• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 05:32
CEST 11:32
KST 18:32
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
BGE Stara Zagora 2025: Info & Preview27Code S RO12 Preview: GuMiho, Bunny, SHIN, ByuN3The Memories We Share - Facing the Final(?) GSL47Code S RO12 Preview: Cure, Zoun, Solar, Creator4[ASL19] Finals Preview: Daunting Task30
Community News
Weekly Cups (June 2-8): herO doubles down1[BSL20] ProLeague: Bracket Stage & Dates9GSL Ro4 and Finals moved to Sunday June 15th13Weekly Cups (May 27-June 1): ByuN goes back-to-back0EWC 2025 Regional Qualifier Results26
StarCraft 2
General
The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation StarCraft 1 & 2 Added to Xbox Game Pass Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing CN community: Firefly accused of suspicious activities How does the number of casters affect your enjoyment of esports?
Tourneys
Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) Bellum Gens Elite: Stara Zagora 2025 $3,500 WardiTV European League 2025 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament SOOPer7s Showmatches 2025
Strategy
[G] Darkgrid Layout Simple Questions Simple Answers [G] PvT Cheese: 13 Gate Proxy Robo
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 477 Slow and Steady Mutation # 476 Charnel House Mutation # 475 Hard Target Mutation # 474 Futile Resistance
Brood War
General
FlaSh Witnesses SCV Pull Off the Impossible vs Shu BW General Discussion StarCraft & BroodWar Campaign Speedrun Quest BGH auto balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Will foreigners ever be able to challenge Koreans?
Tourneys
[ASL19] Grand Finals NA Team League 6/8/2025 [Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] ProLeague Bracket Stage - Day 2
Strategy
I am doing this better than progamers do. [G] How to get started on ladder as a new Z player
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread What do you want from future RTS games? Armies of Exigo - YesYes? Nintendo Switch Thread Path of Exile
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
LiquidLegends to reintegrate into TL.net
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Vape Nation Thread European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread
Fan Clubs
Maru Fan Club Serral Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Korean Music Discussion [Manga] One Piece
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
A Better Routine For Progame…
TrAiDoS
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Heero Yuy & the Tax…
KrillinFromwales
I was completely wrong ab…
jameswatts
Need Your Help/Advice
Glider
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 36658 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9257

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 9255 9256 9257 9258 9259 10093 Next
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.
Blazinghand *
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
United States25550 Posts
November 16 2017 23:06 GMT
#185121
On November 17 2017 08:04 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 17 2017 07:58 Plansix wrote:
The ACA's greatest problem has always been the 7+ year effort by the Republican party to destroy it or cause it to fail.

On November 17 2017 07:57 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:54 ticklishmusic wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:49 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:46 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:42 ticklishmusic wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:25 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:10 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]

This is you feeling fatigued and frustrated by the process, not actually thinking bandaid solutions are a net negative compared to a destroyed system. What you're describing would definitely result in more human loss than by limping along. Limping along keeps people alive, even if inefficiently. Burning the whole thing down would result in a net loss of life. That isn't an ethical preference just for the sake of "finally getting this right and moving on".

I'm not fatigued by the process. I'm advocating for following the process and accelerating it to where it's going to be anyway.


let's pretend that you have a kid with a pre existing condition. with the help of a drug that costs 100k a month, he is able to live a perfectly normal, symptom free life. without the drug, he constantly has seizures and is in extreme pain which opiods are completely useless in mitigating, and the only moments he's free of pain is when he passes out from his condition.

your hypothetical kid benefits a lot under the current system, as it was bandaided/ improved by the ACA. the ACA is why there are broad-ish and deep-ish risk pools that enable a funding mechanism for kids like yours. are you still willing to just let it go to shit and more or less be on your own for a couple years while hoping nationalized medicine happens?

Healthcare is a scarce commodity and should be treated as such for the entire population. By definition, the case of the individual is irrelevant. We can't provide healthcare for everyone in every circumstance. Some people will necessarily lose out in any system. All that we can decide is how to best to allocate the limited resources that are available. For all of these reasons, your appeal to the hypothetical where I have a kid with a preexisting condition is irrelevant. Rational policymakers don't give a shit about the individual case. Nor should we.

Regardless, I don't buy the presumption that Congress will fail to act before things get too bad. I bet they do, because the constituents will demand it.


See, it's easy to talk about being rational and all when you're not the one being oh-so-rationally fucked.


Do you want to have rational conversation about policy or do you want to have a good cry instead? I'm not interested in the latter, and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and policymakers engaging in the latter either. Grow up.


You're effectively arguing it's rational public policy to let thousands of people die or suffer?

What do you think a "death panel" is?

A myth, like the tooth fairy or the elves the made shoes.

Definitely not a myth, buddy.

Serious question for the people around here: do y'all really think that we can give unlimited healthcare to everyone? You guys can't possibly be that illiterate on the subject, can you?


I don't think that's what people here are saying.
When you stare into the iCCup, the iCCup stares back.
TL+ Member
ticklishmusic
Profile Blog Joined August 2011
United States15977 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-11-16 23:08:14
November 16 2017 23:06 GMT
#185122
xDaunt, do you know how the three legged stool works and why the individual mandate is necessary? It's how the system gets funded. It's a separate issue from the really obvious fucking fact which you seem to think is some sort of amazing argument that resources are limited and that choices have to be made.
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
November 16 2017 23:08 GMT
#185123
On November 17 2017 08:06 ticklishmusic wrote:
xDaunt, do you know how the three legged stool works and why the individual mandate is necessary? Hint: it's a separate issue from the really obvious fucking fact which you seem to think is some sort of amazing argument that resources are limited and that choices have to be made.

If you know what the three-legged stool is, then you should know better than to make this absurd post:

On November 17 2017 07:54 ticklishmusic wrote:
You're effectively arguing it's rational public policy to let thousands of people die or suffer?

TheTenthDoc
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
United States9561 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-11-16 23:11:38
November 16 2017 23:11 GMT
#185124
On November 17 2017 08:04 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 17 2017 07:58 Plansix wrote:
The ACA's greatest problem has always been the 7+ year effort by the Republican party to destroy it or cause it to fail.

On November 17 2017 07:57 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:54 ticklishmusic wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:49 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:46 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:42 ticklishmusic wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:25 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:10 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]

This is you feeling fatigued and frustrated by the process, not actually thinking bandaid solutions are a net negative compared to a destroyed system. What you're describing would definitely result in more human loss than by limping along. Limping along keeps people alive, even if inefficiently. Burning the whole thing down would result in a net loss of life. That isn't an ethical preference just for the sake of "finally getting this right and moving on".

I'm not fatigued by the process. I'm advocating for following the process and accelerating it to where it's going to be anyway.


let's pretend that you have a kid with a pre existing condition. with the help of a drug that costs 100k a month, he is able to live a perfectly normal, symptom free life. without the drug, he constantly has seizures and is in extreme pain which opiods are completely useless in mitigating, and the only moments he's free of pain is when he passes out from his condition.

your hypothetical kid benefits a lot under the current system, as it was bandaided/ improved by the ACA. the ACA is why there are broad-ish and deep-ish risk pools that enable a funding mechanism for kids like yours. are you still willing to just let it go to shit and more or less be on your own for a couple years while hoping nationalized medicine happens?

Healthcare is a scarce commodity and should be treated as such for the entire population. By definition, the case of the individual is irrelevant. We can't provide healthcare for everyone in every circumstance. Some people will necessarily lose out in any system. All that we can decide is how to best to allocate the limited resources that are available. For all of these reasons, your appeal to the hypothetical where I have a kid with a preexisting condition is irrelevant. Rational policymakers don't give a shit about the individual case. Nor should we.

Regardless, I don't buy the presumption that Congress will fail to act before things get too bad. I bet they do, because the constituents will demand it.


See, it's easy to talk about being rational and all when you're not the one being oh-so-rationally fucked.


Do you want to have rational conversation about policy or do you want to have a good cry instead? I'm not interested in the latter, and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and policymakers engaging in the latter either. Grow up.


You're effectively arguing it's rational public policy to let thousands of people die or suffer?

What do you think a "death panel" is?

A myth, like the tooth fairy or the elves the made shoes.

Definitely not a myth, buddy.

Serious question for the people around here: do y'all really think that we can give unlimited healthcare to everyone? You guys can't possibly be that illiterate on the subject, can you?


No. I just thinking letting the market have such a large role in allocation of healthcare, which is saying we think it's as reasonable for rich people to live longer than poor people as it is for rich people to own better cars, is morally abominable when there are non-market solutions.

(I also pray we never give unlimited healthcare to everyone, because that's a horrible thing to do to humans)
ticklishmusic
Profile Blog Joined August 2011
United States15977 Posts
November 16 2017 23:13 GMT
#185125
On November 17 2017 08:08 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 17 2017 08:06 ticklishmusic wrote:
xDaunt, do you know how the three legged stool works and why the individual mandate is necessary? Hint: it's a separate issue from the really obvious fucking fact which you seem to think is some sort of amazing argument that resources are limited and that choices have to be made.

If you know what the three-legged stool is, then you should know better than to make this absurd post:

Show nested quote +
On November 17 2017 07:54 ticklishmusic wrote:
You're effectively arguing it's rational public policy to let thousands of people die or suffer?



Well, it's your absurd argument.

Would Professor xDaunt kindly walk us through how rational it is to remove the individual mandate and nuke the funding mechanism for our healthcare system?
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
November 16 2017 23:14 GMT
#185126
On November 17 2017 08:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 17 2017 08:04 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:58 Plansix wrote:
The ACA's greatest problem has always been the 7+ year effort by the Republican party to destroy it or cause it to fail.

On November 17 2017 07:57 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:54 ticklishmusic wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:49 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:46 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:42 ticklishmusic wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:25 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I'm not fatigued by the process. I'm advocating for following the process and accelerating it to where it's going to be anyway.


let's pretend that you have a kid with a pre existing condition. with the help of a drug that costs 100k a month, he is able to live a perfectly normal, symptom free life. without the drug, he constantly has seizures and is in extreme pain which opiods are completely useless in mitigating, and the only moments he's free of pain is when he passes out from his condition.

your hypothetical kid benefits a lot under the current system, as it was bandaided/ improved by the ACA. the ACA is why there are broad-ish and deep-ish risk pools that enable a funding mechanism for kids like yours. are you still willing to just let it go to shit and more or less be on your own for a couple years while hoping nationalized medicine happens?

Healthcare is a scarce commodity and should be treated as such for the entire population. By definition, the case of the individual is irrelevant. We can't provide healthcare for everyone in every circumstance. Some people will necessarily lose out in any system. All that we can decide is how to best to allocate the limited resources that are available. For all of these reasons, your appeal to the hypothetical where I have a kid with a preexisting condition is irrelevant. Rational policymakers don't give a shit about the individual case. Nor should we.

Regardless, I don't buy the presumption that Congress will fail to act before things get too bad. I bet they do, because the constituents will demand it.


See, it's easy to talk about being rational and all when you're not the one being oh-so-rationally fucked.


Do you want to have rational conversation about policy or do you want to have a good cry instead? I'm not interested in the latter, and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and policymakers engaging in the latter either. Grow up.


You're effectively arguing it's rational public policy to let thousands of people die or suffer?

What do you think a "death panel" is?

A myth, like the tooth fairy or the elves the made shoes.

Definitely not a myth, buddy.

Serious question for the people around here: do y'all really think that we can give unlimited healthcare to everyone? You guys can't possibly be that illiterate on the subject, can you?


No. I just thinking letting the market have such a large role in allocation of healthcare, which is saying we think it's as reasonable for rich people to live longer than poor people as it is for rich people to own better cars, is morally abominable when there are non-market solutions.

(I also pray we never give unlimited healthcare to everyone, because that's a horrible thing to do to humans)


And you understand that even under "non-market solutions," care is still rationed -- meaning that lots of people will be denied care that they desire or even need to live -- right?
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23066 Posts
November 16 2017 23:16 GMT
#185127
On November 17 2017 08:03 Blazinghand wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 17 2017 08:01 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
xDaunt is right that the ACA is fucked. They tried to enshrine corporate insurance profits into law and build a healthcare system around that and it was never going to work in the long run. It's better than what we had, but it was never a real solution.

However, xDaunt should probably try to convince his Republican brethren (and Democrats should convince ACA deadenders) that they are wrong about socialized healthcare rather than hope people start dying enough to make the realization that way.

It's not even just that. They made it so that healthy people can simply game the system. And there's still nothing to control the underlying problem of a totally FUBAR pricing system. There were a ton of people who pointed out that Obamacare was going to fail before it was even passed for these very reasons, and they were entirely correct. It's only a matter of time. Premiums are already spiraling out of control.


The saddest part is that the Public Option got killed. If there was a Public Option, I think things would be different. But the 60th vote in the Senate, Lieberman, was adamantly against it, and there was no way around it.


I think it's weird that Ben Nelson led the Democrat opposition to a public option and went on to be the CEO of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, but everyone still blames Lieberman.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
TheTenthDoc
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
United States9561 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-11-16 23:17:10
November 16 2017 23:16 GMT
#185128
On November 17 2017 08:14 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 17 2017 08:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:
On November 17 2017 08:04 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:58 Plansix wrote:
The ACA's greatest problem has always been the 7+ year effort by the Republican party to destroy it or cause it to fail.

On November 17 2017 07:57 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:54 ticklishmusic wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:49 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:46 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:42 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]

let's pretend that you have a kid with a pre existing condition. with the help of a drug that costs 100k a month, he is able to live a perfectly normal, symptom free life. without the drug, he constantly has seizures and is in extreme pain which opiods are completely useless in mitigating, and the only moments he's free of pain is when he passes out from his condition.

your hypothetical kid benefits a lot under the current system, as it was bandaided/ improved by the ACA. the ACA is why there are broad-ish and deep-ish risk pools that enable a funding mechanism for kids like yours. are you still willing to just let it go to shit and more or less be on your own for a couple years while hoping nationalized medicine happens?

Healthcare is a scarce commodity and should be treated as such for the entire population. By definition, the case of the individual is irrelevant. We can't provide healthcare for everyone in every circumstance. Some people will necessarily lose out in any system. All that we can decide is how to best to allocate the limited resources that are available. For all of these reasons, your appeal to the hypothetical where I have a kid with a preexisting condition is irrelevant. Rational policymakers don't give a shit about the individual case. Nor should we.

Regardless, I don't buy the presumption that Congress will fail to act before things get too bad. I bet they do, because the constituents will demand it.


See, it's easy to talk about being rational and all when you're not the one being oh-so-rationally fucked.


Do you want to have rational conversation about policy or do you want to have a good cry instead? I'm not interested in the latter, and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and policymakers engaging in the latter either. Grow up.


You're effectively arguing it's rational public policy to let thousands of people die or suffer?

What do you think a "death panel" is?

A myth, like the tooth fairy or the elves the made shoes.

Definitely not a myth, buddy.

Serious question for the people around here: do y'all really think that we can give unlimited healthcare to everyone? You guys can't possibly be that illiterate on the subject, can you?


No. I just thinking letting the market have such a large role in allocation of healthcare, which is saying we think it's as reasonable for rich people to live longer than poor people as it is for rich people to own better cars, is morally abominable when there are non-market solutions.

(I also pray we never give unlimited healthcare to everyone, because that's a horrible thing to do to humans)


And you understand that even under "non-market solutions," care is still rationed -- meaning that lots of people will be denied care that they desire or even need to live -- right?


I don't care about rationing as long as it's not based upon money in your bank account. It's not like food rationing is evil when there are limited food supplies.

By having a market, you ration based upon wealth. That's what a market is.
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
November 16 2017 23:17 GMT
#185129
On November 17 2017 08:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 17 2017 08:14 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 08:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:
On November 17 2017 08:04 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:58 Plansix wrote:
The ACA's greatest problem has always been the 7+ year effort by the Republican party to destroy it or cause it to fail.

On November 17 2017 07:57 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:54 ticklishmusic wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:49 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:46 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Healthcare is a scarce commodity and should be treated as such for the entire population. By definition, the case of the individual is irrelevant. We can't provide healthcare for everyone in every circumstance. Some people will necessarily lose out in any system. All that we can decide is how to best to allocate the limited resources that are available. For all of these reasons, your appeal to the hypothetical where I have a kid with a preexisting condition is irrelevant. Rational policymakers don't give a shit about the individual case. Nor should we.

Regardless, I don't buy the presumption that Congress will fail to act before things get too bad. I bet they do, because the constituents will demand it.


See, it's easy to talk about being rational and all when you're not the one being oh-so-rationally fucked.


Do you want to have rational conversation about policy or do you want to have a good cry instead? I'm not interested in the latter, and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and policymakers engaging in the latter either. Grow up.


You're effectively arguing it's rational public policy to let thousands of people die or suffer?

What do you think a "death panel" is?

A myth, like the tooth fairy or the elves the made shoes.

Definitely not a myth, buddy.

Serious question for the people around here: do y'all really think that we can give unlimited healthcare to everyone? You guys can't possibly be that illiterate on the subject, can you?


No. I just thinking letting the market have such a large role in allocation of healthcare, which is saying we think it's as reasonable for rich people to live longer than poor people as it is for rich people to own better cars, is morally abominable when there are non-market solutions.

(I also pray we never give unlimited healthcare to everyone, because that's a horrible thing to do to humans)


And you understand that even under "non-market solutions," care is still rationed -- meaning that lots of people will be denied care that they desire or even need to live -- right?


I don't care about rationing as long as it's not based upon money in your bank account. It's not like food rationing is evil when there are limited food supplies.

By having a market, you ration based upon wealth. That's what a market is.

So are you opposed to having a system where a basic level of coverage is provided to everyone and then individuals have the right to buy additional coverage if they choose?
ticklishmusic
Profile Blog Joined August 2011
United States15977 Posts
November 16 2017 23:20 GMT
#185130
On November 17 2017 08:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 17 2017 08:03 Blazinghand wrote:
On November 17 2017 08:01 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
xDaunt is right that the ACA is fucked. They tried to enshrine corporate insurance profits into law and build a healthcare system around that and it was never going to work in the long run. It's better than what we had, but it was never a real solution.

However, xDaunt should probably try to convince his Republican brethren (and Democrats should convince ACA deadenders) that they are wrong about socialized healthcare rather than hope people start dying enough to make the realization that way.

It's not even just that. They made it so that healthy people can simply game the system. And there's still nothing to control the underlying problem of a totally FUBAR pricing system. There were a ton of people who pointed out that Obamacare was going to fail before it was even passed for these very reasons, and they were entirely correct. It's only a matter of time. Premiums are already spiraling out of control.


The saddest part is that the Public Option got killed. If there was a Public Option, I think things would be different. But the 60th vote in the Senate, Lieberman, was adamantly against it, and there was no way around it.


I think it's weird that Ben Nelson led the Democrat opposition to a public option and went on to be the CEO of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, but everyone still blames Lieberman.


no, nelson was against abortion funding.
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23066 Posts
November 16 2017 23:20 GMT
#185131
On November 17 2017 08:17 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 17 2017 08:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:
On November 17 2017 08:14 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 08:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:
On November 17 2017 08:04 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:58 Plansix wrote:
The ACA's greatest problem has always been the 7+ year effort by the Republican party to destroy it or cause it to fail.

On November 17 2017 07:57 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:54 ticklishmusic wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:49 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]

See, it's easy to talk about being rational and all when you're not the one being oh-so-rationally fucked.


Do you want to have rational conversation about policy or do you want to have a good cry instead? I'm not interested in the latter, and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and policymakers engaging in the latter either. Grow up.


You're effectively arguing it's rational public policy to let thousands of people die or suffer?

What do you think a "death panel" is?

A myth, like the tooth fairy or the elves the made shoes.

Definitely not a myth, buddy.

Serious question for the people around here: do y'all really think that we can give unlimited healthcare to everyone? You guys can't possibly be that illiterate on the subject, can you?


No. I just thinking letting the market have such a large role in allocation of healthcare, which is saying we think it's as reasonable for rich people to live longer than poor people as it is for rich people to own better cars, is morally abominable when there are non-market solutions.

(I also pray we never give unlimited healthcare to everyone, because that's a horrible thing to do to humans)


And you understand that even under "non-market solutions," care is still rationed -- meaning that lots of people will be denied care that they desire or even need to live -- right?


I don't care about rationing as long as it's not based upon money in your bank account. It's not like food rationing is evil when there are limited food supplies.

By having a market, you ration based upon wealth. That's what a market is.

So are you opposed to having a system where a basic level of coverage is provided to everyone and then individuals have the right to buy additional coverage if they choose?


The first public the second private is what some folks have been saying for a long time. But that also means everyone pays according to their ability.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
November 16 2017 23:21 GMT
#185132
On November 17 2017 08:17 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 17 2017 08:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:
On November 17 2017 08:14 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 08:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:
On November 17 2017 08:04 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:58 Plansix wrote:
The ACA's greatest problem has always been the 7+ year effort by the Republican party to destroy it or cause it to fail.

On November 17 2017 07:57 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:54 ticklishmusic wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:49 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]

See, it's easy to talk about being rational and all when you're not the one being oh-so-rationally fucked.


Do you want to have rational conversation about policy or do you want to have a good cry instead? I'm not interested in the latter, and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and policymakers engaging in the latter either. Grow up.


You're effectively arguing it's rational public policy to let thousands of people die or suffer?

What do you think a "death panel" is?

A myth, like the tooth fairy or the elves the made shoes.

Definitely not a myth, buddy.

Serious question for the people around here: do y'all really think that we can give unlimited healthcare to everyone? You guys can't possibly be that illiterate on the subject, can you?


No. I just thinking letting the market have such a large role in allocation of healthcare, which is saying we think it's as reasonable for rich people to live longer than poor people as it is for rich people to own better cars, is morally abominable when there are non-market solutions.

(I also pray we never give unlimited healthcare to everyone, because that's a horrible thing to do to humans)


And you understand that even under "non-market solutions," care is still rationed -- meaning that lots of people will be denied care that they desire or even need to live -- right?


I don't care about rationing as long as it's not based upon money in your bank account. It's not like food rationing is evil when there are limited food supplies.

By having a market, you ration based upon wealth. That's what a market is.

So are you opposed to having a system where a basic level of coverage is provided to everyone and then individuals have the right to buy additional coverage if they choose?

Isn't that pretty much most of Europe? They cracked this nut a while ago.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
TheTenthDoc
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
United States9561 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-11-16 23:24:22
November 16 2017 23:22 GMT
#185133
On November 17 2017 08:17 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 17 2017 08:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:
On November 17 2017 08:14 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 08:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:
On November 17 2017 08:04 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:58 Plansix wrote:
The ACA's greatest problem has always been the 7+ year effort by the Republican party to destroy it or cause it to fail.

On November 17 2017 07:57 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:54 ticklishmusic wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:49 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]

See, it's easy to talk about being rational and all when you're not the one being oh-so-rationally fucked.


Do you want to have rational conversation about policy or do you want to have a good cry instead? I'm not interested in the latter, and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and policymakers engaging in the latter either. Grow up.


You're effectively arguing it's rational public policy to let thousands of people die or suffer?

What do you think a "death panel" is?

A myth, like the tooth fairy or the elves the made shoes.

Definitely not a myth, buddy.

Serious question for the people around here: do y'all really think that we can give unlimited healthcare to everyone? You guys can't possibly be that illiterate on the subject, can you?


No. I just thinking letting the market have such a large role in allocation of healthcare, which is saying we think it's as reasonable for rich people to live longer than poor people as it is for rich people to own better cars, is morally abominable when there are non-market solutions.

(I also pray we never give unlimited healthcare to everyone, because that's a horrible thing to do to humans)


And you understand that even under "non-market solutions," care is still rationed -- meaning that lots of people will be denied care that they desire or even need to live -- right?


I don't care about rationing as long as it's not based upon money in your bank account. It's not like food rationing is evil when there are limited food supplies.

By having a market, you ration based upon wealth. That's what a market is.

So are you opposed to having a system where a basic level of coverage is provided to everyone and then individuals have the right to buy additional coverage if they choose?


Yep. I would rather not have "coverage" as a concept and have subsidized health providers. More than the U.K., in other words, where private coverage is an additional option.

If we can't have that, as least the influential people in favor of any kind of market economy for healthcare, including an annual premium a la Medicare for all or opt-in additional private plans, need to stop pretending they don't accept rich people living longer than poor people to whatever degree is in place.

Of course, this solution would utterly wreck the U.S. healthcare jobs market and is obviously unpalatable to heavy lobbyists, so it will probably never happen.
Mohdoo
Profile Joined August 2007
United States15511 Posts
November 16 2017 23:22 GMT
#185134
Sometimes it feels like xdaunt only posts on TL after a few drinks. He discusses politics the same way I do when I'm drunk lol.
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23066 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-11-16 23:23:52
November 16 2017 23:22 GMT
#185135
On November 17 2017 08:20 ticklishmusic wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 17 2017 08:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
On November 17 2017 08:03 Blazinghand wrote:
On November 17 2017 08:01 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
xDaunt is right that the ACA is fucked. They tried to enshrine corporate insurance profits into law and build a healthcare system around that and it was never going to work in the long run. It's better than what we had, but it was never a real solution.

However, xDaunt should probably try to convince his Republican brethren (and Democrats should convince ACA deadenders) that they are wrong about socialized healthcare rather than hope people start dying enough to make the realization that way.

It's not even just that. They made it so that healthy people can simply game the system. And there's still nothing to control the underlying problem of a totally FUBAR pricing system. There were a ton of people who pointed out that Obamacare was going to fail before it was even passed for these very reasons, and they were entirely correct. It's only a matter of time. Premiums are already spiraling out of control.


The saddest part is that the Public Option got killed. If there was a Public Option, I think things would be different. But the 60th vote in the Senate, Lieberman, was adamantly against it, and there was no way around it.


I think it's weird that Ben Nelson led the Democrat opposition to a public option and went on to be the CEO of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, but everyone still blames Lieberman.


no, nelson was against abortion funding.


Maybe he was, but he was definitely leading the Democrat opposition to a public option too.

A handful of conservative Democrats, led by Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, made clear that if there was a public option, they would filibuster the final bill. And so it died.


Source
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
November 16 2017 23:23 GMT
#185136
On November 17 2017 08:20 ticklishmusic wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 17 2017 08:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
On November 17 2017 08:03 Blazinghand wrote:
On November 17 2017 08:01 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
xDaunt is right that the ACA is fucked. They tried to enshrine corporate insurance profits into law and build a healthcare system around that and it was never going to work in the long run. It's better than what we had, but it was never a real solution.

However, xDaunt should probably try to convince his Republican brethren (and Democrats should convince ACA deadenders) that they are wrong about socialized healthcare rather than hope people start dying enough to make the realization that way.

It's not even just that. They made it so that healthy people can simply game the system. And there's still nothing to control the underlying problem of a totally FUBAR pricing system. There were a ton of people who pointed out that Obamacare was going to fail before it was even passed for these very reasons, and they were entirely correct. It's only a matter of time. Premiums are already spiraling out of control.


The saddest part is that the Public Option got killed. If there was a Public Option, I think things would be different. But the 60th vote in the Senate, Lieberman, was adamantly against it, and there was no way around it.


I think it's weird that Ben Nelson led the Democrat opposition to a public option and went on to be the CEO of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, but everyone still blames Lieberman.


no, nelson was against abortion funding.

And Lieberman said he would block any vote that allowed for a public option out loud to anyone who would listen. That many was not shy about saying "fuck you" to people who wanted it.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
November 16 2017 23:24 GMT
#185137
On November 17 2017 08:22 Mohdoo wrote:
Sometimes it feels like xdaunt only posts on TL after a few drinks. He discusses politics the same way I do when I'm drunk lol.

The last time I did that I got banned. Though to be fair, I deserved it. Don't post drunk kids.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Stratos_speAr
Profile Joined May 2009
United States6959 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-11-16 23:28:10
November 16 2017 23:25 GMT
#185138
On November 17 2017 08:04 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 17 2017 07:58 Plansix wrote:
The ACA's greatest problem has always been the 7+ year effort by the Republican party to destroy it or cause it to fail.

On November 17 2017 07:57 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:54 ticklishmusic wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:49 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:46 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:42 ticklishmusic wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:25 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:10 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]

This is you feeling fatigued and frustrated by the process, not actually thinking bandaid solutions are a net negative compared to a destroyed system. What you're describing would definitely result in more human loss than by limping along. Limping along keeps people alive, even if inefficiently. Burning the whole thing down would result in a net loss of life. That isn't an ethical preference just for the sake of "finally getting this right and moving on".

I'm not fatigued by the process. I'm advocating for following the process and accelerating it to where it's going to be anyway.


let's pretend that you have a kid with a pre existing condition. with the help of a drug that costs 100k a month, he is able to live a perfectly normal, symptom free life. without the drug, he constantly has seizures and is in extreme pain which opiods are completely useless in mitigating, and the only moments he's free of pain is when he passes out from his condition.

your hypothetical kid benefits a lot under the current system, as it was bandaided/ improved by the ACA. the ACA is why there are broad-ish and deep-ish risk pools that enable a funding mechanism for kids like yours. are you still willing to just let it go to shit and more or less be on your own for a couple years while hoping nationalized medicine happens?

Healthcare is a scarce commodity and should be treated as such for the entire population. By definition, the case of the individual is irrelevant. We can't provide healthcare for everyone in every circumstance. Some people will necessarily lose out in any system. All that we can decide is how to best to allocate the limited resources that are available. For all of these reasons, your appeal to the hypothetical where I have a kid with a preexisting condition is irrelevant. Rational policymakers don't give a shit about the individual case. Nor should we.

Regardless, I don't buy the presumption that Congress will fail to act before things get too bad. I bet they do, because the constituents will demand it.


See, it's easy to talk about being rational and all when you're not the one being oh-so-rationally fucked.


Do you want to have rational conversation about policy or do you want to have a good cry instead? I'm not interested in the latter, and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and policymakers engaging in the latter either. Grow up.


You're effectively arguing it's rational public policy to let thousands of people die or suffer?

What do you think a "death panel" is?

A myth, like the tooth fairy or the elves the made shoes.

Definitely not a myth, buddy.

Serious question for the people around here: do y'all really think that we can give unlimited healthcare to everyone? You guys can't possibly be that illiterate on the subject, can you?


xDaunt, you need to stick to your own profession because it's abundantly clear that you have a severe lack of understanding concerning healthcare. You're embarrassing yourself.
A sound mind in a sound body, is a short, but full description of a happy state in this World: he that has these two, has little more to wish for; and he that wants either of them, will be little the better for anything else.
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
November 16 2017 23:25 GMT
#185139
On November 17 2017 08:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 17 2017 08:17 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 08:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:
On November 17 2017 08:14 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 08:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:
On November 17 2017 08:04 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:58 Plansix wrote:
The ACA's greatest problem has always been the 7+ year effort by the Republican party to destroy it or cause it to fail.

On November 17 2017 07:57 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:54 ticklishmusic wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:49 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]

Do you want to have rational conversation about policy or do you want to have a good cry instead? I'm not interested in the latter, and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and policymakers engaging in the latter either. Grow up.


You're effectively arguing it's rational public policy to let thousands of people die or suffer?

What do you think a "death panel" is?

A myth, like the tooth fairy or the elves the made shoes.

Definitely not a myth, buddy.

Serious question for the people around here: do y'all really think that we can give unlimited healthcare to everyone? You guys can't possibly be that illiterate on the subject, can you?


No. I just thinking letting the market have such a large role in allocation of healthcare, which is saying we think it's as reasonable for rich people to live longer than poor people as it is for rich people to own better cars, is morally abominable when there are non-market solutions.

(I also pray we never give unlimited healthcare to everyone, because that's a horrible thing to do to humans)


And you understand that even under "non-market solutions," care is still rationed -- meaning that lots of people will be denied care that they desire or even need to live -- right?


I don't care about rationing as long as it's not based upon money in your bank account. It's not like food rationing is evil when there are limited food supplies.

By having a market, you ration based upon wealth. That's what a market is.

So are you opposed to having a system where a basic level of coverage is provided to everyone and then individuals have the right to buy additional coverage if they choose?


The first public the second private is what some folks have been saying for a long time. But that also means everyone pays according to their ability.

Right, I'm one of the people that has long advocated for this kind of solution. I think that the dumbest thing that republicans have done is refuse to create this kind of system on their own terms before democrats get around to doing it. If they do it right, they can create a system that appropriate limits the public baseline coverage thereby creating something that is fundamentally the type of free market system that they purport to want so badly. But like I have pointed out numerous times, republicans and conservatives are completely ass-backwards on healthcare.
xDaunt
Profile Joined March 2010
United States17988 Posts
November 16 2017 23:26 GMT
#185140
On November 17 2017 08:25 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 17 2017 08:04 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:58 Plansix wrote:
The ACA's greatest problem has always been the 7+ year effort by the Republican party to destroy it or cause it to fail.

On November 17 2017 07:57 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:54 ticklishmusic wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:49 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:46 xDaunt wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:42 ticklishmusic wrote:
On November 17 2017 07:25 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I'm not fatigued by the process. I'm advocating for following the process and accelerating it to where it's going to be anyway.


let's pretend that you have a kid with a pre existing condition. with the help of a drug that costs 100k a month, he is able to live a perfectly normal, symptom free life. without the drug, he constantly has seizures and is in extreme pain which opiods are completely useless in mitigating, and the only moments he's free of pain is when he passes out from his condition.

your hypothetical kid benefits a lot under the current system, as it was bandaided/ improved by the ACA. the ACA is why there are broad-ish and deep-ish risk pools that enable a funding mechanism for kids like yours. are you still willing to just let it go to shit and more or less be on your own for a couple years while hoping nationalized medicine happens?

Healthcare is a scarce commodity and should be treated as such for the entire population. By definition, the case of the individual is irrelevant. We can't provide healthcare for everyone in every circumstance. Some people will necessarily lose out in any system. All that we can decide is how to best to allocate the limited resources that are available. For all of these reasons, your appeal to the hypothetical where I have a kid with a preexisting condition is irrelevant. Rational policymakers don't give a shit about the individual case. Nor should we.

Regardless, I don't buy the presumption that Congress will fail to act before things get too bad. I bet they do, because the constituents will demand it.


See, it's easy to talk about being rational and all when you're not the one being oh-so-rationally fucked.


Do you want to have rational conversation about policy or do you want to have a good cry instead? I'm not interested in the latter, and I sure as fuck don't want my politicians and policymakers engaging in the latter either. Grow up.


You're effectively arguing it's rational public policy to let thousands of people die or suffer?

What do you think a "death panel" is?

A myth, like the tooth fairy or the elves the made shoes.

Definitely not a myth, buddy.

Serious question for the people around here: do y'all really think that we can give unlimited healthcare to everyone? You guys can't possibly be that illiterate on the subject, can you?


xDaunt, you need to stick to your own profession because it's abundantly clear that you have a severe lack of understanding concerning healthcare. Your embarrassing yourself.

Good luck pointing out what I've gotten wrong.
Prev 1 9255 9256 9257 9258 9259 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 28m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
OGKoka 202
ProTech80
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 31698
Sea 4962
Jaedong 260
Sharp 206
BeSt 190
EffOrt 188
Pusan 129
GoRush 86
Leta 82
Dewaltoss 73
[ Show more ]
Movie 44
Backho 32
Sacsri 25
Dota 2
XcaliburYe567
BananaSlamJamma433
XaKoH 231
League of Legends
JimRising 514
Counter-Strike
shoxiejesuss1292
Stewie2K704
Super Smash Bros
Westballz19
Other Games
Happy439
crisheroes269
Mew2King236
Pyrionflax78
Organizations
Dota 2
PGL Dota 2 - Secondary Stream3697
Other Games
gamesdonequick677
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• LUISG 28
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• Airneanach4
• Rasowy 2
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• lizZardDota296
League of Legends
• Stunt572
Upcoming Events
Replay Cast
28m
WardiTV Invitational
1h 28m
PiGosaur Monday
14h 28m
GSL Code S
23h 58m
Rogue vs GuMiho
Maru vs Solar
Online Event
1d 14h
Replay Cast
1d 16h
GSL Code S
1d 23h
herO vs Zoun
Classic vs Bunny
The PondCast
2 days
Replay Cast
2 days
WardiTV Invitational
3 days
[ Show More ]
OSC
3 days
Korean StarCraft League
3 days
CranKy Ducklings
4 days
WardiTV Invitational
4 days
Cheesadelphia
4 days
CSO Cup
4 days
GSL Code S
4 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
5 days
Replay Cast
5 days
Wardi Open
6 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Season 17: Qualifier 2
BGE Stara Zagora 2025
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
BSL Season 20
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
NPSL S3
Rose Open S1
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
2025 GSL S2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025
YaLLa Compass Qatar 2025
PGL Bucharest 2025
BLAST Open Spring 2025

Upcoming

Copa Latinoamericana 4
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
SEL Season 2 Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
HSC XXVII
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.