User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 37

  1. #21
    Allergic to Mornings ergophobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ENFP
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    I hate arguing with you.
    I couldn't care less.

    That's the entire point behind the healthcare policies. They are designed by the left to get young people to pay into healthcare, and to limit expenditures on the old and dying people. And by limiting innovation in the health industry through taxation and regulation, they will also limit the lifespans of future generations thereby fulfilling their desire for sustainable population growth (eugenics related idealogy).
    Who pays for health care now? Sick, old people? Is the way the insurance companies currently function because of Left policies? THINK ABOUT IT. He's describing the current system as much as the alternatives that are NOT public options! This is really not that difficult.

    Since you're not really interested in understanding what he was saying, the merit of the issues he brought up, regardless of ideology (he criticizes the administration in which he is an adviser), I can't be bothered to continue.

  2. #22
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,859

    Default

    Ignore Risen...he's light headed from sitting so high on his horse.

  3. #23
    Senior Member durentu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    INTp
    Posts
    413

    Default

    I think the point is that the government simply cannot support a program of immortality. Modern science is at the stage where all you have to do is live 20 more years and then the medical science can extend your life further. In other words, medical technology can perpetuate your life faster than you can deteriorate. And if you ride this transitional wave correctly, you can be 40-50 years old for however long you can pay for it. If you're financially independent, then it's however long you want to live.

    If you have the resources, growing old isn't about wrinkles and loosing brain cells. Growing old is just living out a particular age indefinitely. There's a bet among scientists that the first person to live to 150 years is already living today and probably in their 50s now.

    How is this possible? Biologists discovered that there nothing in our biology that will count down to our expiration. There's no "time's up" gene and therefor death is the imperfect replication of our cells. With nanotechnology, the cell reproduction can be perfect with an assist with nanotechnology, probably in a liquid form first. The cup of life, or fountain of youth will have nanobots in them.

    For younger people, it'll be a dramatic shift in philosophy. Some will want to live on forever until boredom claims them, or it'll be more purposeful to give your biomass back to nature to take on another form. A view that a person has achieved and as obtained their goals in life and then return to nature. An interesting view is to live long enough to settle on mars, then die on mars to add to that biomass.

    Eventually, if not us, then definitely out children will have to battle our basic instincts. Can we override our own survival instinct and go back to nature, or do we spread throughout the universe and possibly into other universes?

    Or

    If the transition is from a biological human to a pure energy form of human, how do we redefine ourselves? This is another war that cannot be won by killing another, but to change ourselves. Which is a HUGE human difficulty.

    As a scientist at heart, I like the idea of learning everything I can, but philosophically, I cannot imagine a life for more than 8600 years. Namely, two grand epoch cycles of human civilization. By then, I probably would have seen it all.

  4. #24
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    Uhm. I know a good number of people that by 75 are still active. Some of them even still work (!!!) or have just retired. I'm a big believer that a society where a large percentage of people works in the tertiary sector needs people to retire later, and I know I truly don't want to retire earlier than 70. But letting people die sounds inhuman, if the speech in the OP was serious.

    On a more pragmatic note, health care can be treated as business. Caring for old people is better business than caring for 20-years-old people, because usually people in their 70s have much more financial resources/wealth, and much more need for medical care. So, caring for the elderly actually moves big numbers in the economy.
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

  5. #25
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    I couldn't care less.



    Who pays for health care now? Sick, old people? Is the way the insurance companies currently function because of Left policies? THINK ABOUT IT. He's describing the current system as much as the alternatives that are NOT public options! This is really not that difficult.

    Since you're not really interested in understanding what he was saying, the merit of the issues he brought up, regardless of ideology (he criticizes the administration in which he is an adviser), I can't be bothered to continue.
    Give me a clip or statement where he alludes to the description he gave in the video as being a non public option alternative, or an alternative somehow representative of what we have now. And what we have now does not force young people to pay into health insurance to pay for the older people, or regulate insurance companies. Why would the medical companies regulate themselves to the point where they don't develop new technologies? That's what he said. That's obviously talking about a government run healthcare.

    Just prove me wrong. Bring up some evidence, a quote or something, and prove me wrong. My point in posting the video was to show what the left is looking for in the healthcare agenda. It is in his words, not some coke head reinterpretation of his words. Whether you agree with the ideology presented, I don't care. That's not what I'm trying to argue.

  6. #26
    Senior Member Liminality's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ISFx
    Enneagram
    6w7
    Posts
    217

    Default

    Yay, kill all the oldies! I'm sure they wouldn't mind.
    Come along Fool
    A direct hit of the senses you are disconnected
    It's not that it's bad, it's not that it's death
    It's just on the tip of your tongue, and you're so silent

  7. #27
    Une Femme est une femme paperoceans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    8w7
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Cool.
    Between that cigarillo and sticking my finger down my throat to see if I could DT, I feel like puking RN.

    Read my Blog.

  8. #28
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    “Also, I'm going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal governmentto force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs," . "What that means, less innovation and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market which means you are probably not going to live much longer than your parents.”

    I'm listening to the speech again and again, and I still don't see how he's not talking about reconfiguring healthcare in a public option/government controlled sort of way. One of the major tenets of the healthcare reform is to force drug companies to reduce their costs, is it not?

    Where am I misinterpreting it?

  9. #29
    IRL is not real Cimarron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Posts
    3,424

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by durentu View Post
    I think the point is that the government simply cannot support a program of immortality. Modern science is at the stage where all you have to do is live 20 more years and then the medical science can extend your life further. In other words, medical technology can perpetuate your life faster than you can deteriorate. And if you ride this transitional wave correctly, you can be 40-50 years old for however long you can pay for it. If you're financially independent, then it's however long you want to live.

    If you have the resources, growing old isn't about wrinkles and loosing brain cells. Growing old is just living out a particular age indefinitely. There's a bet among scientists that the first person to live to 150 years is already living today and probably in their 50s now.

    How is this possible? Biologists discovered that there nothing in our biology that will count down to our expiration. There's no "time's up" gene and therefor death is the imperfect replication of our cells. With nanotechnology, the cell reproduction can be perfect with an assist with nanotechnology, probably in a liquid form first. The cup of life, or fountain of youth will have nanobots in them.

    For younger people, it'll be a dramatic shift in philosophy. Some will want to live on forever until boredom claims them, or it'll be more purposeful to give your biomass back to nature to take on another form. A view that a person has achieved and as obtained their goals in life and then return to nature. An interesting view is to live long enough to settle on mars, then die on mars to add to that biomass.

    Eventually, if not us, then definitely out children will have to battle our basic instincts. Can we override our own survival instinct and go back to nature, or do we spread throughout the universe and possibly into other universes?

    Or

    If the transition is from a biological human to a pure energy form of human, how do we redefine ourselves? This is another war that cannot be won by killing another, but to change ourselves. Which is a HUGE human difficulty.

    As a scientist at heart, I like the idea of learning everything I can, but philosophically, I cannot imagine a life for more than 8600 years. Namely, two grand epoch cycles of human civilization. By then, I probably would have seen it all.
    Good post.

    The issue strikes at a most natural fear: The fear of death. In the process, society has mostly taken an approach to pursue indefinite lifespans, as you say. Immortality.
    You can't spell "justice" without ISTJ.

  10. #30
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by durentu View Post
    I think the point is that the government simply cannot support a program of immortality. Modern science is at the stage where all you have to do is live 20 more years and then the medical science can extend your life further. In other words, medical technology can perpetuate your life faster than you can deteriorate. And if you ride this transitional wave correctly, you can be 40-50 years old for however long you can pay for it. If you're financially independent, then it's however long you want to live.

    If you have the resources, growing old isn't about wrinkles and loosing brain cells. Growing old is just living out a particular age indefinitely. There's a bet among scientists that the first person to live to 150 years is already living today and probably in their 50s now.

    How is this possible? Biologists discovered that there nothing in our biology that will count down to our expiration. There's no "time's up" gene and therefor death is the imperfect replication of our cells. With nanotechnology, the cell reproduction can be perfect with an assist with nanotechnology, probably in a liquid form first. The cup of life, or fountain of youth will have nanobots in them.

    For younger people, it'll be a dramatic shift in philosophy. Some will want to live on forever until boredom claims them, or it'll be more purposeful to give your biomass back to nature to take on another form. A view that a person has achieved and as obtained their goals in life and then return to nature. An interesting view is to live long enough to settle on mars, then die on mars to add to that biomass.

    Eventually, if not us, then definitely out children will have to battle our basic instincts. Can we override our own survival instinct and go back to nature, or do we spread throughout the universe and possibly into other universes?

    Or

    If the transition is from a biological human to a pure energy form of human, how do we redefine ourselves? This is another war that cannot be won by killing another, but to change ourselves. Which is a HUGE human difficulty.

    As a scientist at heart, I like the idea of learning everything I can, but philosophically, I cannot imagine a life for more than 8600 years. Namely, two grand epoch cycles of human civilization. By then, I probably would have seen it all.
    You are correct. Many in the extreme left recognize this, but they take the view that we cannot ever find a way to sustain ourselves by living so long. Thus, we get a health care agenda that is to eventually be used to control that. I agree that we have a problem with public spending on the elderly who are less than productive. I don't agree with forcing them to make the choice of dying. I agree that there are only so many resources on the planet. I don't agree that we wont find new innovative ways to overcome those problems. Eventually we will travel to space and new frontiers that will sustain a new population of human beings, but we will never get there if we limit our own growth and advancement. The extreme left despises humanity in many ways. even in the less extreme they wish to form a sustainable world, but want to do so through shooting themselves in the foot. No logical human being should see fit to stop innovation for that purpose. Innovation is what helps to actually solve a problem. The left's solution is a NONsolution that only delays the inevitable.

    Eugenics, population controls, lifespan control, none of that is acceptable. The solution is not, as the extreme left suggests, to cannibalize ourselves so that we can continue to exist in the same state without ever evolving. The real way out of approaching problems is to evolve in technology (not in human nature) so that the problems of old cease to be. Their approach is so irrational and damning that I'd seriously knock out anyone in real life if they ever suggested such a thing to my face. Such ideas are the scourge upon the face of this earth.

Similar Threads

  1. so... we're going to get a cat. Opinions needed please!
    By miss fortune in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 03-23-2011, 12:47 AM
  2. You're Going To Die!
    By wolfy in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 01-31-2010, 10:43 PM
  3. You're Going To Die!
    By Ginkgo in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 10-20-2009, 10:37 AM
  4. Story Time!! We're Going on an Adventure!!!
    By ReadingRainbows in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-20-2009, 03:06 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO