predictable commodity goods do not require insurance to operate efficiently, do not exist in systems with large amounts of externalities, are not natural monopolies, and suffer no societal wide competition based maladies[such as say, police forces do]
These are key fundamentals in the differences in the good which require fundamentally different efficient handling of them. The final answer as to why the govt does not provide these goods and services is because the cost of determining what to produce and structuring proper incentive structures for such an endeavor is much higher than any gains that are achieved by cutting out capital profits[under the assumption that capital profits provide no useful function, which, on a simplistic level, is true, though its not true on a systematic level due to the way that capital selects and filters products, something that does not happen in the health industry since distribution is more triage oriented(even today) and the fundamental differences in the natures of the good]
2) DOT represents many things that are beyond a state's control (FAA, port security, interstate haz mat rules, etc) and represent a fundamentally different infrastructure concern for our national society than healthcare. In addition, it performs functions that generally cannot be handled by the market.
If the people are unhealthy, they cannot fight. This is an infrastructure concern just as much as any national security concern, which is primarily concerned with keeping U.S. citizens alive and prospering against extra-national threats. It is more or less the same concern that the police have as well. The only difference is the target and nature of the threat, be it extra-national, intra-national, or biological. The question then, once you realize that each fundamentally has the same goal within a national security context, is "what is the most efficient way of carrying out that key national security objective?".
This is like playing twenty questions, as you selectively engage people and remain coy about your own positions. Please put forth some positive solutions - the comprehensive package you would like to see enacted.
He wants to address costs! Costs!
COSTS!
Yeah, I know, a public option would address costs pretty nicely by forcing some competition into a market dominated by insurance companies, traditionally some of the worst gougers in capitalist systems. Apparently that's not how he wants to address costs, though.
Meanwhile, I've posted summaries and comments and suggestions and information dozens of times in this and the last two healthcare threads. I'm tired of re-linking or repeating. It's boring.
I've stated what I do support and solutions I believe are superior. Can't remember them? Mixed me up with the other three conservatives on this thread? Want to rehash it all again? Like to spout evil capitalism rhetoric?
Whatever.
Rule 1 of Forums-Information in a thread only exists in that thread. If you go to a separate thread you may have to repeat yourself. Don't be douche about it though because that never goes well.
Except we've had three (or more) back to back heathcare threads that continue the arguments.
If only you had access to some sort of data storage and retrieval device!
This is like playing twenty questions, as you selectively engage people and remain coy about your own positions. Please put forth some positive solutions - the comprehensive package you would like to see enacted.
He wants to address costs! Costs!
COSTS!
Yeah, I know, a public option would address costs pretty nicely by forcing some competition into a market dominated by insurance companies, traditionally some of the worst gougers in capitalist systems. Apparently that's not how he wants to address costs, though.
Meanwhile, I've posted summaries and comments and suggestions and information dozens of times in this and the last two healthcare threads. I'm tired of re-linking or repeating. It's boring.
I've stated what I do support and solutions I believe are superior. Can't remember them? Mixed me up with the other three conservatives on this thread? Want to rehash it all again? Like to spout evil capitalism rhetoric?
Whatever.
Rule 1 of Forums-Information in a thread only exists in that thread. If you go to a separate thread you may have to repeat yourself. Don't be douche about it though because that never goes well.
Except we've had three (or more) back to back heathcare threads that continue the arguments.
You also can't expect everyone you argue with to have followed everything you say, or even to remember all your talking points
Also, Rasmussen now says 77 % are in favor of a public option. The question is this - does Rasmussen have a conservative bias or just a shoddy procedure for its census-taking? The former implies an understating of the support, but maybe I'm thinking too superficially.
The 77% was SUSA, wasn't it? The key, anyway, seems to be if you include the word "choice" between the public option and private insurers. With the word choice, you get huge support, without it, you get the NBC/WSJ result.
In any health care proposal, how important do you feel it is to give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance--extremely important, quite important, not that important, or not at all important?
-Extremely Important 58%
-Quite Important 19%
-Not That Important 7%
-Not At All Important 15%
I would read that as "public option without a choice, or public option with a choice"
Rule 1 of Forums-Information in a thread only exists in that thread. If you go to a separate thread you may have to repeat yourself. Don't be douche about it though because that never goes well.
Except we've had three (or more) back to back heathcare threads that continue the arguments.
Then do what I do and find the important posts you made in the other threads and save the link. If someone brings it up you can politely say "we covered that here" and then provide a link.
On the topic some of the analysis over at 538 has me worried about the bill making it out of the senate finance committee which looks like it has the ability to screw the bill before it gets to the floor. To me it seems a little ridiculous that a small subset of senators can hold a bill hostage.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
This is like playing twenty questions, as you selectively engage people and remain coy about your own positions. Please put forth some positive solutions - the comprehensive package you would like to see enacted.
He wants to address costs! Costs!
COSTS!
Yeah, I know, a public option would address costs pretty nicely by forcing some competition into a market dominated by insurance companies, traditionally some of the worst gougers in capitalist systems. Apparently that's not how he wants to address costs, though.
Meanwhile, I've posted summaries and comments and suggestions and information dozens of times in this and the last two healthcare threads. I'm tired of re-linking or repeating. It's boring.
I've stated what I do support and solutions I believe are superior. Can't remember them? Mixed me up with the other three conservatives on this thread? Want to rehash it all again? Like to spout evil capitalism rhetoric?
Whatever.
Is it really that hard to find your own post? I don't recall you ever explaining anything beyond "I believe government is evil", or citing any actual relevant facts.
I've posted 250 times in the last three months. I don't feel like going through them all.
You said you posted it on the day the forums went back up, so that's not a large period of time for you to examine.
I would read that as "public option without a choice, or public option with a choice"
That's a poorly worded question.
I guess we'll have to disagree because I think it is worded perfectly fine and I have no trouble understanding it.
You'd have to make the assupmtion that "Any healthcare proposal" means "Forced Public Option" and not actually "Any Healthcare Proposal". It's hard to do, and it's wrong, but I think the mindset is prevalent enough that I can understand why people would read it that way.
I don't need an xbox to live. I do, however, need my health.
Yeah. I will quite gladly send my 360 to whosoever wants it and is willing to pick up the tab for my Wellbutrin prescription.
If you don't mind me asking (and if you do, obviously just ignore me or tell me off) what's your prescription cost you roughly per month? I'm not in America so I'm pretty unaware of drug costs there, other than hearing that 'they're higher'.
You say you are opposed to federal involvement in health insurance - I am opposed to a public option. Not involvement as a rule. you're opposed to health reform because of cost concerns - I support health reform. I believe cost concerns should be addressed first though. it's shown that reform without the public plan will be more costly, you say you're more opposed to it - I opposed this specific reform. Do not blanketly state I am against all reform. It's not an all or none situation. You don't seemm to have any reason to oppose government involveent in and of itself beyond an asserted, naive ideology that you have yet to remotely support. And in light of your complete unwillingness to propose an alternative health care reform system—something you could support—it's very difficult to believe you are debating here in good faith. - I have certainly outlined it. You may not agree with me, but I have written before about my major concerns and my thoughts on solutions I do support. If you don't like them, fine. But you cannot say I've not said them.
Let me try to make sense of this then.
You're opposed to anything that doesn't control cost.
The point of the public plan is that it controls costs.
But you're opposed to the public plan.
Why?
.....Because Medicare is bad? (compared to what?)
In all of the two pages you have been asserting that you have a detailed argument somewhere in your post history, you could have spent one post to restate it.
I don't think you have one. I think you are simply nitpicking ad-hoc based on principles like "cost control" that you don't actually give a shit about.
Seriously dude, no. I'm not engaging in your argument about slavery and stoning.
I suspect for the same reason that you're not honestly engaging in the health care argument. Because you don't actually have a position you can defend.
Posts
Where have I ever said I did not support civil rights? You're inferring that from my example of differing viewpoints as to what constitutes acceptable Federal responsibility? Get off your high horse. You're making a inferences that have no basis in what I said. Example: I never said that "anything the government does to benefit individuals financially is bad". I offered a few key examples of how people can differ in interpretation and scope and you wish to undercut the argument by making fascist references.
Shame on you.
Health Care would be classified under Human Rights, I would think.
1) I'm not going to engage in a debate where I am asked to publicly denounce religious stoning and slavery as a precondition to you or anyone else accepting my faith. You're the one presupposing malice on the intent of someone based on their religion, not me.
2) You are mixing me up, or least my comment. I did say I was more against the reform now not because I was supporting it before, but because as it stood within the context of that post, it would do nothing to address the overall cost of care or the number of individuals covered, but would increase individual plan costs considerably. In essence, a bad situation got worse.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Logan's Run / Soylent Green.
Here's a more general characterization of your approach to health-care reform. You're a nitpicker, and you're an opportunistic nitpicker. You say you are opposed to federal involvement in health insurance. You say you're opposed to health reform because of cost concerns. But when it's shown that reform without the public plan will be more costly, you say you're more opposed to it—not that you weren't opposed to it with the cost-saving public plan.
You seem to oscillate between the "cost" reason and the "anti-government involvement" reasons as the opportunity requires you. You don't seem to have any reason to oppose government involvement in and of itself beyond an asserted, naive ideology that you have yet to remotely support. And in light of your complete unwillingness to propose an alternative health care reform system—something you could support—it's very difficult to believe you are debating here in good faith.
Some people were born just to entertain people like me, it seems.
Silver on the idea of "splitting". He can't see it happening, but recognizes it as a decent threat.
Also, Rasmussen now says 77 % are in favor of a public option. The question is this - does Rasmussen have a conservative bias or just a shoddy procedure for its census-taking? The former implies an understating of the support, but maybe I'm thinking too superficially.
Again you are mis-characterizing my positions.
You say you are opposed to federal involvement in health insurance - I am opposed to a public option. Not involvement as a rule.
you're opposed to health reform because of cost concerns - I support health reform. I believe cost concerns should be addressed first though.
it's shown that reform without the public plan will be more costly, you say you're more opposed to it - I opposed this specific reform. Do not blanketly state I am against all reform. It's not an all or none situation.
You don't seemm to have any reason to oppose government involveent in and of itself beyond an asserted, naive ideology that you have yet to remotely support. And in light of your complete unwillingness to propose an alternative health care reform system—something you could support—it's very difficult to believe you are debating here in good faith. - I have certainly outlined it. You may not agree with me, but I have written before about my major concerns and my thoughts on solutions I do support. If you don't like them, fine. But you cannot say I've not said them.
The 77% was SUSA, wasn't it? The key, anyway, seems to be if you include the word "choice" between the public option and private insurers. With the word choice, you get huge support, without it, you get the NBC/WSJ result.
I reject that argument. If you can't conceive how a rational person can make the distinction between domestic counter-terrorism efforts and fascism, then you're either a willful idiot or a left-wing parrot.
pleasepaypreacher.net
This is like playing twenty questions, as you selectively engage people and remain coy about your own positions. Please put forth some positive solutions - the comprehensive package you would like to see enacted.
He wants to address costs! Costs!
COSTS!
Yeah, I know, a public option would address costs pretty nicely by forcing some competition into a market dominated by insurance companies, traditionally some of the worst gougers in capitalist systems. Apparently that's not how he wants to address costs, though.
What the fuck?! This is a sitting US congressman actively trying to bring about the collapse of another nation's infrastructure.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I don't think that's accurate. The >75% support question was whether it was important for people to have a choice between public and private plans. When the question was changed to whether it was important to create a public plan, support fell to 40-something.
The problem is, the first formulation can be interpreted in two ways, either: a) do you think there should be a public plan (the question, I take, that they really want to get at), or b) assuming a public plan, do you think people should be free to choose between it and private plans. The use of 'choice' in a survey is tricky, because people almost always cue on it and are almost always in favor of it, no matter the question. The second formulation gets at what they want to know more directly.
Meanwhile, I've posted summaries and comments and suggestions and information dozens of times in this and the last two healthcare threads. I'm tired of re-linking or repeating. It's boring.
I've stated what I do support and solutions I believe are superior. Can't remember them? Mixed me up with the other three conservatives on this thread? Want to rehash it all again? Like to spout evil capitalism rhetoric?
Whatever.
So all we need to do is look at your post history, and we'll find them. Fair enough.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Piecemeal, and mostly in the negative. If you're going to constantly oppose proposals, you need to offer some positive solutions. At least stop making the thrust of an argument without including the other argument which you may or may not have put somewhere else. Or at least offer analysis for the points you're making. You're doing neither. That's only OK if you're a congressional republican.
That's the hard part, I guess. I know I miss what people say, or they say it in a sub-argument that I'm not following closely and then I ask them to rehash. But I've answered all of these questions before. In fact, I think it was moniker who said "write them out, you'll be asked to repeat them often" or something like that.
Sheesh.
I've posted 250 times in the last three months. I don't feel like going through them all.
Yes it was SUSA:
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5ba17aa2-f1b9-4445-a6b8-62b9d1ba8693
extremely important + quite important = 77%
It's not evil capitalist rhetoric. It's acknowledgment that government run insurance is cheaper than privately run insurance, because it's not out to make a profit. In the last UHC thread (or perhaps the one before that) I responded to you directly citing car insurance run by the government as opposed to private industry and measurable health statistics in nations with UHC vs your own, but you just ignored me in regards to the car insurance and decided that the statistics didn't mean anything, because you figure people in America care more about babies than other countries, and attempt to bring more to term.
So yeah, I'll just take pot shots at you and I won't really feel bad about it. People are right to say you just circle back on yourself, alternating between a vague cry to cut costs (through methods like tort reform which have done jack shit) and railing against the Evil Big Incompetent Government that you're happy to have run things like the military (and their health care) but not things that, by god, could do a lot to help out most Americans.
You're just some partisan douche.
Except we've had three (or more) back to back heathcare threads that continue the arguments.
No, its probably more that we are no longer content to just let people wither and die as we were before/during the gilded age.
Its a necessity from the political position. You cannot get to that answer without that assumption.
So long as the externality exists, which you've accepted, there is no more efficient way to provide a natural monopoly on a good with the properties such as medical care[I.E. one where the average user cannot judge quality or necessity, where the knowledge of when and where care will be needed is unknown by the consumer, where costs are unknown, and where consumption is not much a matter of choice] than state control and triage disbursement. [I.E. single payer] This is because the efficient solution to the problem is to fix the externality[I.E. tax and subsidize, and include the entire population], the nature of the good requires insurance[you can predict what you'll need and when], and a natural monopoly/oligopoly on insurance that everyone has to buy into provides identical functions in the public and private sector, except that the private sector will have owners who have their profits as an incentive while the public has owners with the public good as an incentive.
any insurance system, except supplementary on top of an existing required baseline coverage, is the equivalent of people(or the govt) paying someone to watch television. The effect that insurance companies are providing adds nothing more to the product except to drive up costs.
Cars, phones, and other non-necessary, or predictable commodity goods do not require insurance to operate efficiently, do not exist in systems with large amounts of externalities, are not natural monopolies, and suffer no societal wide competition based maladies[such as say, police forces do]
These are key fundamentals in the differences in the good which require fundamentally different efficient handling of them. The final answer as to why the govt does not provide these goods and services is because the cost of determining what to produce and structuring proper incentive structures for such an endeavor is much higher than any gains that are achieved by cutting out capital profits[under the assumption that capital profits provide no useful function, which, on a simplistic level, is true, though its not true on a systematic level due to the way that capital selects and filters products, something that does not happen in the health industry since distribution is more triage oriented(even today) and the fundamental differences in the natures of the good]
If the people are unhealthy, they cannot fight. This is an infrastructure concern just as much as any national security concern, which is primarily concerned with keeping U.S. citizens alive and prospering against extra-national threats. It is more or less the same concern that the police have as well. The only difference is the target and nature of the threat, be it extra-national, intra-national, or biological. The question then, once you realize that each fundamentally has the same goal within a national security context, is "what is the most efficient way of carrying out that key national security objective?".
If only you had access to some sort of data storage and retrieval device!
You also can't expect everyone you argue with to have followed everything you say, or even to remember all your talking points
I would read that as "public option without a choice, or public option with a choice"
That's a poorly worded question.
Then do what I do and find the important posts you made in the other threads and save the link. If someone brings it up you can politely say "we covered that here" and then provide a link.
On the topic some of the analysis over at 538 has me worried about the bill making it out of the senate finance committee which looks like it has the ability to screw the bill before it gets to the floor. To me it seems a little ridiculous that a small subset of senators can hold a bill hostage.
I guess we'll have to disagree because I think it is worded perfectly fine and I have no trouble understanding it.
You'd have to make the assupmtion that "Any healthcare proposal" means "Forced Public Option" and not actually "Any Healthcare Proposal". It's hard to do, and it's wrong, but I think the mindset is prevalent enough that I can understand why people would read it that way.
Yeah. I will quite gladly send my 360 to whosoever wants it and is willing to pick up the tab for my Wellbutrin prescription.
You could have my Zoloft too.
If you don't mind me asking (and if you do, obviously just ignore me or tell me off) what's your prescription cost you roughly per month? I'm not in America so I'm pretty unaware of drug costs there, other than hearing that 'they're higher'.
Let me try to make sense of this then.
You're opposed to anything that doesn't control cost.
The point of the public plan is that it controls costs.
But you're opposed to the public plan.
Why?
.....Because Medicare is bad? (compared to what?)
In all of the two pages you have been asserting that you have a detailed argument somewhere in your post history, you could have spent one post to restate it.
I don't think you have one. I think you are simply nitpicking ad-hoc based on principles like "cost control" that you don't actually give a shit about.
I suspect for the same reason that you're not honestly engaging in the health care argument. Because you don't actually have a position you can defend.
As usual, Guomindong is spot on. There's nothing else to say, really.