2328 replies to this topic

[hblask]

AmScray, on Wednesday, April 18th, 2012, 6:58 PM, said:

How about a list of 300 people who 1) Could not afford health care2) Needed health care but were otherwise uninsurable. 3) Sought health care through a hospital4) Were provided with health care through hospital5) Were financially ruined due to the $9 ibuprofen and $275/hr "specialists" that are unique to free market health care profiteering. 6) Had to declare bankruptcy and lose everything they worked for in their lives because a few ideologically smug, self-righteous douchebags believe that maintaining a high minded concept about free markets is more important than ensuring critical national industries aren't hijacked and employed as a racket. Sane capitalism has a line, free market healthcare is a pretty good example of where it crosses.

So is your theory that it is better to be dead under the empty promises of universal care than have to declare bankruptcy under our system? Because that seems to be where you are going, and the only possible explanation for where you are going with this.Also, since we don't have free markets in medicine, I'm not going to defend our pricing system -- except in the areas of medicine where we do have free markets, where prices have DROPPED reliably for over 30 years. See, that's the thing -- your $9 Ibuprofen is a symptom of central planning, not free markets. If free markets charged $9 for Ibuprofen, it would be that much at the grocery store, Target, and Walgreens, too. Why do you think those places DON'T charge that much?As for free markets being more important, no, but actual care IS more important than empty promises of universal care.

[AmScray]

hblask, on Wednesday, April 18th, 2012, 7:42 PM, said:

So is your theory that it is better to be dead under the empty promises of universal care than have to declare bankruptcy under our system? Because that seems to be where you are going, and the only possible explanation for where you are going with this.

No. That position relies on the premise that single payer Universal Healthcare leads to "empty promises" rather than "care for sick people". That is amusing, given, ya know... Every single example of a first world country that actually has it. (protip- isolated anecdotes involving complaints or terribly long lines in a State Health Service waiting room on January 18th, 2008 does not mean anything)

Quote

See, that's the thing -- your $9 Ibuprofen is a symptom of central planning, not free markets. If free markets charged $9 for Ibuprofen, it would be that much at the grocery store, Target, and Walgreens, too. Why do you think those places DON'T charge that much?

Nope. You're trying to employ the "Communists Lament" - wherever a clear failing of your preferred system is ascribed to it "not being implemented right". For example, if you need emergency saline, the IV bag and pure saline might be billed at $110, whereas it would cost you $8 to purchase it on your own. Please, propose the "free market" alternative? Just hold on a minute, Doctor, I'm having a stroke but don't use that Coumadin just yet, let me first try to slur out a phone call a relative and have them run down to the free market health supply store to shop for an alternative?I mean, just how far up your ass will your head fit?The for-profit healthcare system exploits moral precepts unique to human life that don't translate into free-market transacting of a commodity product. If your idealism is so thick you can't understand this, then there's really no 'explaining' it to you.

[brvheart]

timwakefield, on Wednesday, April 18th, 2012, 8:32 PM, said:

Thanks for quoting me in your signature but it's making you look silly. What I said is definitively true. Rights are only rights when we define them as such and decide that it's illegal for someone to violate them.

...

[akoff]

CaneBrain, on Wednesday, April 18th, 2012, 4:48 PM, said:

Like Iraq?Thats a pretty laughable explanation for why they oppose it now. Newt was still pimping the mandate in 2009. Mitch McConnell mad it clear: the goal is to beat Obama not to, you know, do stuff for Americans.Btw, nothing about the current GOP argument against the mandate has anything to do with its effectiveness. DJ, they didn't oppose it or call it unconstitutional but they did try for more (single payer system).

to beat Obama would do more for Americans than most presidents do in a full term...the last thing we need is our government doing more stuff for us.

[timwakefield]

brvheart, on Wednesday, April 18th, 2012, 11:48 PM, said:

...

Was my example of women's suffrage not good enough?

[Balloon guy]

A good example of the future of liberalism.The government is now wanting to begin a new program designed to encourage people to get a job instead of collect unemployment.So they start a program to help paycheck to paycheck people for a few weeks between jobs.They expand it aggressively until now its 99 weeks.The math shows up and they realize they can't just keep on expanding the program, because now people are just staying on unemployment and taking a 2 year vacation paid for by the government.So now they are thinking about paying people unemployment while they are working, TO SEE IF THEY LIKE THE JOB.Nanny state, thy name is democrats

[akoff]

Balloon guy, on Thursday, April 19th, 2012, 8:19 AM, said:

A good example of the future of liberalism.The government is now wanting to begin a new program designed to encourage people to get a job instead of collect unemployment.So they start a program to help paycheck to paycheck people for a few weeks between jobs.They expand it aggressively until now its 99 weeks.The math shows up and they realize they can't just keep on expanding the program, because now people are just staying on unemployment and taking a 2 year vacation paid for by the government.So now they are thinking about paying people unemployment while they are working, TO SEE IF THEY LIKE THE JOB.Nanny state, thy name is democrats

you can't fix stupid

[Balloon guy]

AmScray, on Wednesday, April 18th, 2012, 5:47 PM, said:

Obama was a boy, living in Indonesia, who was served dog meat. Romney was a grown ass adult who stowed the family pet on the roof of a moving car.That alone tells me what kind of gigantic ****tard he is.(and you're wrong on healthcare)

http://www.youtube.c...;v=nEBN8wOKjMo#!

[Balloon guy]

[InternetExplorer]

I didn't know obama was asian.

[Balloon guy]

InternetExplorer, on Thursday, April 19th, 2012, 10:55 AM, said:

I didn't know obama was asian.

The people of Kenya started that rumor when his popularity numbers plummeted.

[phlegm]

AmScray, on Wednesday, April 18th, 2012, 5:47 PM, said:

Obama was a boy, living in Indonesia, who was served dog meat. Romney was a grown ass adult who stowed the family pet on the roof of a moving car.That alone tells me what kind of gigantic ****tard he is.(and you're wrong on healthcare)

So which one are you calling a f ucktard?Or are you suggesting that a dog eating indo kid is more in touch with how things should work, than a guy who made himself rich?

[DJ Vu]

phlegm, on Thursday, April 19th, 2012, 12:40 PM, said:

So which one are you calling a f ucktard?Or are you suggesting that a dog eating indo kid is more in touch with how things should work, than a guy who made himself rich?

Hoooly fuck.Colonel Feathers, you're off the hook now.

[AmScray]

phlegm, on Thursday, April 19th, 2012, 12:40 PM, said:

Or are you suggesting that a dog eating indo kid is more in touch with how things should work, than a guy who made himself rich?

That certainly is an incisive, accurate characterization of what's in-play here...

[hblask]

AmScray, on Wednesday, April 18th, 2012, 9:31 PM, said:

No. That position relies on the premise that single payer Universal Healthcare leads to "empty promises" rather than "care for sick people". That is amusing, given, ya know... Every single example of a first world country that actually has it. (protip- isolated anecdotes involving complaints or terribly long lines in a State Health Service waiting room on January 18th, 2008 does not mean anything)

Except I already provided extensive documentation showing this is false. Nobody has provided ANY documentation to me showing that the US has a problem that even affects 1 in a million people.See, you can try to dismiss all those links are mere anecdotes, but I intentionally broke them up into anecdotal evidence and system evidence to preempt that exact objection. The list of systemic evidence is longer, and well-studied and documented.Nice try though.

Quote

Nope. You're trying to employ the "Communists Lament" - wherever a clear failing of your preferred system is ascribed to it "not being implemented right". For example, if you need emergency saline, the IV bag and pure saline might be billed at $110, whereas it would cost you $8 to purchase it on your own. Please, propose the "free market" alternative?

The free market alternative is that people who see this happening are allowed to build hospitals. Insurance companies are forced to compete across state lines and are free to not use specific providers.Since emergency treatment is less than 2% of our entire health care budget, the conscious choices made by the 98% will easily swamp any lingering effects of "emergency profiteering". Why don't ambulances charge a million dollars for a ride? Because they have competition. Why aren't prices for vision correction going up -- in fact they are dropping rapidly -- at the rate of other medical care? The training and equipment is basically similar. Shouldn't they, in the midst of surgery, just start saying "oh, we have to add these extra costs or you will go blind!"? Why don't they do that?

Quote

I mean, just how far up your ass will your head fit?

Not far enough to believe that the <2% of costs is a driver for the other 98%.

Quote

The for-profit healthcare system exploits moral precepts unique to human life that don't translate into free-market transacting of a commodity product. If your idealism is so thick you can't understand this, then there's really no 'explaining' it to you.

So answer the question: why doesn't Target charge $12 per Ibuprofin? Why don't hospitals just charge $1,000,000 for an Ibuprofen?You are just conveniently ignoring so much data while blindly accepting insane leftist dogma. Usually you are smarter than this, I'm not sure why you are so naive on this one.

[vbnautilus]

Balloon guy, on Wednesday, April 18th, 2012, 8:47 AM, said:

The left bases all their political decisions on feelings.

I know you say this a lot as one of your "trolls that you really believe", but...This has been quite an active topic in moral psychology over the last few years, and there is now pretty good evidence: both liberals and conservatives base their political decisions on feelings -- deep intuitions that they cannot explain except by referring to "their gut". However, different feelings are important to conservatives vs. liberals. Jon Haidt's TED talk is worth watching about this: http://www.ted.com/t...moral_mind.html

[hblask]

vbnautilus, on Thursday, April 19th, 2012, 7:01 PM, said:

I know you say this a lot as one of your "trolls that you really believe", but...This has been quite an active topic in moral psychology over the last few years, and there is now pretty good evidence: both liberals and conservatives base their political decisions on feelings -- deep intuitions that they cannot explain except by referring to "their gut". However, different feelings are important to conservatives vs. liberals. Jon Haidt's TED talk is worth watching about this: http://www.ted.com/t...moral_mind.html

This guy's website is an important contribution to the discussion.

[Balloon guy]

vbnautilus, on Thursday, April 19th, 2012, 6:01 PM, said:

I know you say this a lot as one of your "trolls that you really believe", but...This has been quite an active topic in moral psychology over the last few years, and there is now pretty good evidence: both liberals and conservatives base their political decisions on feelings -- deep intuitions that they cannot explain except by referring to "their gut". However, different feelings are important to conservatives vs. liberals. Jon Haidt's TED talk is worth watching about this: http://www.ted.com/t...moral_mind.html

So liberals are feelings based thinkers.That's what I said

[vbnautilus]

hblask, on Thursday, April 19th, 2012, 6:05 PM, said:

This guy's website is an important contribution to the discussion.

That's the same guy.

[brvheart]

vbnautilus, on Friday, April 20th, 2012, 3:07 AM, said:

That's the same guy.

I read his statement as "This guy's website...", as in he looked up the website of the guy you were talking about and liked his site. But I could be wrong.