Page 14 of 29 FirstFirst ... 491011121314151617181924 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 567
  1. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #261  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    Ha, let's give them some time to pull pull out calculators or dig around for an argument to what I wrote.

    Hey, don't you work for the government? Shouldn't you be working right now???

    LOL
    I most certainly do not work for the government. Well, actually I do--but they don't give me much of a choice there (taxes).

    In fact, at certain times, I am subjected to periods of waiting, which affords me opportunities to post.

    KAM
  2. #262  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Well, actually in many cases the opposite is true. People send their kids off to be housed in schools (many of them very poor), and pretend they are getting an education, and it ends there. Unfortunately, despite the extensive amounts of money we spend, we are not getting good educations for our children. There are many reasons of course.

    Perhaps if people had more responsibility for their children's learning, results would be better. If they had the responsibility to choose a school, determine whether it is good or bad, it might lead to improvement. Or considering the number of uncaring parents, maybe not.

    KAM
    KAM, don't take the bait. Save your energy for healthcare...
  3. #263  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    I most certainly do not work for the government. Well, actually I do--but they don't give me much of a choice there (taxes).

    In fact, at certain times, I am subjected to periods of waiting, which affords me opportunities to post.

    KAM
    Sorry, I thought that's why your wife makes more (in the private sector). That may be my Dyslex-Heimers again. Oops.
  4. #264  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    Doh!

    I propose that we start a thread about your hair... and how jealous I am about how much you have and how little I have left. Seriously dude, you look like a rock star. What do you do for a living?
    Wish I lived like a rock star. I'm a Web Developer.
  5. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #265  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    Sorry, I thought that's why your wife makes more (in the private sector). That may be my Dyslex-Heimers again. Oops.
    You must be thinking of another poster.

    As far as Education. Ok, that's a problem for another day.

    KAM
  6. #266  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    You are correct that it is not a simple matter of looking at the balance sheet. But of course, that is EXACTLY what people are doing when they claim "it reduces the deficit." Yes, right. You know what else would reduce the deficit? Raising taxes by a trillion dollars (with no spending). It doesn't mean it is beneficial, because that money comes from somewhere.

    That trillion is being taken out of taxpayers pockets, which means it isn't being used for other things. You can't take one side and claim it's all benefits and roses. You have to also look at the losses, and given that it is rare that the costs ever come in on budget...well, these claims of benefit are VERY questionable.
    $940 billion is taken out of the pocket of the taxpayer. In turn, the government saves an estimated $1.3 trillion, for a net return of a little under $400 bil, give or take. Let's say they've even overestimated by 25%, or roughly $400 billion. We're still breaking even *AND* we have the side effect of 35 million (!!) Americans being medically covered.

    Governmental health care liability is going up whether you and I like it or not. The costs are set in stone and only going up. We have a choice: either we pull out of pocket now and cover them and allow a private company to assume the liability, or we let them run up bills that they either run to Medicare to cover or the hospital takes the loss and writes it off. Paying now to reduce liability later is good policy. Even if you screw up the numbers by nearly a half trillion dollars, it still makes sense. How is that bad policy?
    Perhaps people are against it because they realize shifting costs to a proven inefficient entity (the government) isn't a great idea. I'd also suggest that most business men/women understand the concept of competition is a beneficial thing.
    Government is efficient when it's run efficiently. I would argue that government clearly has been run inefficiently for years. It is unfair to allow politicians to strip large swaths of government efficiency and enforcement away, watch it become wildly inefficient, then complain that the efficiency is inherent.

    If you want to see inefficient, you should try government contractors. Or the entire financial industry. Or the entire auto industry. Or the entire food industry. Or the entire transportation industry. The romanticizing of the private sector as a paragon of efficiency is absurd.
    And we ALREADY provide Health care to our poorest (and older) citizens. We just don't do it sufficiently well, and as a component of a manipulated system, it has led us to an untenable financial situation.
    So rather than attempt to fix the system, the answer is...?
    No, you just aren't following it. The question of health care being a right is its own issue. Noting that other things that are not rights that are instead benefits or entitlements does not change the fact that healthcare (or any of these other things) are not rights.
    This is one of those libertarian positions that just can't be rationally argued. Your fellow citizens and the society that you live in has deemed it so. They don't care about natural rights and they don't care about a luddite strict constructionist view of the Constitution that ignores centuries of settled case law. If they did, we wouldn't have these social safety nets in place. Arguing about whether it's a right when society clearly deems it so is an exercise in ideological rigidity as a matter of faith. What does it get you?

    These are questions best answered by democracy at the ballot box. And they were answered. Resoundingly.
  7. #267  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Wish I lived like a rock star. I'm a Web Developer.

    Same thing in my book. ;-)
  8. #268  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    Same thing in my book. ;-)
  9. #269  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    I'd go farther than that. I say it CANNOT be an inherent right, because by its nature it requires something from someone else. No one has to pay for your freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.

    Someone DOES have to pay (by service, cash, time, etc) for your healthcare. As such, it can be an enshrined BENEFIT, or an Entitlement, but it cannot be a "Right." The reason is of course dependent on the understanding that your rights cannot inherently infringe on the rights of another to exist.

    KAM
    i would humbly suggest, that even your "rights" were paid for, in lives and cash.
  10. #270  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Hmmm, that's funny. I've heard liberals wailing for years about how people shouldn't use government to forward their "moralistic" views.

    It isn't a right and cannot rightfully be characterized as one.
    Sure it can...I characterized it as such above. It was actually quite easy.


    Unfortunately, despite the extensive amounts of money we spend, we are not getting good educations for our children.
    C'mon, you've got to admit that's pretty funny.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  11. #271  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Another wonderful example of misdirection and willful ignorance.
    Ahh...back to the insults.

    It isn't about a problem with the CBO, that's just a distortion that you're attempting to rely on.
    Using the actual CBO numbers can hardly be a distortion. The distortion is saying things like this, just because you don't like what the CBO says:

    You cling to a near-meaningless number in an effort to deny reality, and engage in a fantasy that THIS time, things will be different,
    The CBO is used by both sides of Congress for a reason.....you choose to simply ignore data that displeases you. That seems to be more of the fantasy than actually relying on the data.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  12.    #272  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    The CBO is used by both sides of Congress for a reason.....you choose to simply ignore data that displeases you. That seems to be more of the fantasy than actually relying on the data.
    How humorous. Imagine, that's what he says about others. It just COULDN'T be true of him. His "data" is always unbiased. Of course, most of the time it's not even data.
  13.    #273  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    OK, whoever demanded all that rebuking, renouncing, etc. I forgot who asked. But, to use your logic, every liberal on this thread should step up and do it. Let me hear that and stop using that "I don't hear the conservatives ever denounce those people" comment to derail the debate. Cowboy up people!

    Now, for my solution. Sorry but I fell asleep last night while catching up on email I should have been working on yesterday while I was engaged in this thread, so I am just now getting back to this. Be respectful and read the whole thing before you start flaming. That way you will see those solutions you don't think I have...

    Also, remember that i'm a hard working dad, and I don't have a staff of researchers. So, you will have to cut me some slack if I'm a little off on my stats or ideas. Consider this a straw man that you could use as a starting point.

    Solutions:

    First, let's all acknowledge that we aren't actually denying healthcare to people today. They may have limited choices, but they can show up in an emergency room ad get treated. Also, I read the study someone posted. It said several interesting things. 20% of uninsured were without insurance for 3 months or less (50% for less than 1 year). That means generally they are between jobs. Let's provide some assistance through unemployment benefits (I'll discuss funding later in the post). So, let's take 20% of the "30 million" out for now. 11% are making more than 500% of the defined poverty level and it says they should be able to afford insurance. 63% are below age 35, and 45% don't have children (i.e. and the report presumes they opt for no insurance.)

    To be generous, lets add the 20% to the 11%, and the 18% that are below age 18 (they don't qualify for existing programs, or perhaps they are starving artists?)

    Assuming those stats don't overlap (because I don't have time to dig further), that means almost 50% of the "30 million" don't need assistance, can get it through something simple like unemployment ins,etc. and don't qualify for anything that would fall in to the category of "poor that need our help...)

    Now we are down to 15 million people. So, if this costs $1trillion over 10 years, we are spending $67,000 per person for the 15 million that we *must* help. And remember, they ARE getting help today, although we can all agree that emergency room visits don't qualify as "quality" or sufficient.

    Just grant that it means we are already spending something on them - and emergency room treatment costs many times standard care, so if that money was redirected to standard coverage, the hospital costs would go down... And that means we are not denying them care, it just isn't sufficient care.

    So, the average COBRA cost per person (which is generally the most expensive insurance on the planet - at least it was when I was between jobs) is $388/month/person. So grant me that we can save 10% below COBRA, and another 10% for reforms in lawsuit abuse reform (I think OMB estimated that would be more, around 25% savings because it causes the current practice of extra "defensive" treatments to cover the butts of doctors and hospitals). Again, some wonk will chime in and argue those numbers, but give me a break for now. That means we can "cut" the COBRA estimate cost by 20%, which puts it at $310/month/person. That $1trillion over ten years now becomes 17 years of COBRA for every one of those 15 million we must help.

    There is the first solution... take the TARP repayments and fund insurance for 15 million people for 20 years. Right now congress is planning to re-spend that money elsewhere... Not one single new govt job, department, tax, or cost. Given the time value of money, let's pretend I can earn interest and get that to cover 20 years - or because I should be able to get a volume discount even from those evil insurance companies... Don't want to use TARP? Use the $Trillion being proposed now, and I've shown you how to provide coverage for double the time period without creating more govt departments.

    And by the way, I haven't subtracted non-citizens yet based on how I understand the data in the posted govt report (interesting that 21% of the uninsured are "non-citizens", but that is for another thread...)

    What if we do nothing? Well, remember that uninsured still get treated. It either gets written off, govt funded, or if the person isn't poor enough, they get a bill. I have several friends that didn't have insurance and had major surgery. They had to cowboy up and make payments to the hospital until it was paid. Tough, but they made it work because they were obligated by not being poor enough. I have to respect that.

    That's important because of this: There are many hospitals that receive huge govt subsidies and they are legally required to treat poor and uninsured. I live in a top-10 city (by metro population). So that means I could look up budgets and see what they are spending on that every year. One of the largest such hospitals in the country spends about $34million per year on such services, most of which is currently funded by current programs. Lets remember that if they provided standard care instead of emergency care, their costs would go down. But just to be conservative, lets assume they save nothing on their current costs, and assume that they have a 25% increase in the subsidized services to cover those 15 million people to provide something better than just emergency care..

    Let's assume that there are 100 such hospitals in every state (fewer in Wyoming off set more in New York - please cut me some slack here). Lets be conservative and assume such hospitals in Wyoming have costs as high as the one's in large cities (so I can stick with averages...). That's $8.5m/year for 5000 hospitals. That's $42Billion/year. That $trillion coming back from TARP will cover 24 years of costs to treat that 15 million people. I'll bet we could get a volume discount and get that up to 25 years.

    Now after the first 10 years, OMB says it will cost another trillion or so to continue. Let's assume they can accurately predict out 20 years. That means that I can use money that congress already borrowed to fund 20 to 25 years - by congressional terms that is free... Or we can borrow another $2trillion and hope we can reduce costs to keep that to maybe $1.5trillion for 20 years... That's another solution for those scoring at home (as well as those that are alone). Google Stewart Scott for that reference...

    So, option A, take the TARP repayments and buy 20-year policies for everyone. Option B, send the checks to the currently subsidized hospitals and cover the next 25 years through them. Use the interest saved on not increasing the national debt to fund years 41 and beyond. I guarantee that the interest on $2trillion over those 40 years will be enough.

    Then, use our time and effort to create competition across state lines, reform lawsuit abuse, and maybe subsidize research into ways to reduce healthcare cost. Any costs for these things are funded out of the money not spent on the buildings needed to house the govt employees to be hired to administer the current plan...

    And in the process, I they haven't started taxing my health "benefits" (which is in the plan) and we haven't created another major government organization.

    Not bad for a couple of hours with a calculator rather than thousands of congressional aides and unlimited research resources...

    Now, would I turn people away at hospitals? No, and we don't do that now. Non-emergencies might get sent to a different hospital, but since they have shiny new 20-year policies, they will be going to doctors much more often...

    If they fall into that 15 million that can afford insurance, but don't have it (remember them?). They get a bill after they get treatment. If they can't pay, it goes to collection and/or gets written off. Every medical bill today has a percent in it to cover write-offs, just like bank loans, credit cards, etc. Seems to be workable.

    So, I think I've provided a method for funding with no additional spending, no new taxes or denied treatment, and no new giant govt department. Over that 20 years, I'm sure we can set enough aside to fund the next 20, and maybe drive the cost down between now and then, like it has come down for telecommunications...

    Don't want to use TARP? Use the first Trillion of the current plan, but use it my way. Or, use the Trillion we save by ending a few wars. Or use the first Trillion we save by eliminating wasteful spending or corruption. Any way you slice it, I gave you solutions that will cover at LEAST twice the time period for less than the first 10-year projection, and do so without creating new govt bloat.

    Of course, if you want to give me a few hundred staffers, access to OMB, and a few years to research it - I'll bet I can come up with better ideas. I could be wrong, of course.

    But for now, I'll sit back and wait for the flaming to commence...

    I really don't have time today to address this, but I will say your assumptions leave a great deal to be desired. And your knowledge about the actual costs of the inefficient care that will be delivered through emergency care, instead of providing routine primary care and preventive services to every single person, are probably dramatically underestimated. I love it when people who have never looked at an ER balance sheet say "but the truth is nobody is denied care now". Right, and that's one reason why the health care non-system we currently have is non-sustainable. Putting numbers in a calculator is not helpful if you don't understand the basics of what you're paying for. I will try to address more specifics next week, if possible, but I would still like you to address the simple fact that if you allow people to not have insurance, what will you do with them when they get sick?

    You say we are suckers, the world looks at us as suckers? Certainly not in terms of taking care of our own citizens. Far from it.
  14. #274  
    Bujin:

    Typing on my phone so I can't quote. If you get to decide the definition of 'rights', who decides which definition trumps? Now read Orwel's 'animal farm' and the part where they find that 'some animals are more equal than others.'

    If your definition of 'rights' creates a restriction on another, how do you have the "right" to do that? Look up the term 'take from those with ability, and give o those in need.' and notice what that is called.

    Yes, our rights have been bought and defended by blood and lives. But was only necessary because of those that tried to take those rights (example: enemies such as japan). There is no required cost to retain a a right unless someone tries to take it.

    Remember your comment about the ballot box, democracy, etc in the next election. You may well see a major swing in the balance of power. Even the most leberal pollsters acknowledge that more than 50 percent of Americans oppose this bill. And about 3/4 of americans are disgusted by congress, especially with the slimy trick they are trying to pull right now.

    that is likely to mean many in congress won't be back for another term.

    the ballot cutss both wayss.
    Last edited by Cantaffordit; 03/19/2010 at 04:55 PM.
  15. #275  
    Quote Originally Posted by biggyfred View Post
    $940 billion is taken out of the pocket of the taxpayer. In turn, the government saves an estimated $1.3 trillion, for a net return of a little under $400 bil, give or take. Let's say they've even overestimated by 25%, or roughly $400 billion. We're still breaking even *AND* we have the side effect of 35 million (!!) Americans being medically covered.
    Except the cost of the proposed bill woefully misrepresents the actually cost, by closer to 100% of that stated. Roughly 40% of the 35 million (closer to 30 million) will be forced at the threat of a loss of their liberty to pay an insurance company a Government mandated premium. That is a tax by any other name (even President Obama's aid said as much) and one that is not included in the cost to the taxpayer in this bill. Medicare was also slated to have a fix expense after a decade, which was double even after inflation by the time that decade ran. There is no way any reasonable person should believe that the number the legislation was tweeked for will be remotely accurate.

    Quote Originally Posted by biggyfred View Post
    Governmental health care liability is going up whether you and I like it or not. The costs are set in stone and only going up. We have a choice: either we pull out of pocket now and cover them and allow a private company to assume the liability, or we let them run up bills that they either run to Medicare to cover or the hospital takes the loss and writes it off. Paying now to reduce liability later is good policy. Even if you screw up the numbers by nearly a half trillion dollars, it still makes sense. How is that bad policy?
    It is bad policy because those numbers are incomplete and inacurate, and even the top Democratic Brass has openly atated this is just the begining of the process. But it also bad policy because it ignores the white elephant in the room, which is the already existing unfunded liabilty of the other social programs currently in existance, Medicade, medicare and Social Security, that will be over 100 trillion dollars in the next few decades. This bill, which is bigger that medicare ever was, even in the light most favorable to your politics will never significantly reduce that figure, and the reality is it will simply pile on.

    Quote Originally Posted by biggyfred View Post
    Government is efficient when it's run efficiently. I would argue that government clearly has been run inefficiently for years. It is unfair to allow politicians to strip large swaths of government efficiency and enforcement away, watch it become wildly inefficient, then complain that the efficiency is inherent.
    But Governmentr has never been run efficiently. Ever. It has no incentive to be run efficiently and is actually incentivized to run inefficiently.



    Quote Originally Posted by biggyfred View Post
    If you want to see inefficient, you should try government contractors. Or the entire financial industry. Or the entire auto industry. Or the entire food industry. Or the entire transportation industry. The romanticizing of the private sector as a paragon of efficiency is absurd.
    It may not be the paragon, but it does not have to be to bemore efficient than a system that is, by design, inefficient.


    Quote Originally Posted by biggyfred View Post
    This is one of those libertarian positions that just can't be rationally argued. Your fellow citizens and the society that you live in has deemed it so. They don't care about natural rights and they don't care about a luddite strict constructionist view of the Constitution that ignores centuries of settled case law. If they did, we wouldn't have these social safety nets in place. Arguing about whether it's a right when society clearly deems it so is an exercise in ideological rigidity as a matter of faith. What does it get you?
    This is where you are confusing your belief system, or even that of the majority if it shared it with you, with being the only correct one. All libertarian positions can be rationally argued, weather you agree with them or not is another matter. This is the same process by which the current administration tries to marginalize all rational diasagreement with its proposals - Obama said no economists disagreed that the Federal Government must do something to correct the market slide, when 300 or more economists, including dozens of Nobel Laureats signed a petition saying it was not the proper policy and published it the Washington Post, NY Times and other newspapers. Simply ignoring other opposing views, or even worse, pretending they do not exist, does not make it so.

    For the same reason, even though the Supreme Court has misinterpreted the constitution for decades (not centuries) after threats to their independence proposed by the crisis president of the time FDR, does not mean we should blindly continue off the cliff. The court can reverse course on its Statist agenda and prevent a slide towards totalitarianism right now, in its peding ruling in Chicago v. McDonald by reafirming the often ignored Priveledges and Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. So where does wanting the Supreme's to return to a more literal (not strict) interpretation of the Constitution get us? Closer to the orignal founding fathers intent of what a free society is, and one we have drifted from in the last few decades, precicely because many, like yourself apparantly, do not care about your own rights. Fortunately, we do not live in a democracy, but a representitive democracy that alows for respect of minority rights and opinions. Becuase even though many do not care about their own rights, there are still those that do, and the rest of society, however much they might want to, are not permitted to stip them of those rights and opinions.

    Quote Originally Posted by biggyfred View Post

    These are questions best answered by democracy at the ballot box. And they were answered. Resoundingly.
    I hope you feel the same in November.
    VisorPhone Clone
    (Please do not thank me - I find it scary)
  16. #276  
    nice try devidra.

    Lets assume I'm off by half. I STILL met your challenge to solve it another way for the same or less cost. You can say I'm wrong, but it is every bit as logical as the current legislation.

    You can't just say 'jane, you ignorant sl* t' and declare that I don't know the subject. (google SNL if you don't recognize that reference. Funniest running skit EVER).

    This part of the thread started as a logical argument. You asked for specifics. Logic and 4 function math (add/subtract/multiply/divide) don't require specialized training. I used numbers you posted fron the dept of health and human services. I clearly labeled my assumptions, and my assumptions were always conservative against my objective to remove any appearance of manipulating the numbers.

    Go ahead and throw insults because you don't like the idea instead of acknowledging that I met the challenge - just as I met the challenge to denounce the morons in the video, etc. which you also haven't acknowledged.

    Those are holes you dug. Why are you looking for another shovel?

    I produced multiple ways to accomplish the same objective with the numbers you gave me. Don't you hate it when that happens?

    Before you dismiss my lack of knowledge with that "elite" idea that you will grace us with superior knowledge you claim to posses, you might start by attaching your education, list of degrees, and job history to back up the elitist idea that I am stupid and you are gonna school me.

    Warning, I might have more qualifications than you think. I darned sure have th intellectual horsepower to grasp numbers, run a spreadshheet, and avoid logical fallacy when I argue a point.

    In fact, before you enlighten me, I recommend you head over to wikipedia and study the many logical fallacies you are guilty of. I'm happy to help you as an active kindness. Don't you hate it when an opponent does that?

    Then, COWBOY UP and acknowledge that I've met each of your challenges. You don't have to like what I suggested. By the way, I don't either. As I said, if you give me a couple of years, a building full of staff researchers, and access to the CBO, I know I can do better. But, since I have a job and family (although I think I will be unemployed very soon), I have to keep this at a logical level and work with basic facts that you provided.

    After you acknowledge that I met the challenge, and understand that I wasn't suggesting those were the best ideas... THEN we can have civil discussuon. If not, you will continue to sound like Dan Ackroyd...
    Last edited by Cantaffordit; 03/19/2010 at 05:28 PM.
  17. #277  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    ... your knowledge about the actual costs of the inefficient care that will be delivered through emergency care, instead of providing routine primary care and preventive services to every single person, are probably dramatically underestimated. I love it when people who have never looked at an ER balance sheet say "but the truth is nobody is denied care now". Right, and that's one reason why the health care non-system we currently have is non-sustainable....

    Putting numbers in a calculator is not helpful if you don't understand the basics of what you're paying for. I will try to address more specifics next week, if possible, but I would still like you to address the simple fact that if you allow people to not have insurance, what will you do with them when they get sick?

    You say we are suckers, the world looks at us as suckers? Certainly not in terms of taking care of our own citizens. Far from it.
    divedra, please re-read what I wrote. I acknowledged that emergency care is too expensive, insufficient, and much cheaper if done outside the emergency room by traditional doctoring. I just used it to derive the numbers (way overstated numbers) to calculate the cost of one method of providing that non-emergency room method of care. Geesh, read it again with a focus on comprehension. When you come back to "school" me, it willl go better if you first read and understand that which you plan to blow apart with your superior knowledge.

    ...and remember you set the rules. You told me to come up with a solutiom that didn't create another major government program and the overhead to run it. And you asked me what I would do while standing at the emergency room door.

    I DID offer a solution for those that refuse to buy insurance. If they are poor, cover them with current programs. If they aren't, send them a bill. I even gave you an example of people I know that had to do that, and they had the integrity to borrow the money to meet their obligations. He was caught between jobs, but he stepped up to his situation. Show some respect! I told you how they currently handle people that don't pay those bills - collections and/or writing them off as bad debt. Would you like to add the death penalty to non-payment?

    And if you don't like that answer - OK, I'll GIVE you the premise that EVERYONE must have insurance. Heck, that's the way it works for car insurance. You can still solve that without declaring insurance a natural right, and without creating the biggest government program since Social Security. There you go, you get ANOTHER IDEA from me, and it includes the bonus of a compromise to remove your issue about "what we do with the uninsured when they get sick?".

    Re-read this and let it sink in: Go ahead and mandate insurance for those that can afford it. Use existing programs for those that cant buy it, and therefore are qualified (unemployed, under 18, etc). Buy insurance or further subsidize facilities that treat the un-insured poor (remember, a hospital has more than an emergency room in its list of assets.) They can use their shiny new insurance policy to get regular care when they are sick, and maybe to help them prevent getting sick! Don't just pretend I didn't address that. It will make you look silly.

    You don't have to like my answers, but I did meet the challenge! I can't wait to soak up you exceptional wisdom and experience. I will be so much more enlightened, and I can hardly wait!

    I really appreciate your willingness to help me on the path to self improvement and education.

    ...oh, and YES I DO think the world looks at Americans as suckers. Where else can you break a law and be rewarded. Break a federal law and they get welfare, medic-aide, pretty soon health insurance, plus we put their kids through school, etc etc. How can the world view that as something other than being suckers? If you really think that creates respect for American's, I'd like to stop buy and declare that I'm entitled to the contents of your house or bank account so you will respect me, too. That's what is happening to us... and anyone who let's that happen is a sucker.
    Last edited by Cantaffordit; 03/19/2010 at 05:34 PM.
  18. #278  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    i would humbly suggest, that even your "rights" were paid for, in lives and cash.

    I disagree. Your rights are yours to begin with. You may have had to defend them with lives and cash, but they were yours originally for free.

    I would go even further than the original posters, and say that no Government can grant you rights, because they are already yours. Your rights exist beyond Governement fiat or whim. And therefore your rights cannot be legitimately stripped by any Governemnt. To do so is an abuse of power. A government's only legitimate use of its power is to protect you from others trying to abuse those rights already endowed to you innately.

    At least, that is what I believe.
    VisorPhone Clone
    (Please do not thank me - I find it scary)
  19. #279  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    nice try devidra.

    Lets assume I'm off by half. I STILL met your challenge to solve it another way for the same or less cost. You can say I'm wrong, but it is every bit as logical as the current legislation.

    You can't just say 'jane, you ignorant sl* t' and declare that I don't know the subject. (google SNL if you don't recognize that reference. Funniest running skit EVER).

    This part of the thread started as a logical argument. You asked for specifics. Logic and 4 function math (add/subtract/multiply/divide) don't require specialized training. I used numbers you posted fron the dept of health and human services. I clearly labeled my assumptions, and my assumptions were always conservative against my objective to remove any appearance of manipulating the numbers.

    Go ahead and throw insults because you don't like the idea instead of acknowledging that I met the challenge - just as I met the challenge to denounce the morons in the video, etc. which you also haven't acknowledged.

    Those are holes you dug. Why are you looking for another shovel?

    I produced multiple ways to accomplish the same objective with the numbers you gave me. Don't you hate it when that happens?

    Before you dismiss my lack of knowledge with that "elite" idea that you will grace us with superior knowledge you claim to posses, you might start by attaching your education, list of degrees, and job history to back up the elitist idea that I am stupid and you are gonna school me.

    Warning, I might have more qualifications than you think. I darned sure have th intellectual horsepower to grasp numbers, run a spreadshheet, and avoid logical fallacy when I argue a point.

    In fact, before you enlighten me, I recommend you head over to wikipedia and study the many logical fallacies you are guilty of. I'm happy to help you as an active kindness. Don't you hate it when an opponent does that?

    Then, COWBOY UP and acknowledge that I've met each of your challenges. You don't have to like what I suggested. By the way, I don't either. As I said, if you give me a couple of years, a building full of staff researchers, and access to the CBO, I know I can do better. But, since I have a job and family (although I think I will be unemployed very soon), I have to keep this at a logical level and work with basic facts that you provided.

    After you acknowledge that I met the challenge, and understand that I wasn't suggesting those were the best ideas... THEN we can have civil discussuon. If not, you will continue to sound like Dan Ackroyd...
    Dude, youre wasting your time with this one.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  20. #280  
    Davidra, here is some further assistance for you as you prepare to school me. It's a list of mistakes you want to avoid so that your arguments will hold up under the scrutiny of logic:

    Nirvana fallacy: when solutions to problems are said not to be right because they are not perfect. (hey, my assumptions leave a lot to be desired, and you think I've never looked at a hospital balance sheet).

    Fallacy of necessity: a degree of unwarranted necessity is placed in the conclusion based on the necessity of one or more of its premises. (everyone MUST have insurance)

    False dilemma (false dichotomy): where two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more. (either pass the current bill or 30 million people wont get health care...)

    If-by-whiskey: An argument that supports both sides of an issue by using terms that are selectively emotionally sensitive. ("i.e. what about the children, or what will you do when the uninsured get sick...waaahaaa")

    Package-deal fallacy: consists of assuming that things often grouped together by tradition or culture must always be grouped that way. ("everyone MUST have insurance and the government must create an entitlement to do it" is an example)

    Red Herring: also called a "fallacy of relevance." This occurs when the speaker is trying to distract the audience by arguing some new topic, or just generally going off topic with an argument. (continuing back to points that have been addressed, declaring that your opponent must also support Tea Party behavior or a particular war... good examples of that).

    Affirming a disjunct: concluded that one logical disjunction must be false because the other disjunct is true; A or B; A; therefore not B. (if it's true that Medicare and Social Security are successful - and popular - then only a govt entitlement is a good way to solve the current problem.)

    Fallacy of exclusive premises: a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative. (the world can't survive if we don't get insurance for everyone, and it can't be done by anything other than a govt entitlement)

    Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam): signifies that it has been discussed extensively (possibly by different people) until nobody cares to discuss it anymore (failing to acknowledge that questions have been answered).

    Appeal to ridicule: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous (are YOU going to stand in the emergency room and turn people away?)

    Correlation does not imply causation (*** hoc ergo propter hoc): a phrase used in the sciences and the statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not imply that one causes the other (the presence of uninsured and poor is caused by the lack of government entitlements)

    Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum): someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda. (how are YOU going to get healthcare to uninsured? Are YOU going to turn away people in the emergency room? Why don't YOU denounce the people in the video)...

    I could go on, but I think you get the point... People are so used to the status quo and the rhetoric of both parties that they forget to analyze the validity of the assumptions. If you do, you will discover that drinking the beer in that advertisement wont cause that hot woman to date you. Driving that car won't cause you to have those rugged good looks. Shopping on sale won't save you more money than not making a purchase...

    Good luck on preparing your response without falling in to any of those fallacies. And in the spirit of full disclosure, the fallacy I fall into most often is:

    Proof by example: where examples are offered as inductive proof for a universal proposition. ("This apple is red, therefore all apples are red.") (the govt has never effectively solved a major problem, so all government programs are bad...). Not that the conclusion is invalid, just that it requires more information to be proven...

    Have a nice weekend!

Posting Permissions