Let's talk healthcare

[JustinW]

John,

 

Justin,

All laws are an "attack on your freedom" as you put it.

No there are not. A law does not mandate that you buy a service or product.

 

So, do you see what you have done there- you have attacked a strawman version of my assertion.

You pretended that I wrote that there were no free loaders and attacked that assertion.

But it's not what I said.

Alright, I can see your point on that one. I just wanted you to see the flip side of your comment.

 

 

Now, will you kindly address the issue of how it can be true that "each and every person in this world has the power to work towards their future." when some people can't find work?

So it is that they simply can't find work? Or is it alright to assert that they are not looking hard enough? Most people can find work somewhere. Whether they have to go abroad to do so, or step up the level of initiative, enginuity, or willingness to work under their level of qualifications, I cannot believe that the majority of those people cannot find some type of work somewhere.

 

 

 

A Trip,

I'm not even sure what this sentence is supposed to mean.

I missread when you said this in post 129.

I suppose I am being a college kid and only having a part time job.

 

For some reason, in my mind I thought you said acting like a college kid. I will try and pay more attention to the text from now on.

 

Ah, sweet. Find one that cheap for me that doesn't have a deductible of $5,000. Find one that I can actually use to go get this pancreatic ultrasound the doctors on campus told me I needed.

Sure here you go. http://www.sasid.com/our-product/core-health-insurance-limited-indemnity-medical-insurance/

It's not the best in the world, like a major medical plan would be, but it does the trick till something better comes along and you get to a more sound financial state.

 

 

You're defending a system that allows people like me (and many others that are far worse off) to go without medical care because we can't afford the exorbitant costs.

And have you made any choices that would have allowed you to afford some sort of plan. Or did you make a decision that put you in the spot you are in?

 

 

iNow,

 

Not to mention the countless flaws, factual errors, and logical fallacies pointed out throughout these previous 8 pages of discussion

Do you see the vagueness of this statement. You have given me nothing but vague accusations of where I'm wrong without telling me WHAT is so wrong about it.

[zapatos]

So this is what you've resorted to? Calling me less than a man? Oh, if only...If I didn't like critical discussion so much I might have some choice words.

 

 

All you can do is cheerlead for your cause or do like Zapatos and call me "less than a man". Which is alright, because someone like Zapatos, who talks fightin' words while hiding behind a computer screen really isn't much of a man in my opinion either.

What I said was "Rather than being a man and taking a critical look at your own country... (on this issue)." I did not call you "less than a man". If you are going to quote me, please quote what I actually said.

 

And your opinion of whether or not I am much of a man aside, the manly trait I had hoped to elicit from you was not one of idle threats, but of honesty, integrity, and compassion. I don't object to your opinion, but what I do object to is your apparant lack of intellectual honesty and integrity in arriving at that opinion.

 

Dismissing the comments of others with a shrug and a cry to 'freedom' shows neither honesty nor integrity.

[A Tripolation]

For some reason, in my mind I thought you said acting like a college kid. I will try and pay more attention to the text from now on.

 

Actually, this was my fault. I should have put a comma after "I suppose I am" because that was in reference to iNow saying that I would be insured if I was under the poverty level. The comma in that sentence makes all the readability difference in the world. My apologies.

 

 

 

And have you made any choices that would have allowed you to afford some sort of plan. Or did you make a decision that put you in the spot you are in?

 

I've been uninsured all my life because my parents are uninsured because they are self employed small farmers. I was a tad too old to benefit from that KCHIP thing my younger siblings had. I've been to the dentist less than five times in my life and--aside from this new condition I have--the doctor less than ten. I was very fortunate that I've been healthy and had no terrible accidents. What would have happened then?

 

I've made the decision to go to college for STEM so I could have a good job so I could change my life situation. But I still have no medical coverage. This system is flawed because of it. I could afford some small taxes now for a government system, and when I hopefully graduate and get a good job in my field, I can pay even more into the system.

 

 

Also, the plan you linked to is atrociously limited. They don't even cover what I need. Tell me why it's ok to have public roads but not public healthcare. Because I really don't get it.

Edited April 5, 2012 by A Tripolation

[John Cuthber]

If this "Most people can find work somewhere. " is true (which I doubt) then it's still sufficient to show that you were wrong because it doesn't say "all people..."

as for "All laws are an "attack on your freedom" as you put it.

No there are not. A law does not mandate that you buy a service or product." you must be kidding.

 

Any law necessarily restricts freedom. The law bans killing so it restricts my freedom to kill. The law bans parking on some parts of some streets- that removes my freedom to park there.

The idea that laws don't remove freedom is absurd and if that's the sort of thing you have to say to defend your point of view then you have lost the argument.

 

"Do you see the vagueness of this statement. You have given me nothing but vague accusations of where I'm wrong without telling me WHAT is so wrong about it. "

while the statement is a bit vague it's not true to say that "You have given me nothing but vague accusations of where I'm wrong without telling me WHAT is so wrong about it."

I have, for example pointed out a few occasions where you were using a straw man argument and iNow pointed out some other logical fallacies.

You have been told- but you carry on anyway.

[JustinW]

Zapatos,

 

What I said was "Rather than being a man and taking a critical look at your own country... (on this issue)." I did not call you "less than a man". If you are going to quote me, please quote what I actually said.

If you're going to quote yourself, why don't you actually quote the full content of what you said

What you said.

Rather than being a man and taking a critical look at your own country, you chose instead...

And I believe this rant was more or less thrown in my direction also.

I thank God our founding fathers consisted of the men we had rather than the sniveling apologetics today who don't have the balls to question their own country

I do have the balls to question my own country. My country is trying to do something that I am questioning as wrong. Is this not accurate?

 

I don't object to your opinion, but what I do object to is your apparant lack of intellectual honesty and integrity in arriving at that opinion.

 

Explain WHERE. For christ sake I only get these vague comments about me being wrong, when I'm asking as much as I can for people to tell me where and more importantly how. You would think on a forum that prides itself in logical thought that it wouldn't be this damn hard to accomplish.

 

 

People give me graphs. I tell them how either that information doesn't apply to the argument or why that information is inaccurate, and they come back and say "you're wrong" without explaining how or why. How the hell am I supposed to argue with that?

 

Dismissing the comments of others with a shrug and a cry to 'freedom' shows neither honesty nor integrity.

If you were reading the thread you would have already read where I covered our cost issue. Although between John and me, we may have confused the issue a little. I'll try to keep the issue short. Basicly you have to expect that a free market with our amount of economic output will automatically spend more than a country that is able to supress their spending through the regulation of medicine and procedures.

If you find issue with this assessment then please explain how or why.

 

 

A Trip,

 

I've been uninsured all my life because my parents are uninsured because they are self employed small farmers. I was a tad too old to benefit from that KCHIP thing my younger siblings had. I've been to the dentist less than five times in my life and--aside from this new condition I have--the doctor less than ten.

 

Me too, off and on for the most part. The only time I was ever insured was when my parents manipulated the system to get something free. I grew up with these sorts of fraudulant acts and I know full well how easy the system is to manipulate.

 

 

I was very fortunate that I've been healthy and had no terrible accidents. What would have happened then?

 

I was less fortunate on a few occasions, but we always found a way. The best thing about growing up poor is that you fully understand what it takes to survive in some situations. People may look at my ideology as harsh or insensitive, but I've learned to never ask from others what you are not willing to do yourself.

 

 

I've made the decision to go to college for STEM so I could have a good job so I could change my life situation. But I still have no medical coverage. This system is flawed because of it. I could afford some small taxes now for a government system, and when I hopefully graduate and get a good job in my field, I can pay even more into the system.

 

 

Also, the plan you linked to is atrociously limited. They don't even cover what I need. Tell me why it's ok to have public roads but not public healthcare. Because I really don't get it.

Is this tax you propose the same amount for everybody? Or will it be based on income? If you are going to make the rich pay more for the same product where does that seem fair. It seems more like punishment for being rich by carrying the burdens of others on their backs just because they made good choices in their lives. And if it wasn't that way then that tax wouldn't be as affordable to you anymore, would it?

 

 

John,

Any law necessarily restricts freedom. The law bans killing so it restricts my freedom to kill. The law bans parking on some parts of some streets- that removes my freedom to park there.

The idea that laws don't remove freedom is absurd and if that's the sort of thing you have to say to defend your point of view then you have lost the argument.

Taken in that context you are correct, but I think you know what I meant.

 

It's hard to argue with you sometimes because you have a strange way of going about it.

Like this

If this "Most people can find work somewhere. " is true (which I doubt) then it's still sufficient to show that you were wrong because it doesn't say "all people..."

 

Does every person not possess the power to work towards their future? If not, what restricts them? I'll tell you now that anything you put down, barring medical reasons, can be disputed.

 

 

I have, for example pointed out a few occasions where you were using a straw man argument and iNow pointed out some other logical fallacies.

You have been told- but you carry on anyway.

No. You just say that it's wrong. You never say how. Edited April 5, 2012 by JustinW

[John Cuthber]

"Taken in that context you are correct, but I think you know what I meant."

Actually, I don't know what you meant.

You say that you want freedom and I point out that universal freedom is anarchy which you probably wouldn't like.

But, rather than accepting the point you try to pretend that laws don't restrict freedom.

I point out that of course they do- that's their whole point and the best thing you can do is say "you know what I meant" as if that's some sort of counterpoint.

Well it does not.

 

Governments restrict individual freedom in order to maintain general freedom. If you don't like it go and find an anarchy somewhere.

 

"Does every person not possess the power to work towards their future? If not, what restricts them?"

Poverty is probably the commonest answer. It's what makes your comment that people should travel abroad to find jobs particularly stupid. Are you going to pay their air fare?

 

In any event it has drifted a bit from the original discussion of the fact that that power brings responsibility. Those who are in a position to help others should do so precisely because they can.

 

 

"No. You just say that it's wrong. You never say how. "

That's a plain lie.

See your own acceptance in post 151 of the criticism of a strawman attack you made in post 136

Also, in post 111 iNow explained that you were using an argument from incredulity. If you didn't know what that meant you should have looked it up or asked.

[zapatos]

Zapatos,

I don't object to your opinion, but what I do object to is your apparant lack of intellectual honesty and integrity in arriving at that opinion.

Explain WHERE. For christ sake I only get these vague comments about me being wrong, when I'm asking as much as I can for people to tell me where and more importantly how. You would think on a forum that prides itself in logical thought that it wouldn't be this damn hard to accomplish.

 

 

Justin,

 

Look at the sentence you left out of the quote:

I don't object to your opinion, but what I do object to is your apparant lack of intellectual honesty and integrity in arriving at that opinion.

 

Dismissing the comments of others with a shrug and a cry to 'freedom' shows neither honesty nor integrity.

 

Which directly referred to:

 

 

Supplying me with a lifetime of blood pressure medicine is cheaper to the healthcare system than the expense incurred if I have a heart attack.

At which I shrug my shoulders and think "that is the price we pay for freedom". I never said the cost was cheap did I?

 

The intellectual dishonesty was in not addressing my comment, but instead dismissing it under the pretext that requiring money from citizens to fund some aspects of society is an infringement on 'freedom' and therefore not a valid argument. As I said, I don't object to you having that opinion, but to dismiss it as you did rather than offering some justification that this particular government requirement is more onus than other government requirements was my objection. And while you probably did not intend it this way, your off handed dismissal of my comment was taken by me that my comment was not worth your consideration, thus resulting in my rather poor response back to you. My bad on that.

[JustinW]

John,

 

You say that you want freedom and I point out that universal freedom is anarchy which you probably wouldn't like.

And all of this stems from the fact that I was saying a law doesn't make you buy a service or product. Just because you want to take a part of the conversation and twist it doesn't mean I will play along.

 

What you said. Post 147

All laws are an "attack on your freedom" as you put it.

My reply. Post 151

No there are not. A law does not mandate that you buy a service or product.

 

Your reply. Post 154

you must be kidding.

 

Any law necessarily restricts freedom. The law bans killing so it restricts my freedom to kill. The law bans parking on some parts of some streets- that removes my freedom to park there.

The idea that laws don't remove freedom is absurd and if that's the sort of thing you have to say to defend your point of view then you have lost the argument.

 

Do you see how you have twisted my response that "a law doesn't require you to buy a product", into " laws don't take freedom away"?

 

 

Are you going to pay their air fare?

I didn't mean that they had to fly around the world. Go to the next town over, or even the next if that is what it takes.

 

 

Those who are in a position to help others should do so precisely because they can.

And you think it is the government's responsibility to demand that these people do so? This is where my ideology kicks in. You may not like it, but I don't really like the idea of government mandating someone to do something just because they can. It's almost laughable.

 

 

See your own acceptance in post 151 of the criticism of a strawman attack you made in post 136

In this post I said I could see your point that people deciding not to work was different than people not being able to.

 

 

Also, in post 111 iNow explained that you were using an argument from incredulity. If you didn't know what that meant you should have looked it up or asked.

In this post I said that no one knows why the infant mortality rate is higher among African Americans. If someone wanted to prove that that argument was out of incredulity, then I challenge them to prove that someone knows the reason. So my position stands on that matter. They do and no one knows why. If you think that's wrong then prove otherwise. Just because someone says it's out of incredulity doesn't make it so.

 

Zapatos,

 

The intellectual dishonesty was in not addressing my comment, but instead dismissing it under the pretext that requiring money from citizens to fund some aspects of society is an infringement on 'freedom' and therefore not a valid argument. As I said, I don't object to you having that opinion, but to dismiss it as you did rather than offering some justification that this particular government requirement is more onus than other government requirements was my objection. And while you probably did not intend it this way, your off handed dismissal of my comment was taken by me that my comment was not worth your consideration, thus resulting in my rather poor response back to you. My bad on that.

Once explained that way, I can see where I erred. I do apologize. You might find that some of reply was mentioned in a reply to A Trip, about taxation above in post 155. I think it is wrong to directly mandate that someone pay on behalf of someone else just because they've made better choices with their lives. If they want to do so on their own that is one thing. But to have a government mandate that requires them to do so is something completely different.

[John Cuthber]

Re " A law does not mandate that you buy a service or product."

If it doesn't then you have nothing to complain about. If it does then you are wrong.

What you said (post 140) was

"By mandating that you buy something is an attack on your freedom. Some may argue that they mandate that you buy auto insurance, but they don't. Only if you choose to drive. Mandating that you buy something because you choose to live is an attack on freedom. "

 

My reply (post147) was

Justin,

All laws are an "attack on your freedom" as you put it.

If you want to see what life is like in an anarchy, have a look at Somalia for example. (though that might be a bit unfair to Somalia- even thy have some local law)

Would you prefer to live there where you can have your "freedom"?

 

You haven't answered that question yet.

 

I said "all laws are an "attack on your freedom" as you put it."

and your reply was "No there are not. A law does not mandate that you buy a service or product. "

Strictly speaking I should have asked what you meant, but I thought you intended to write "no they are not" which would have made sense (but been wrong).

Well, the fact is that laws are restrictive.

 

 

 

"And you think it is the government's responsibility to demand that these people do so? "

Who else is going to?

 

Re air fares

"I didn't mean that they had to fly around the world. Go to the next town over, or even the next if that is what it takes."

Unless there are any unemployed people in that town already.

That's the point- some of the people could get jobs, but not all of them.

 

And I did my best to explain why your attack was a straw man. If you didn't understand it then you should have asked about it.

 

 

When it comes down to it, the fundamental problem is shown in the data here

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_5aAsxFJOeMw/Rufu26aRbXI/AAAAAAAAAeg/ZI5BkAJdWDo/s1600-h/2005-OECD-THEpC-vs-GDPpC-Sigmoid-Regression.JPG

Idaho and Sweden both have per capita incomes of about 32000 dollars.

Idaho spends about 4500 on healthcare

Sweden spends about 2900

 

Pennsylvania and Ireland both have incomes around 38000.

Pennsylvania spends 7200.

Ireland spends 3000

 

I could go on and list other pairs.

Why do the Americans spend so much more?

It's not as if the evidence shows that they get better healthcare for their money- indeed on 2 of the most widely used criteria they do worse.

 

It's not because they have more money- I chose pairs where the per capita income is pretty much the same.

Edited April 5, 2012 by John Cuthber

[JustinW]

John,

 

You haven't answered that question yet.

Because the question doesn't fit with what I said.

You said " all laws would be an attack on freedom as you put it", when that is no where close to being how I put it. So the answer to your question is an obvious no and has no bearing on the conversation. Yes, that laws are restrictive is a fact, but they still don't make you buy certain products.

 

 

Who else is going to?

I find it amazing that you think that's right.

 

 

Why do the Americans spend so much more?

Because we don't have a government that is able to supress the costs like other countries do.

 

 

It's not as if the evidence shows that they get better healthcare for their money- indeed on 2 of the most widely used criteria they do worse.

I've already explained my reasoning on these, but you refused to tell me how it was wrong. You just keep repeating it and saying that it's evidence that the US' quality is worse.

 

It's not because they have more money- I chose pairs where the per capita income is pretty much the same.

I've already explained this also.