Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Omnibus GOP Primary ThreadFollow

#1102 Apr 05 2012 at 4:23 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Jophiel wrote:
... if I truly believed that the majority of conservatives (or even Republicans) felt that "a person's value as a human being is determined by the capitalist free market and if you were worth a procedure, you'd already have it", I'd have to move out of the country.


Aripyanfar wrote:
Deep down, conservatives rate the virtue of a person based on his income.


Nadenu wrote:
So, the only people that deserve health care are farmers, construction workers and possibly tailors?



You're all missing the point that I don't believe people should get things because they 'deserve them', but because they have 'earned them'. It's not about judging the value of a person and frankly, it's bizarre to me that so many people do attempt to make that sort of evaluation. How do you decide whose life is "valuable"? The second you think that we should be doing it that way, you open the whole thing up to abuse, corruption,and authoritarianism.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1103 Apr 05 2012 at 4:32 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts


Quote:
You're all missing the point that I don't believe people should get things because they 'deserve them', but because they have 'earned them'.


Quote:
How do you decide whose life is "valuable"? The second you think that we should be doing it that way, you open the whole thing up to abuse, corruption,and authoritarianism.


My lord backpedaling within the same post now?
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#1104 Apr 05 2012 at 4:32 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Yeah, I just don't know what to say. I mean I consider my own upbringing rather conservative. I mean farm, small town religious schooling and stuff. There was plenty of a "hard work" mantra being repeated and looked up to. Still though, that 'compassionate christian' side would kick in these circumstances and over-ride all that. Part of being a good community, good friend, good christian, or whatever was making sure everyone was taken care of to the best of your abilities. No one was unworthy of your compassion, you gave people a hand when they were down on their luck, etc. Pursuit of money being the root of all evil or something.


There's a difference between what we as individuals choose to do for others, and abrogating that choice by having the government do it for us.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1105 Apr 05 2012 at 4:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
rdmcandie wrote:


Quote:
You're all missing the point that I don't believe people should get things because they 'deserve them', but because they have 'earned them'.


Quote:
How do you decide whose life is "valuable"? The second you think that we should be doing it that way, you open the whole thing up to abuse, corruption,and authoritarianism.


My lord backpedaling within the same post now?


Huh? How? The second statement was in reference to other people who seemed to think that this was about judging some kind of "human value". I'm not doing that at all. I'm arguing that you don't judge based on value at all. You let those who can afford something afford it. Thus, those who have contributed the most to others to have "earned" the care. Instead of trying to judge someone's innate value, you let the value other people see in the labor performed earn them things of equal value.

I suspect you're missing that I'm using the word "value" in two different ways (more correctly, I'm using it one way, and others are using it a different way). There's a huge difference between saying that people pay you based on the value they place in the fruits of your labors, and attempting to assess some kind of "value" on someone's life. It's not about the person in my view. It's about what that person does for others and the value they place on that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1106 Apr 05 2012 at 4:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Deserve and earned are not exclusive terms and often complementary ("you deserve this promotion").

I understand you probably don't feel any need to defend your comments and that's fine since i-d hate to think that's the hook you'd hang a defense from.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1107 Apr 05 2012 at 4:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,442 posts
gbaji wrote:
There's a difference between what we as individuals choose to do for others, and abrogating that choice by having the government do it for us.


I guess that works if you don't feel like the government represents you. I mean misgivings aside, we are the government right? The whole democracy/republic/whatever thing? Or something?

gbaji wrote:
I'm arguing that you don't judge based on value at all. You let those who can afford something afford it. Thus, those who have contributed the most to others to have "earned" the care. Instead of trying to judge someone's innate value, you let the value other people see in the labor performed earn them things of equal value.

I suspect you're missing that I'm using the word "value" in two different ways (more correctly, I'm using it one way, and others are using it a different way). There's a huge difference between saying that people pay you based on the value they place in the fruits of your labors, and attempting to assess some kind of "value" on someone's life. It's not about the person in my view. It's about what that person does for others and the value they place on that.


This will surely close that gender gap as the homemakers of America flock to Romney. Smiley: rolleyes


____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#1108 Apr 05 2012 at 4:55 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Deserve and earned are not exclusive terms and often complementary ("you deserve this promotion").


But not always, right? And not in this case. Clearly, if someone is saying that people deserve to receive health care that they have not paid for, then you're not using deserved in the same sense as earned. So... what was your point again?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1109 Apr 05 2012 at 4:58 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Keep digging, gbaji. Keep digging. Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#1110 Apr 05 2012 at 5:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Deserve and earned are not exclusive terms and often complementary ("you deserve this promotion").
But not always, right? And not in this case. Clearly, if someone is saying that people deserve to receive health care that they have not paid for, then you're not using deserved in the same sense as earned. So... what was your point again?

My point was that I don't hold health care to be something you have to "earn".

You don't need to keep defending yourself to me. I got what you mean. I completely disagree with it but I suppose the mindset you advocate and my reaction to it is what makes me me and you, you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1111 Apr 05 2012 at 5:03 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Quote:
Huh? How? The second statement was in reference to other people who seemed to think that this was about judging some kind of "human value". I'm not doing that at all.


Who can rightly determine what one requires to earn something. You are doing the exact same @#%^ing thing. Christ, you really need Varus the only thing that cures stupidity is greater stupidity.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#1112 Apr 05 2012 at 5:03 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
There's a difference between what we as individuals choose to do for others, and abrogating that choice by having the government do it for us.


I guess that works if you don't feel like the government represents you.


Me individually? No, of course it doesn't. Me and everyone else collectively? Yes. But that's not the same thing. If it represented just me, then it would always act in ways that I want. Obviously, it doesn't (and shouldn't). Which is why we put limits on government in the first place.

Quote:
I mean misgivings aside, we are the government right?


No. We are not. And frankly every time someone says this, it makes me cringe.

Quote:
The whole democracy/republic/whatever thing? Or something?


Write a paragraph or three explaining why we have a system of government with checks and balance written into it. Then go back and assess your statements about how "we are the government" again. Hell. Why do we have three branches of government in the first place?

Clearly, simply saying "we are the government" or "the government represents us" is not sufficient reason to blindly trust the actions of the government, and it's absolutely not a good reason to abandon the idea of limited government in the first place. Again, we have those limits in place for a reason.

Quote:
This will surely close that gender gap as the homemakers of America flock to Romney. Smiley: rolleyes



I'm honestly not sure what you mean.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1113 Apr 05 2012 at 5:13 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
Huh? How? The second statement was in reference to other people who seemed to think that this was about judging some kind of "human value". I'm not doing that at all.


Who can rightly determine what one requires to earn something.


Um... The guy who currently owns it? Your boss decides if your labor is worth what he's paying you. And he makes this decision based on how much your labor increases the value of his business as judged by the consumers of whatever good/services are produced. They do this by comparing that value to the value they place on other things they could buy with their money elsewhere.

While it's not perfect, it is undeniably the best method to determine the relative value of things. But it has nothing to do with the "value of a human life". That's a separate, somewhat philosophical and moral question.


Quote:
You are doing the exact same @#%^ing thing.


No. I'm not. I'm showing that there's a difference between someone earning something because everyone else around him in his society place value on what he does and that determines what he gets versus having some artificially constructed authoritarian entity just decide who gets what based on somewhat simplistic concepts like "human value". We all have "human value". It's meaningless in the context of a question of who gets something and who doesn't.


And, as I said at the beginning, while this may be viewed by some as harsh at first glance, if you stop and think about it, it's also the only truly "fair" way of doing things. Any other means effectively takes away from those who earned something and gives to someone who didn't. That's not fair, right? Life is not fair. The sooner you realize this fact and stop trying to live in a fairy tale land where the magical government can just wave a magic wand and make the whole world perfect, the better off you'll be.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1114 Apr 05 2012 at 5:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,442 posts
Quote:
Quote:
This will surely close that gender gap as the homemakers of America flock to Romney. Smiley: rolleyes



I'm honestly not sure what you mean.


A stay at home mom doesn't get paid, but I'd find it hard to argue she hasn't earned some health care. Even if she can't afford it. We could probably get into all sorts of discussions where the whole discrepancy in pay thing could be relevant, but I doubt it would do us any good about now. I gots to head home anyway, so this discussion will pause here shortly.

Cheers! Smiley: boozing

Edited, Apr 5th 2012 4:24pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#1115 Apr 05 2012 at 5:24 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Quote:
Your boss decides if your labor is worth what he's paying you. And he makes this decision based on how much your labor increases the value of his business as judged by the consumers of whatever good/services are produced.


So basically what you are saying is my boss assesses my productivity vs cost effectiveness and determines if I deserve to keep my job or not. Or do you mean my boss assesses my productivity vs cost effectiveness and determines if Ive earned my job.

Quote:
I'm showing that there's a difference between someone earning something because everyone else around him in his society place value on what he does and that determines what he gets versus having some artificially constructed authoritarian entity just decide who gets what based on somewhat simplistic concepts like "human value". We all have "human value".


Looks like the same thing to me, and guess what it is the same @#%^ing thing. God you are stupid. Saying someone deserves something and that someone has earned something, is the same @#%^ing thing. They are both a description of a persons perceived value. Your boss might say you earned a promotion, or you deserved a promotion. Both are synonymous with the work you have put in. (or in the present day how good of a bullsh*tter you are).

but you believe what ever you want, im not going to argue all night about the blatant hypocritical stance you are taking. Id rather laugh at your complete lack of understanding of Universal Health Care, how much it costs, and why it is so ridiculous that you (a conservative) wants to continue spending 2 times per person what the rest of the G-8 spends on Health Care per person.

Oh and it is becoming a mediocre health system, rapidly declining in world health standards.

Edited, Apr 5th 2012 7:25pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#1116 Apr 05 2012 at 5:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Since 1970 the cost to the US taxpayer has risen 248%, the population 147%.

Canada for example
since 1970 the cost to the tax payer rose 151% the population 161%.

(the other G8 nations show similar change to Canada, the US is the only one who graphs like a hockey stick).

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#1117 Apr 05 2012 at 6:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,088 posts
He wants us to spend twice as much because the extra cost is all profit for somebody. Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#1118 Apr 05 2012 at 7:13 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
that and people who are unable to get health care obviously have no human value...
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#1119 Apr 05 2012 at 8:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
This will surely close that gender gap as the homemakers of America flock to Romney. Smiley: rolleyes



I'm honestly not sure what you mean.


A stay at home mom doesn't get paid, but I'd find it hard to argue she hasn't earned some health care. Even if she can't afford it.


Assuming that she and the father of her children are bound together economically in some way (like say married), then they're considered collectively as a unit. Whomever is earning money for the couple is also earning the health care for them and their children.

We could talk about single mothers dependent on social services and whatnot, but I would argue that she hasn't "earned" anything in that case. We can argue about providing health care to her and her children as a matter of compassion, but let's leave words like "deserve" and "earned" out since they should not apply.

Dunno. Maybe people have really strange definitions of the word "earned". Worth investigating, I suppose.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1120 Apr 05 2012 at 8:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
that and people who are unable to get health care obviously have no human value...


I didn't say that. I said that if they did not produce sufficient value (ie: money) to be able to get health care, then they, somewhat by definition, have not "earned" the health care. I freely admit that I'm approaching this from a free market point of view, where what you get is directly related to what you produce. You earn things by providing things for others first.

Simply saying that someone has earned something because they did something that no one else values (or does not value sufficiently) is not valid in this context. Saying someone deserves something in that case also does not work unless your use of the word "deserve" has nothing to do with you doing something first which justifies that result in some way. Automatically saying that people deserve something purely because they are in need of it makes the word meaningless, doesn't it? It's like you're trying to imply that they did something to get that thing, but that's not really how you're making the determination.


If you want to argue that we should just give people whatever they need regardless of what they've done themselves, then make that argument. But don't couch it in terms like earned and deserved. IMO that's misleading at best, and deliberately deceptive at worst.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1121 Apr 05 2012 at 9:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
****
4,041 posts
ITT: Gbaji wants to leave poor people to fester in their own illness, which in no way whatsoever could ever affect his own health.
#1122 Apr 06 2012 at 5:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I didn't say that. I said that if they did not produce sufficient value (ie: money) to be able to get health care, then they, somewhat by definition, have not "earned" the health care.

This is only "by definition" if we assume the only things you can produce of value are things with a dollar value attached to them.

This is... telling about you, really.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1123 Apr 06 2012 at 5:58 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Quote:
I didn't say that. I said that if they did not produce sufficient value (ie: money) to be able to get health care, then they, somewhat by definition, have not "earned" the health care.


So I assume the ones who can afford it, but are labeled high risk because of preexisting medical issues are worthless then?

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#1124 Apr 06 2012 at 6:01 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Quote:
We could talk about single mothers dependent on social services and whatnot, but I would argue that she hasn't "earned" anything in that case. We can argue about providing health care to her and her children as a matter of compassion, but let's leave words like "deserve" and "earned" out since they should not apply.


Ms why are you crying?

My boyfriend knocked me up and ran off. Now I am screwed!!!.

Edited, Apr 6th 2012 8:01am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#1125 Apr 06 2012 at 6:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,135 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I didn't say that. I said that if they did not produce sufficient value (ie: money) to be able to get health care, then they, somewhat by definition, have not "earned" the health care.

This is only "by definition" if we assume the only things you can produce of value are things with a dollar value attached to them.

This is... telling about you, really.


Telling, but not surprising.

Gbaji wrote:
It's not about the person in my view. It's about what that person does for others and the value they place on that.


See above. People who are underemployed and can't afford health care (or can't get it due to pre-existing conditions) "deserve" to die.

I found out recently that an acquaintance died of a kidney infection. It boggles my mind that people are dying of infections in the United States in 2012 because they feel they can't assume the burden of debt incurred going to a doctor. In the end, of course, it cost all of us some amount of money greater than zero, because a friend came to check on her, found her delirious, and took her to the ER. It was too late, but you know, being a human being and all he didn't have a choice in the matter.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#1126 Apr 06 2012 at 6:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,609 posts
I'm not sure about gbaji. My father has been employed ever since he was 18 and joined the Navy. He was in the Navy for quite a few years, and then they closed the base in South Carolina in the mid 90s and his contract was up so he left. Got a job in a lumber mill and has been working there ever since.

He couldn't realistically afford health insurance given his pay and the family he needed to support and didn't get any through his employer, and then my mother got cancer and other female related medical problems. They racked up the medical debt and ER visits. Luckily a good portion of that was taken care of a few years back by private donations that the hospital used to pay off some of their poorest debtor's debt. But most of the specialists required a large portion of the payment up front, and didn't work the same way as the ER visits.

I find it hard to believe that my father didn't have health insurance because he didn't earn it and didn't deserve it.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#1127 Apr 06 2012 at 8:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,833 posts
gbaji wrote:
let's leave words like "deserve" and "earned" out since they should not apply.

Let's just apply this statement, as is, to the current conversation. After all, prison inmates receive basic health care as a matter of course, and one could argue that many of those do not "deserve" it.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#1128 Apr 06 2012 at 8:18 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,833 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
AAAAAA so much yellow
I was more appalled at all the weapon pieces strewn about the room. Smiley: frown

I think that looks more like a weapons cache you'd find in Afghanistan, not America. Except more AKs instead of all the Colts.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#1129 Apr 06 2012 at 8:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,442 posts
gbaji wrote:
but let's leave words like "deserve" and "earned" out since they should not apply.


Hey I was just using it because you were. Smiley: tongue

My point I was taking my sweet time getting to was one of 'bad luck.' You know, cheating husband runs out on her and her kid gets hit by a drunk driver while walking home from school or something. Does society no good to lose perfectly productive people to an unfortunate string of events. I'm not sure but you've probably addressed that before? I haven't read all of your responses yet.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#1130 Apr 06 2012 at 9:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,442 posts
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
I mean misgivings aside, we are the government right?


No. We are not. And frankly every time someone says this, it makes me cringe.


Don't you have family or friends employed in the public sector at all? I mean like military, school bus driver, fireman, or anything like that? Surely there's no perfect system, and you'll probably catch me complaining about an 'east coast' bias or something at some point, but still it's more "us" than you're going to get many other places.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#1131 Apr 06 2012 at 10:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,088 posts
My husband works for the state government as a professor.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#1132 Apr 06 2012 at 11:22 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,184 posts
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
let's leave words like "deserve" and "earned" out since they should not apply.
Let's just apply this statement, as is, to the current conversation. After all, prison inmates receive basic health care as a matter of course, and one could argue that many of those do not "deserve" it.
Killing someone means the dead individual doesn't need health care anymore, which means we pay less overall.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1133 Apr 06 2012 at 12:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,833 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
let's leave words like "deserve" and "earned" out since they should not apply.
Let's just apply this statement, as is, to the current conversation. After all, prison inmates receive basic health care as a matter of course, and one could argue that many of those do not "deserve" it.
Killing someone means the dead individual doesn't need health care anymore, which means we pay less overall.

How about I off, say, ten welfare recipients? That should earn me a government pension and healthcare, with a bundle left over in savings!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#1134 Apr 06 2012 at 3:12 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I didn't say that. I said that if they did not produce sufficient value (ie: money) to be able to get health care, then they, somewhat by definition, have not "earned" the health care.

This is only "by definition" if we assume the only things you can produce of value are things with a dollar value attached to them.


When we're talking about the availability of something which has a dollar value attached, then yeah.

Quote:
This is... telling about you, really.


That I understand that things that cost more money than you have earned, thus haven't been "earned" by you? Somewhat axiomatic, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1135 Apr 06 2012 at 3:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
I didn't say that. I said that if they did not produce sufficient value (ie: money) to be able to get health care, then they, somewhat by definition, have not "earned" the health care.


So I assume the ones who can afford it, but are labeled high risk because of preexisting medical issues are worthless then?



Why would you think that? If they can afford it, then they have the insurance and get the health care, right?

Or did you mean to say "Cannot afford it due to a pre-existing medical condition which will make the cost of their care higher"? Because that's not what you actually said. Do you see how being able to actually afford something is naturally connected to the cost of that thing? It's not some arbitrary unfair thing that I (or anyone else) am imposing on them.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1136 Apr 06 2012 at 3:30 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Samira wrote:
See above. People who are underemployed and can't afford health care (or can't get it due to pre-existing conditions) "deserve" to die.


Everyone dies Samira. Lay off the vague touchy-feely crap. Do they all "deserve" to die? It's a stupid and meaningless word to use in this context. I'm not talking about what people deserve. I think it's irrelevant to this discussion. People don't get sick because they "deserve it". That's a moronic idea that imposes some kind of moral choice into random events.

Quote:
I found out recently that an acquaintance died of a kidney infection. It boggles my mind that people are dying of infections in the United States in 2012 because they feel they can't assume the burden of debt incurred going to a doctor. In the end, of course, it cost all of us some amount of money greater than zero, because a friend came to check on her, found her delirious, and took her to the ER. It was too late, but you know, being a human being and all he didn't have a choice in the matter.


And did that acquaintance have health insurance? Do you think it would have helped? Most people who develop conditions like that don't fail to go to the doctor because they can't afford it, but because they don't want to go to the doctor. I realize that this is a side issue here, but if we're going to talk about people who don't go to see a doctor until their conditions worsen to a life threatening level, it's fair to point out that this doesn't have nearly as much to do with availability of health insurance as some suggest.


And I'll point out as I have many times before, that if we had the kind of direct payer system we had prior to the rise of comprehensive insurance, anyone who felt sick could easily and cheaply walk into their local doctors office and talk to their doctor and get an opinion/examination/whatever as needed. Because we've created this monolithic system, with massive costs and paperwork most people avoid going to see a doctor at all, even when they do have insurance, until they're in extreme pain. People don't just call their doctor up and describe their symptoms and get some advice right then like they used to. It's all so regimented and regulated and mandated that most people try to avoid involving themselves until and unless they have to.


Your acquaintance would probably be alive today if we had the kind of health care in this country that I'm advocating for. He probably would not have done any better under even the most socialized of systems.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1137 Apr 06 2012 at 3:34 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,184 posts
Stop spamming.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1138 Apr 06 2012 at 3:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,877 posts
Yes, Gbaji, making preventative care more obnoxious to obtain, we would save more people with preventative care.
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
#1139 Apr 06 2012 at 3:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,442 posts
Also, a lot of what this guy says is relevant I think.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#1140 Apr 06 2012 at 3:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
When we're talking about the availability of something which has a dollar value attached, then yeah.
[...]
That I understand that things that cost more money than you have earned, thus haven't been "earned" by you? Somewhat axiomatic, right?

Ok, you go with that Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1141 Apr 06 2012 at 4:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,558 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Oh, hadn't you noticed? Deep down, conservatives rate the virtue of a person based on his income. No such thing as the virtuous poor. Or a virtuous man who can't afford health insurance. If they were virtuous, they all COULD afford health insurance. No such thing as circumstance, luck, context. If you're virtuous, you're willing to work hard. And if you're willing to work hard, then in all circumstances you WILL be able to work, and you WILL be rewarded concomitantly to your willingness to work.

I really don't like this kind of implication, because I feel it is both wrong and plays right into conservative hands.

The non-fring conservative view of economic liberalism is largely that "it's nice, but impractical." While there are definitely some crazy conservatives who believe liberal policies are intentionally malevolent and try to buy votes with free hand outs, the majority aren't that dumb. The majority see it as a generous, but unsustainable practice. That you can't just keep giving people stuff, because eventually you'll run out of stuff to give and then we're all screwed. And on this, they're right.

That's arguments for liberal policies that include ideas like fairness, equal opportunity, or "having a heart" is incorrect and ineffective. It ultimately plays into the conservative view that liberals are naive, and don't consider the full consequences of their policies.

But many liberal policies are about sustainability. It's not illegal to dump toxic chemicals in the river because we want to protect the wildlife or the beauty of nature. Forget that. It's illegal to dump toxic chemicals in the river because it has real economic costs to society. Everyone sick because of that contaminated water now has unnecessary medical expenses, and Louie'River Rafting Bonanza business is completely screwed over. It's cheaper to prevent that dumping than it is to either clean it up or deal with the consequences.
#1142 Apr 06 2012 at 6:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,135 posts
gbaji wrote:
Samira wrote:
See above. People who are underemployed and can't afford health care (or can't get it due to pre-existing conditions) "deserve" to die.


Everyone dies Samira. Lay off the vague touchy-feely crap. Do they all "deserve" to die? It's a stupid and meaningless word to use in this context. I'm not talking about what people deserve. I think it's irrelevant to this discussion. People don't get sick because they "deserve it". That's a moronic idea that imposes some kind of moral choice into random events.

And did that acquaintance have health insurance? Do you think it would have helped? Most people who develop conditions like that don't fail to go to the doctor because they can't afford it, but because they don't want to go to the doctor. I realize that this is a side issue here, but if we're going to talk about people who don't go to see a doctor until their conditions worsen to a life threatening level, it's fair to point out that this doesn't have nearly as much to do with availability of health insurance as some suggest.


Everyone dies? Really? No Shit. Well, thank you for telling me that. I honestly thought it was just coincidence that old people tend to disappear.

I don't know whether she had insurance. I don't think she probably did, as she wasn't working full time. But I'm not going to make up "facts" to support my political leanings.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#1143 Apr 06 2012 at 6:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Samira wrote:
Everyone dies? Really? No Shit. Well, thank you for telling me that.

WTF Spoiler that shit.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1144 Apr 06 2012 at 8:57 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Yes, Gbaji, making preventative care more obnoxious to obtain, we would save more people with preventative care.


Um.... Which makes preventative care more obnoxious to obtain:

1. A system where there are small private practitioner doctors working out of offices physically located in or near where people live, where the doctors have minimal overhead and can charge whatever the market will bear and are in competition with the doctor's office down the street, keeping prices low. In this system you can call your doctor describe symptoms and get medical advice free most of the time. Walking or driving there is as simple as going to the store. Waits are short, and prices are low.

2. A system where there are nearly no small private doctors offices. All medicine is doled out in large health care centers where you must file a stack of paperwork just to get a bump looked at, and it can easily take several hours of waiting for anything but an extreme emergency. Most of the centers require health insurance which costs thousands of dollars a year. If you don't have it, you *might* be able to see a doctor, but they're going to charge you many times more than what it would cost in the first system.


Even ignoring the cost issue, the first system makes it vastly easier to obtain that preventative care. And that's the system we had in this country until the liberals decided that we needed to move towards socialized medicine and screwed the whole thing up. So yes, your sarcastic comment is accurate, but I suspect you're aiming it in the wrong direction. Back in the day, general and preventative care was cheap and affordable. And Doctors even made house calls.

Great "progress" we've made there.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1145 Apr 06 2012 at 9:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
If only there was a series of chains that offered private practitioners in convenient locations who had minimal overhead and going there was as easy as going to the drug store or your local Walmart. And maybe if they operated on a cash basis so there was no mountain of paperwork for them that would raise their prices. You would want multiple chains of course so they would be competing with each other, not just with "traditional" doctor's offices.

Surely if such an animal existed, they would offer far lower prices than my typical doctor. They wouldn't at all decide to abandon this utopia of medicine for any other business model because Gbaji just told me how successful it would be.


Edited, Apr 6th 2012 11:02pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1146 Apr 06 2012 at 9:05 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts


It's relevant, and I'm sure that most of that is stuff the GOP will do (or is already doing). The problem is that the media is so far in the tank for the Dems that their operatives will just repeat "The GOP has no alternative health care plan" over and over in as many venues and ways possible and "win" that argument no matter what the GOP comes up with. Just like they did when Obamacare was first being fought over, and when we debated what to do about the deficit, and how to deal with the economic crisis, and on and on and on.

It's hard to have watched politics over the last few years and not noticed just how often the Dems have gone to the "At least we have a plan, the GOP has none" well. You'd think eventually people would start to catch on, but it hasn't quite happened yet. Expect to see the same thing.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#1147 Apr 06 2012 at 9:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,088 posts
The thing is, they don't have a plan. They have a vague outline of objectives and ideals they want to see, and they talk about some ways they think they can meet those objectives, but they never actually spell out how they're going to get there, or more important, put reality based numbers and dollars to the bullet points.

1. Say Obamacare sucks
2. Talk about conservative things that would be TOTALLY better
3. Put those ideas down on a paper and call it a plan
4. ???
5. PROFIT!

That actually works in a business environment, where individual departments know which bits are their responsibility and have a hammered out series of best practices to get there. They have their own internal instruction sets and know the way forward once they've been given a task.

It doesn't work for the government. Unless you spell it out in 2300 pages of painstaking, exacting detail, you're going to have a useless plan that no one can execute and which doesn't say anyone any money or provide better services, because very often the departments in question have to be created from scratch or rebuilt from the ground up. Occam's Razor does not apply to bureaucracy.

Edited, Apr 6th 2012 11:45pm by catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#1148 Apr 06 2012 at 10:16 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
Gbaji wrote:

1. A system where there are small private practitioner doctors working out of offices physically located in or near where people live, where the doctors have minimal overhead and can charge whatever the market will bear and are in competition with the doctor's office down the street, keeping prices low. In this system you can call your doctor describe symptoms and get medical advice free most of the time. Walking or driving there is as simple as going to the store. Waits are short, and prices are low.

2. A system where there are nearly no small private doctors offices. All medicine is doled out in large health care centers where you must file a stack of paperwork just to get a bump looked at, and it can easily take several hours of waiting for anything but an extreme emergency. Most of the centers require health insurance which costs thousands of dollars a year. If you don't have it, you *might* be able to see a doctor, but they're going to charge you many times more than what it would cost in the first system.


Even ignoring the cost issue, the first system makes it vastly easier to obtain that preventative care. And that's the system we had in this country until the liberals decided that we needed to move towards socialized medicine and screwed the whole thing up. So yes, your sarcastic comment is accurate, but I suspect you're aiming it in the wrong direction. Back in the day, general and preventative care was cheap and affordable. And Doctors even made house calls.


Mind if I ask what fairy land did you grow up in? My doctor when I was a kid was a small, private owned business (cheapest around also) and he still charged as much as a doctor visit would cost me 20 years down the road.

Quote:
And Doctors even made house calls.


Oh that's right, the Gbaji-train makes frequent stops in Ye Olde Days in between stops of Up Gbaji's Arse, where he gets most of his facts, and the very rare stop at Sanity Station.
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#1149 Apr 06 2012 at 11:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Hey, in Canada it is extremely common for doctors to operate as small private practices. Crazy.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#1150 Apr 07 2012 at 2:58 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,160 posts
Samira wrote:
Telling, but not surprising.


Right. If you think the free market is a good mechanism to ration health care, it's hard to see how you could disagree. I'm kind of proud of gbaji, if anything, for having realised the logical implications of a position he holds. Didn't know he could do that anymore.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#1151 Apr 07 2012 at 3:53 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,894 posts
Allegory wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
Oh, hadn't you noticed? Deep down, conservatives rate the virtue of a person based on his income. No such thing as the virtuous poor. Or a virtuous man who can't afford health insurance. If they were virtuous, they all COULD afford health insurance. No such thing as circumstance, luck, context. If you're virtuous, you're willing to work hard. And if you're willing to work hard, then in all circumstances you WILL be able to work, and you WILL be rewarded concomitantly to your willingness to work.

I really don't like this kind of implication, because I feel it is both wrong and plays right into conservative hands.

The non-fring conservative view of economic liberalism is largely that "it's nice, but impractical." While there are definitely some crazy conservatives who believe liberal policies are intentionally malevolent and try to buy votes with free hand outs, the majority aren't that dumb. The majority see it as a generous, but unsustainable practice. That you can't just keep giving people stuff, because eventually you'll run out of stuff to give and then we're all screwed. And on this, they're right.

That's arguments for liberal policies that include ideas like fairness, equal opportunity, or "having a heart" is incorrect and ineffective. It ultimately plays into the conservative view that liberals are naive, and don't consider the full consequences of their policies.

But many liberal policies are about sustainability. It's not illegal to dump toxic chemicals in the river because we want to protect the wildlife or the beauty of nature. Forget that. It's illegal to dump toxic chemicals in the river because it has real economic costs to society. Everyone sick because of that contaminated water now has unnecessary medical expenses, and Louie'River Rafting Bonanza business is completely screwed over. It's cheaper to prevent that dumping than it is to either clean it up or deal with the consequences.

If only universal health care reduced health care costs for everyone, and raised the productivity of the nation... Oh, if only universal healthcare fulfilled enlightened self interest, as well as mere enlightenment...
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 69 All times are in CDT
Aethien, BeanX, Elinda, feelz, lolgaxe, Samira, someproteinguy, Anonymous Guests (62)