|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 22 2017 21:59 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
A sick and uneducated nation will not survive long. There are so many classic examples of failed nations when it comes to not serving the poor and sick. It doesn't take long to educate oneself. But an educated nation doesn't serve the needs of the wealthy. (or so they think)
Funny you mention that. I was just thinking about all of the parallels between the Ancien Régime and today's America. It's actually quite scary if you spend some time thinking about it.
|
It's plain as day to me, and I'm sure, to a lot of people. As society evolves, so does the responsibilities of its participants. You may pay more but the security is worth it. Now we, as a society, is faced with so much uncertainty. Granted, we're a truly globalized nation than the old days, but the basic premise is still the same. Take care of the poor and they will take care of you.
Edit: Take a look at Alexander and Ghengis. Their people loved them because they did the best they could to help them. Sure they wanted to conquer and all of that, but they are revered because of their foresight to protect the poor (unless I misread the stories about them). Some Pharaohs are the same. Same with US presidents.
Look at Andrew Carnegie. He gave away $390 Billion + BEFORE he died (today's inflation). Because he understood that he wouldn't be where he got without taking care of society and the people who helped him (the poor)
|
You know what, you really have to be impressed. Ryan\Trump managed to create a health care bill that every side hates AND will make huge portions of the country worse off. Monkeys throwing shit at a board would likely create a more amenable bill.
|
|
|
I'm really sad the history books of the future won't have a nice picture of Trump in a Castro hat saluting a tank going down Pennsylvania Avenue
|
On March 22 2017 23:02 LightSpectra wrote:
I'm really sad the history books of the future won't have a nice picture of Trump in a Castro hat saluting a tank going down Pennsylvania Avenue
Four years is a long time. Maybe he'll take a picture on one of the tanks rolling into Mexico City in 2019.
|
did wonders for Dukakis didn't it?
|
On March 22 2017 20:29 Gorsameth wrote:
More dirt on Manafort is not very useful considering he was fired during the election campaign.
I'ts quite useful for Americans to realize that if it weren't for some Ukranian prosecutors they'd have Putin's #1 shill as the 2nd most influential person in the government right now
|
Manafort also lives in Trump tower right now. Saying he isn’t a non-factor only works if you believe his firing changed anything. Because it seems to me they just hired a new front man.
|
On March 22 2017 21:42 LightSpectra wrote:
Wegandi/Danglars: if you want to prove the superiority of a free-market based solution for health insurance, you need to address the following points:
- Why is UHC cheaper per capita in every first-world country and Cuba than it is in the USA, despite us having ~10% of our population without insurance, higher infant mortality, lower life expectancy, more preventable deaths, similar average wait times for major operations, etc.? Why are the healthcare systems in all of those countries so wildly popular that even their equivalent of ultra-libertarians don't dream of privatizing them?
- If we implemented a free-market solution, how are people below the poverty line supposed to get affordable healthcare if they're already living paycheck-to-paycheck? (Sell your blood/go back to college/don't eat on Mondays/et al. are not acceptable answers)
- I don't believe anybody disputes that preventative care saves lots of money in the long run (e.g. giving a homeless guy a $12 tetanus vaccine is a lot cheaper than waiting for him to come into the ER and spending $8,491 to keep him from dying). In a free-market solution, how are homeless/extremely impoverished/disabled/etc. people supposed to get preventative care? (Or should we just let them die instead of getting ER treatment on the taxpayer's dime?)
You must first do a good job convincing everyone that your points aren't just cover for your next religious tirade. Sorry, the good will that existed at the start a few thousand pages ago is mostly forfeit on this issue. All counterpoints trolled, new points continually offered, nothing read, nothing understood in good faith. I'd sooner argue you into a belief in the God of the Christian bible, and have greater success perhaps. So next time we have a new plan to debate or another passing current event brings it up, show you want to understand and debate instead of playing 20 questions and collapsing down to social Darwinism and GOP wants poor people to die demagoguery. If the last dozen times talking about, for example, the origin of costs, continuity of insurance, individual focused health insurance, and devolving welfare to states didn't even register, I'd be a lunatic to think everyone suddenly had a change of heart and will approach the issue with less messianic preaching.
|
|
|
On March 23 2017 00:12 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 21:42 LightSpectra wrote:
Wegandi/Danglars: if you want to prove the superiority of a free-market based solution for health insurance, you need to address the following points:
- Why is UHC cheaper per capita in every first-world country and Cuba than it is in the USA, despite us having ~10% of our population without insurance, higher infant mortality, lower life expectancy, more preventable deaths, similar average wait times for major operations, etc.? Why are the healthcare systems in all of those countries so wildly popular that even their equivalent of ultra-libertarians don't dream of privatizing them?
- If we implemented a free-market solution, how are people below the poverty line supposed to get affordable healthcare if they're already living paycheck-to-paycheck? (Sell your blood/go back to college/don't eat on Mondays/et al. are not acceptable answers)
- I don't believe anybody disputes that preventative care saves lots of money in the long run (e.g. giving a homeless guy a $12 tetanus vaccine is a lot cheaper than waiting for him to come into the ER and spending $8,491 to keep him from dying). In a free-market solution, how are homeless/extremely impoverished/disabled/etc. people supposed to get preventative care? (Or should we just let them die instead of getting ER treatment on the taxpayer's dime?) You must first do a good job convincing everyone that your points aren't just cover for your next religious tirade. Sorry, the good will that existed at the start a few thousand pages ago is mostly forfeit on this issue. All counterpoints trolled, new points continually offered, nothing read, nothing understood in good faith. I'd sooner argue you into a belief in the God of the Christian bible, and have greater success perhaps. So next time we have a new plan to debate or another passing current event brings it up, show you want to understand and debate instead of playing 20 questions and collapsing down to social Darwinism and GOP wants poor people to die demagoguery. If the last dozen times talking about, for example, the origin of costs, continuity of insurance, individual focused health insurance, and devolving welfare to states didn't even register, I'd be a lunatic to think everyone suddenly had a change of heart and will approach the issue with less messianic preaching.
I enjoy this new US Politics thread, where any attempts at discourse will immediately devolve into Danglars and xDaunt lashing out blindly at the regressive left and the leftist demagoguery.
|
|
|
On March 23 2017 00:12 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 21:42 LightSpectra wrote:
Wegandi/Danglars: if you want to prove the superiority of a free-market based solution for health insurance, you need to address the following points:
- Why is UHC cheaper per capita in every first-world country and Cuba than it is in the USA, despite us having ~10% of our population without insurance, higher infant mortality, lower life expectancy, more preventable deaths, similar average wait times for major operations, etc.? Why are the healthcare systems in all of those countries so wildly popular that even their equivalent of ultra-libertarians don't dream of privatizing them?
- If we implemented a free-market solution, how are people below the poverty line supposed to get affordable healthcare if they're already living paycheck-to-paycheck? (Sell your blood/go back to college/don't eat on Mondays/et al. are not acceptable answers)
- I don't believe anybody disputes that preventative care saves lots of money in the long run (e.g. giving a homeless guy a $12 tetanus vaccine is a lot cheaper than waiting for him to come into the ER and spending $8,491 to keep him from dying). In a free-market solution, how are homeless/extremely impoverished/disabled/etc. people supposed to get preventative care? (Or should we just let them die instead of getting ER treatment on the taxpayer's dime?) You must first do a good job convincing everyone that your points aren't just cover for your next religious tirade. Sorry, the good will that existed at the start a few thousand pages ago is mostly forfeit on this issue. All counterpoints trolled, new points continually offered, nothing read, nothing understood in good faith. I'd sooner argue you into a belief in the God of the Christian bible, and have greater success perhaps. So next time we have a new plan to debate or another passing current event brings it up, show you want to understand and debate instead of playing 20 questions and collapsing down to social Darwinism and GOP wants poor people to die demagoguery. If the last dozen times talking about, for example, the origin of costs, continuity of insurance, individual focused health insurance, and devolving welfare to states didn't even register, I'd be a lunatic to think everyone suddenly had a change of heart and will approach the issue with less messianic preaching.
Well I do sincerely believe that many/most Republicans nowadays are social Darwinists, but for the sake of debate, I will play your game. Let's side aside pathos and ethos for a moment and just strictly talk about if a free-market solution can be as effective as UHC in terms of every citizen being able to receive affordable healthcare.
So please address these three points:
1. How can a free-market solution ever be as efficient as UHC, when UHC automatically has the benefits of no profit margin being integrated into the costs, as well as the maximum-sized insurance pool?
2. In a free-market system, how are very poor people (i.e. currently on Medicaid/care, has no expendable income) supposed to afford insurance without rolling back our standards of care to what it was decades ago?
3. In a free-market system, will penniless people be able to get preventative care? If so, how? If not, what happens when they come into the ER?
|
On March 23 2017 00:12 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 21:42 LightSpectra wrote:
Wegandi/Danglars: if you want to prove the superiority of a free-market based solution for health insurance, you need to address the following points:
- Why is UHC cheaper per capita in every first-world country and Cuba than it is in the USA, despite us having ~10% of our population without insurance, higher infant mortality, lower life expectancy, more preventable deaths, similar average wait times for major operations, etc.? Why are the healthcare systems in all of those countries so wildly popular that even their equivalent of ultra-libertarians don't dream of privatizing them?
- If we implemented a free-market solution, how are people below the poverty line supposed to get affordable healthcare if they're already living paycheck-to-paycheck? (Sell your blood/go back to college/don't eat on Mondays/et al. are not acceptable answers)
- I don't believe anybody disputes that preventative care saves lots of money in the long run (e.g. giving a homeless guy a $12 tetanus vaccine is a lot cheaper than waiting for him to come into the ER and spending $8,491 to keep him from dying). In a free-market solution, how are homeless/extremely impoverished/disabled/etc. people supposed to get preventative care? (Or should we just let them die instead of getting ER treatment on the taxpayer's dime?) You must first do a good job convincing everyone that your points aren't just cover for your next religious tirade. Sorry, the good will that existed at the start a few thousand pages ago is mostly forfeit on this issue. All counterpoints trolled, new points continually offered, nothing read, nothing understood in good faith. I'd sooner argue you into a belief in the God of the Christian bible, and have greater success perhaps. So next time we have a new plan to debate or another passing current event brings it up, show you want to understand and debate instead of playing 20 questions and collapsing down to social Darwinism and GOP wants poor people to die demagoguery. If the last dozen times talking about, for example, the origin of costs, continuity of insurance, individual focused health insurance, and devolving welfare to states didn't even register, I'd be a lunatic to think everyone suddenly had a change of heart and will approach the issue with less messianic preaching.
More matter and less art.
Serioisly, that doesn't help. People like Kwark Light Spectra and others have made very precise and clear arguments that you guys have just avoided by making vague accusation of "regressive leftism". What about some substance?
|
Don't worry everyone - it is a total non-factor that Trump has always associated himself with complete shadesters.
|
On March 23 2017 00:32 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 00:12 Danglars wrote:On March 22 2017 21:42 LightSpectra wrote:
Wegandi/Danglars: if you want to prove the superiority of a free-market based solution for health insurance, you need to address the following points:
- Why is UHC cheaper per capita in every first-world country and Cuba than it is in the USA, despite us having ~10% of our population without insurance, higher infant mortality, lower life expectancy, more preventable deaths, similar average wait times for major operations, etc.? Why are the healthcare systems in all of those countries so wildly popular that even their equivalent of ultra-libertarians don't dream of privatizing them?
- If we implemented a free-market solution, how are people below the poverty line supposed to get affordable healthcare if they're already living paycheck-to-paycheck? (Sell your blood/go back to college/don't eat on Mondays/et al. are not acceptable answers)
- I don't believe anybody disputes that preventative care saves lots of money in the long run (e.g. giving a homeless guy a $12 tetanus vaccine is a lot cheaper than waiting for him to come into the ER and spending $8,491 to keep him from dying). In a free-market solution, how are homeless/extremely impoverished/disabled/etc. people supposed to get preventative care? (Or should we just let them die instead of getting ER treatment on the taxpayer's dime?) You must first do a good job convincing everyone that your points aren't just cover for your next religious tirade. Sorry, the good will that existed at the start a few thousand pages ago is mostly forfeit on this issue. All counterpoints trolled, new points continually offered, nothing read, nothing understood in good faith. I'd sooner argue you into a belief in the God of the Christian bible, and have greater success perhaps. So next time we have a new plan to debate or another passing current event brings it up, show you want to understand and debate instead of playing 20 questions and collapsing down to social Darwinism and GOP wants poor people to die demagoguery. If the last dozen times talking about, for example, the origin of costs, continuity of insurance, individual focused health insurance, and devolving welfare to states didn't even register, I'd be a lunatic to think everyone suddenly had a change of heart and will approach the issue with less messianic preaching. Well I do sincerely believe that many/most Republicans nowadays are social Darwinists, but for the sake of debate, I will play your game. Let's side aside pathos and ethos for a moment and just strictly talk about if a free-market solution can be as effective as UHC in terms of every citizen being able to receive affordable healthcare. So please address these three points: 1. How can a free-market solution ever be as efficient as UHC, when UHC automatically has the benefits of no profit margin being integrated into the costs, as well as the maximum-sized insurance pool? 2. In a free-market system, how are very poor people (i.e. currently on Medicaid/care, has no expendable income) supposed to afford insurance without rolling back our standards of care to what it was decades ago? 3. In a free-market system, will penniless people be able to get preventative care? If so, how? If not, what happens when they come into the ER?
What part of "the next time we have a new plan or another passing current event brings it up" did you not understand? I wasn't born yesterday. You can show you're reformed in this exact thread as time passes or PM me if you don't want to search through thread for the last time I did dissertation. You and others have turned me off to the idea that you want a debate so let's give it a couple weeks and return.
On March 23 2017 00:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2017 00:12 Danglars wrote:On March 22 2017 21:42 LightSpectra wrote:
Wegandi/Danglars: if you want to prove the superiority of a free-market based solution for health insurance, you need to address the following points:
- Why is UHC cheaper per capita in every first-world country and Cuba than it is in the USA, despite us having ~10% of our population without insurance, higher infant mortality, lower life expectancy, more preventable deaths, similar average wait times for major operations, etc.? Why are the healthcare systems in all of those countries so wildly popular that even their equivalent of ultra-libertarians don't dream of privatizing them?
- If we implemented a free-market solution, how are people below the poverty line supposed to get affordable healthcare if they're already living paycheck-to-paycheck? (Sell your blood/go back to college/don't eat on Mondays/et al. are not acceptable answers)
- I don't believe anybody disputes that preventative care saves lots of money in the long run (e.g. giving a homeless guy a $12 tetanus vaccine is a lot cheaper than waiting for him to come into the ER and spending $8,491 to keep him from dying). In a free-market solution, how are homeless/extremely impoverished/disabled/etc. people supposed to get preventative care? (Or should we just let them die instead of getting ER treatment on the taxpayer's dime?) You must first do a good job convincing everyone that your points aren't just cover for your next religious tirade. Sorry, the good will that existed at the start a few thousand pages ago is mostly forfeit on this issue. All counterpoints trolled, new points continually offered, nothing read, nothing understood in good faith. I'd sooner argue you into a belief in the God of the Christian bible, and have greater success perhaps. So next time we have a new plan to debate or another passing current event brings it up, show you want to understand and debate instead of playing 20 questions and collapsing down to social Darwinism and GOP wants poor people to die demagoguery. If the last dozen times talking about, for example, the origin of costs, continuity of insurance, individual focused health insurance, and devolving welfare to states didn't even register, I'd be a lunatic to think everyone suddenly had a change of heart and will approach the issue with less messianic preaching. More matter and less art. Serioisly, that doesn't help. People like Kwark Light Spectra and others have made very precise and clear arguments that you guys have just avoided by making vague accusation of "regressive leftism". What about some substance?
How about reading what I wrote? You can't even get the vague accusations down to the poster. A rational man would presume you apply the same standard of comprehension to all you read.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
If I recall correctly, wasn't Manafort recruited to take up a more general-oriented campaign? And didn't he get thrown out in large part because Trump didn't like how his campaign worked under Manafort?
Bannon seemed to be someone Trump got along famously with, though.
|
On March 22 2017 19:26 farvacola wrote:
At least Danglars did us the favor of implying that he believes the healthcare debate to be one of religious instead of rational or logical belief. Unfortunately, he is not unusual in that regard
Now we just need interfaith and comparative religion classes!
|
On March 23 2017 01:00 LegalLord wrote:
If I recall correctly, wasn't Manafort recruited to take up a more general-oriented campaign? And didn't he get thrown out in large part because Trump didn't like how his campaign worked under Manafort?
Bannon seemed to be someone Trump got along famously with, though.
He got thrown out when the Ukraine stuff went public, which was shortly after his daughter received a blackmail attempt. So make of that what you will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
