User Tag List

First 142223242526 Last

Results 231 to 240 of 276

  1. #231
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    Yeah he posted some sarcastic, laughing response instead of explaining why the alternatives aren't working.

    You didn't explain either.

    Very interesting.
    Didn't explain what? The general Christian viewpoint on charity and how it relates to healthcare, in countering your attempt to claim that Jesus supports socialised healthcare?

  2. #232
    Senior Member LEGERdeMAIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entropie View Post
    helathcare isnt just jesus, ron paul or victor ( they look cool said in one sentence xD ) the biggest problem really is financing. we are having healthcare for 60 years now in Germany and the reaility is that the people using it the most are older people. Those again are often used for experimental medicine and regulary visit the doctor 5 times a week for the social contacts not knowing they are producing public costs.

    Its not the older people that are to blame but the problem is the financing does not work. every year the government has to put vast amounts of money into the healthcare companies so that they can survive. with the ongoing age shift in germany from more older people than young the companies will be used even more.

    so far it is not working properly and can be only sustained as long as we have the money. will there be a recession healthcare will prolly suffer the first
    The problem here is that foreign aid, massive defense budgets(corporate welfare) and wasteful spending are higher priorities than health. It's interesting how many people have pointed out the great cost of sustaining a healthcare system in a country with so many elderly persons. Not one person has brought up assisted suicide as a reasonable option. I'm all about euthanizing old people, preventing women from having kids they can't afford and sterilizing people who don't want kids. It's so much easier to prevent or get rid of the non-productive members of society.
    “Some people will tell you that slow is good – but I’m here to tell you that fast is better. I’ve always believed this, in spite of the trouble it’s caused me. Being shot out of a cannon will always be better than being squeezed out of a tube. That is why God made fast motorcycles, Bubba…”


  3. #233
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Didn't explain what? The general Christian viewpoint on charity and how it relates to healthcare, in countering your attempt to claim that Jesus supports socialised healthcare?
    No why such a supposedly "Christian" nation hasn't done a better job of health care or caring for its poor, despite it's extreme divergence between wealth to the point of largesse and poverty, since the gov't is so unnecessary to do so.

    Why are so many real people doing without if the Christians really care so much?

    Of course, I'm sure it doesn't surprise you. We live in a nation of Pharisees talking to hear themselves talk on the public corner. Yay.

  4. #234
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Conservatives and libertarians donate more of their income than liberals do. And, AS I KEEP SAYING, we had free hospitals for the indigent as recently as 50 years ago. I would like YOU, as someone who wants MORE government control of healthcare, why we had more poor people insured and better access to free healthcare BEFORE the government got involved? Answer my fucking question, or get out of the thread. You are dodging and squirming and ad homineming, but you have no response. You probably didn't even know that was the case, did you? Try to reason it out.
    I'm not dodging at all. I'm glad you're such a nice person who actually cares about people. So you're saying we had better insured poor people and better access to free health care before the government got involved?

  5. #235
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    Clearly. That's why I spent 6 years making 18k or less as a personal assistant to the disabled.
    Then why don't you care that our poverty level is the highest since 1993 and we have 50 million people in one of THE wealthiest nations in the world without health care?

    Or do you?

    And how do you recommend we solve it?

    Or are you just going to post more Dave Chapelle memes?

  6. #236
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LEGERdeMAIN View Post
    The problem here is that foreign aid, massive defense budgets(corporate welfare) and wasteful spending are higher priorities than health. It's interesting how many people have pointed out the great cost of sustaining a healthcare system in a country with so many elderly persons. Not one person has brought up assisted suicide as a reasonable option. I'm all about euthanizing old people, preventing women from having kids they can't afford and sterilizing people who don't want kids. It's so much easier to prevent or get rid of the non-productive members of society.
    I mentioned that with the older people cause the way to finance healthcare has been in germany the so called contract of generations. that means every young productive generation does pay taxes into healthcare and a retirement fond and is by that financing the lifes of older people. that has worked so far but with a decrease of the incomes so lesser taxes from the young and an increased demand on the cost side the contract doesnt work no more.

    Imo and I am really no expert on politics, there needs to be a better distribution of money throughout society again. if the state was richer again it would be easier to finance healthcare, someone would tho have too watch the money actually is spent on healthcare and not in iraque.

    The problem is to achieve that you need higher taxes and to make higher taxes you need an increase of general income. taxing only a few rich like obama wants to do it right now, will not work cause they will just transfer their money out of country.

    Its a very difficult situation, I cant really provide a satisfieing answer, I just hope for you to find one.
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  7. #237
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    No why such a supposedly "Christian" nation hasn't done a better job of health care or caring for its poor, despite it's extreme divergence between wealth to the point of largesse and poverty, since the gov't is so unnecessary to do so.
    Well how much of a "Christian" nation America really is(especially nowadays) is open for debate, after all it is the only country to have a heresy named after it.

  8. #238
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,813

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    Then why don't you care that our poverty level is the highest since 1993 and we have 50 million people in one of THE wealthiest nations in the world without health care?

    Or do you?

    And how do you recommend we solve it?
    Oh... Now you want to have a serious conversation and not just rant, make ridiculous presumptions and play the blame game?

    Sorry, I don't buy it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post

    Or are you just going to post more Dave Chapelle memes?
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  9. #239
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    I'm not dodging at all. I'm glad you're such a nice person who actually cares about people. So you're saying we had better insured poor people and better access to free health care before the government got involved?
    That is exactly what I am saying, because it's the truth. And we spent far less on healthcare as a country (private and public sectors) than we do now. I'd like your thoughts as to why that was and what changed.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  10. #240
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Friedman does not suggest that's the kid's position.
    He does at first in order to knock it down.

    Kid: I think it's wrong that people were deliberately consigned to their deaths because Ford calculated that their lives weren't worth the extra money it would cost to make the car less dangerous.
    Friedman: But it's not acceptable to suggest that an infinite value be placed on human life, because, taken to its logical extreme, such a principle would lead to an absurd situation in which a million had to starve in order to provide a safe car to one person.

    The kid didn't say that an infinite value should be placed on human life, and Friedman knows it, but he sets it up and knocks it down anyway in order to fluster the kid into entering his own argumentative territory.

    Kid: *sputters* But, but, I'm talking about $13, not a billion!
    Friedman: Aha! Then you're talking about costs. And if you're talking about costs, then you have no principled basis upon which to say that what Ford did was absolutely morally wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    No, that's the opposite of what Friedman is saying. He's saying that if the issue is simply a moral principle, then cost should not matter. Cost does matter (as both sides acknowledge), thus Friedman is saying the argument is about cost, and about how to weigh the cost, not whether cost should be weighed.
    I think we're saying the same thing. Like I said, Friedman is saying that IF you're going to make a moral judgment about any cost whatsoever being wrong, even if it's a ridiculously low one, then you are operating on the principle that the value of human life is incalculable (meaning that, yes, cost does not matter.) And, as Friedman says repeatedly, since this is clearly a flawed principle (as he shows with his reductio), then we're talking about costs. And if we're talking about costs, then it's nonsense to try and assign moral value to arbitrary costs (e.g., it's wrong if the price is $100 per person, but okay if it's $200,000,000.)

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    No, it isn't. It's simply adjusting the cost variable. Asking at what point the cost would make it right.
    Fine, it was an unfair leading question, then.

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    It's only a straw man if you present that as being your opponent's argument. Friedman does not do so. Again, Friedman is only adjusting the "cost" variable, to demonstrate the point that the argument is necessarily about cost, not that anyone believes the extreme cases he suggests.
    The extreme cases he suggests are the logical extension of the principle that life is infinitely valuable. Why does he "adjust the cost variable" (which is just another way of saying that he did a reductio, which I've been saying all along) if he isn't assuming that it's a part of the kid's argument? To hear the sound of his own voice?

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    He's not saying what you think he's saying. He's emphasizing that it's all a matter of cost.
    Yes, by showing (in a falsely dichotomous way, IMO) that either the kid's making a moral judgment based on principle, which is not a sound position, or if that's not his position, then he's making value judgments based on arbitrary costs, which is also unsound. So he's saying that the only way to think about the Ford situation is through analysis of cost, and not moral principle or unprincipled niggling over the morality of certain costs. Again I think you have misunderstood me and I am not in disagreement with you over what Friedman was saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Friedman's.

    Friedman's policy doesn't place a moral value on Ford's actions. The kid says it does.
    The kid says he does. He thinks that Ford's actions are wrong. All he says about Friedman's position is that Friedman's policy would not find anything "wrong" with such actions, and he thinks that it should. Isn't that the whole point of this "debate?" The kid is trying to take Friedman to task for his endorsement of amorality by pointing out that it could lead to atrocities.

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Now you're the one quibbling. Being small and fuel efficient "causes death" in the exact same statistical sense that the missing $13 plate "causes death." Some vehicles are safer than others, and degrees of safety are exchanged for other desirable properties.
    I'm not saying this particular situation was truly an instance of making a vehicle which directly causes death (I've heard that the press made a bigger deal about the actual risks involved with the Pinto than was actually the case.) In a hypothetical situation, however, where the option is between making a low cost car that, for instance, explodes when the key is inserted into the ignition, or having to spend extra money to make sure the car does not explode, then I think there are principled arguments to be made against the morality of choosing the former over the latter without falling into the principle/costs quandary that Friedman boxes this kid into.

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    OK, so we agree. Except you still have a weird definition of straw man argument.
    Yes, we agree on that. I don't know why my definition of straw man if "weird" to you, though.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

Similar Threads

  1. media coverage of the tea parties
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 148
    Last Post: 04-21-2009, 03:22 PM
  2. Tax Day Tea Party Protests
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 104
    Last Post: 04-15-2009, 10:47 PM
  3. Civil unrest: National tea party, tax revolt
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 03-18-2009, 04:14 PM
  4. Let pretend we are at a party!
    By Ypsilon in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 01-25-2008, 05:39 PM
  5. Ron Paul Tea Party... will you be donating?
    By file cabinet in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 12-20-2007, 03:19 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