EPTHealthcare Reform in the US - Page 16
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Eniram
Sudan3166 Posts
| ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On August 17 2009 03:32 Jayve wrote: First you make a statement that it's fairly obvious. I tell you why that initial statement is wrong and I tell you about how you evolve ethics. Ethics are a personal thing. What I think is fair or reasonable is unlikely to be the same as everyone else. But either way, a sound set of ethics involves some amount of logic. Two different people might have equally valid personal ethics because they consider the importance of different things differently, but that doesn't validate ethics based on unsound logic. I am interested in the logic used to arrive at a given conclusion. On August 17 2009 03:32 Jayve wrote: Let me make sure I understand first then. Are you asking why it's a "good" right, or if it's a "definate" right? I'm asking what logical basis someone might use to call it a right, if they choose to do so. As I said, it doesn't have to be a right for public healthcare to be the correct course of action, but it does involve an entirely different set of logical arguments to support it. | ||
|
ghrur
United States3786 Posts
On August 17 2009 04:10 Eniram wrote: Jayve you think you know about America because you watch the Daily show? No... He never said that. >_> He basically meant that even though he hardly ever watches news about america, he still knew about the teacher with the gun. | ||
|
Eniram
Sudan3166 Posts
On August 17 2009 04:55 ghrur wrote: No... He never said that. >_> He basically meant that even though he hardly ever watches news about america, he still knew about the teacher with the gun. Are you his spokesman? | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
On August 17 2009 03:49 Jayve wrote: I know about it? I'm not an American and I use The Daily Show + The Colbert Report as my sole news sources. (if you can call them news sources at all) What's your excuse? You're also missing the point. It has nothing to do with the size of the town. It's the absurdity of the decision that makes it something you would potentionally have noted. Seriously though. I don't expect you to know EVERYTHING that goes on in your country. I sure as hell don't know everything that goes on in mine. But did you notice how quickly you got defensive when I pointed it out to you? Do yourself a favor and figure out why that is. You could just have said: "Oh, didn't know that lol" Only getting a bit defensive because it gets old to see US bashing and it just gets on my nerves =\ You know about it how? It would make sense that something as dumb as that made it on the daily show or w/e but I don't watch it that often and unless it makes national headlines me being in Michigan probably isn't going to hear news about some small town in Texas. Just saying, Many people outside the US know about our retarded laws/people/incidents because people outside the US just love to look for them and point them out to use as fuel in their criticisms. I admit myself that I don't watch many national news sources and I tend to stay away from the major political networks. Most of my focus news wise tends to be for scientific issues. | ||
|
obesechicken13
United States10467 Posts
edit: someone pmd me. Thanks! | ||
|
Tyraz
New Zealand310 Posts
On August 16 2009 23:53 Kwark wrote: What you described is the British system although the basic medical service is pretty high. I'm not sure what proportion of the population use private insurance as opposed to the NHS but it is a successful industry. We spend about $2500 per person per year on the NHS (£90 billion) as opposed to $8000 per person per year ($2.4 trillion in 2008) in the United States. To put it another way, the average family of 4 would have $22000 more cash in hand every single year if your healthcare system cost the same as ours. ACC coveres every man, woman and child (including anyone who is visiting the country and dosn't have residency) for $750/per person :D lol just copy our health system  | ||
Arbiter[frolix]
United Kingdom2674 Posts
| ||
|
Arbiter[frolix]
United Kingdom2674 Posts
| ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
| ||
|
Rakanishu2
United States475 Posts
If you're arguing against this plan and you aren't at 6 figures plus, you've been duped. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On August 17 2009 06:20 Rakanishu2 wrote: The rich conservatives have the poor conservatives barking like dogs in this debate. I've never people who would benefit from a plan such as this be so strongly against it. If you're arguing against this plan and you aren't at 6 figures plus, you've been duped. That's not necessarily true. There are people who benefit from the plan, but are against the IDEA of public healthcare. People don't always speak in favor of what benefits them over what they believe in. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On August 17 2009 06:23 TheYango wrote: That's not necessarily true. There are people who benefit from the plan, but are against the IDEA of public healthcare. People don't always speak in favor of what benefits them over what they believe in. No, no. Any good Marxist theologian could apply the theory of false consciousness to this situation. Furthermore, a Foucaultian analysis would easily discover the subliminal influences which operate in the socio-cultural sphere to break down the have-nots' capacities for resistance. Poor conservatives have been robbed of their intellectual sovereignty by the powers that be, poor suckers. Although in our defense, it must be admitted that ours is not the first generation in history where fashions of reasoning is born out of contempt for common sense. | ||
|
benjammin
United States2728 Posts
On August 17 2009 06:33 MoltkeWarding wrote: No, no. Any good Marxist theologian could apply the theory of false consciousness to this situation. Furthermore, a Foucaultian analysis would easily discover the subliminal influences which operate in the socio-cultural sphere to break down the have-nots' capacities for resistance. Poor conservatives have been robbed of their intellectual sovereignty by the powers that be, poor suckers. Although in our defense, it must be admitted that ours is not the first generation in history where fashions of reasoning is born out of contempt for common sense. It's Foucauldian, strangely enough, and I'm not sure I can see how directly applicable whatever you are terming 'Foucauldian analysis' can be here.. | ||
IntoTheWow
is awesome32277 Posts
No, he's a straw man spotter. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On August 17 2009 07:14 benjammin wrote: It's Foucauldian, strangely enough, and I'm not sure I can see how directly applicable whatever you are terming 'Foucauldian analysis' can be here.. Are you referring to the spelling of the adjective? As for its relevance, it's quite simple: The poor conservative has been bound to the bottom spoke of the cycle of power. In a democratic society the powerful few is dependent on, yet controlling of the powerless many. The rich conservatives control the dissemination of information to the poor conservatives, who in turn constitute the power base of the rich conservatives. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On August 17 2009 02:40 DrainX wrote: I think one reason that some people have a lot of trouble with and dislike taxes is part of their way of viewing society. They might see the economy as society and they see government as some sort of layer between them and the economy that "steals" part of their money before it gets into their hand. As if that money was in any way entitled to them in the first place. What they fail to see is that the government is as much a part of that system as the economy is. In fact they themselves are not excluded from that system. If you were born in a hospital, raised in a house built by carpenters, raised eating food made by farmers, taught in school by teachers etc. You are completely dependent on society and any form of value you create inside society, you partly have society to thank for. As long as you agree that you are a product and a part of society and that the government is as much a construct of that society as the economy or money its self is then I think your views on taxes might change. *edit* Just woke up when I wrote this and I didn't really feel I got the wording right. I'm betting someone will come in and misunderstand the whole post before I have coffee and wake up. When your mother told you as a boy not to lie or steal, she was probably insufficiently acquainted with the latest ethical science always pointing to a hundred causes and predicting nothing. Of course, today our social scientists have abolished personality. The individual is not so much responsible for his choices as the society in which he lives. But how impersonal that society is! Nameless victims and oppressors alike exist for the sake of exciting moral indignation. Our colourful cast of Wall Street and Main Street have become dramatic substitutes for Ebeneezer Scrooge and Bob Cratchet. Happy news for Wall Street, since like political elitism, no individual is to be found within its ranks. In this we profess concern for humanity; in reality we have no longer see it. For- it had been held in ancient times that the dignity of a person was inherent in his accomplishments. In Christian times it was inherent in his eternal soul. In our time your dignity is preordained by society. A rich man with social power over a poor man can and will find means to exploit, embarass and degrade the latter. What's worse, the rich man's rich son will perpetuate this pattern ad infinitum. Thus it is reasoned that this self-perpetuating monopoly of power is morally unjust- for- although our modern progressive moralists profess to believe in the ubiquity of moral constructs- their personal ethics remain attached to the Christian tradition. Presumably they have managed liberate themselves from strong-eats-weak ethics by reading the right books. Certainly they alone see the invisible social chains which confine the masses of humanity to a preordained, dependent existence. Like all benevolent orders, however, factional variations of the same theme soon crop up. The first of these variants is the slothful. He has marshalled just enough clairvoyance to see the strings on the puppets, but excuses himself from further investigation by professing to believe that this cycle of dependency is the inevitable relationship between man and society. By the end of the day, he is happily eager to shrug his shoulders in resignation. Then we have the wrathful, who, Iago-like, verifies the value of his own existence by applying it to a negative purpose. He sees the strings controlling society, but rarely identifies the puppet or the puppetmaster. Indeed, by assigning them to equally uninteresting categories of corruptor and the corrupted, he can divine little purpose from relating to them. Having discovered the evil conditions at the heart of existence, he energetically role-plays good by condemning evil. Strangely, this type often displays a maniacal dislike for George W Bush and neo-cons. Then we have certain individuals who credit themselves with more logic than the above categories. Having decided that the triumph of science has demolished all myths about the existence of morality, he excuses himself with immediate self-indulgences; the wages of his sins are to be collectively paid by human nature. Society brands him an insane psychopath- he thinks himself the only sane man in it, for all others have been duped by constructed notions of virtue and vice. This third type comes under several sub-variations: the lecherous, the gluttinous, the avaricious, and so on. Then we have the kind of man who only conforms to intellectual consistancy in so far as he is required to. He prattles and preaches about social constructs, and its socio-political applications to his friends, in school, on the internet endlessly. For him, the notion of social constructs may serve some moral or intellectual purpose, but its primary utility rests in how counterintuitive the entire concept is. By possessing such a rare concept, he demonstrates a degree of understanding which elevates him above his self-absorbed peers. We call this variant the proud. Finally, we have the variant known as the envious. He may be the most simple-minded of them all, for his loyalty to the party line is conditional on their ability to elevate him socially or financially. He rarely thinks originally or independently, and was likely bribed into his articles of faith by others who appealed to his personal frustrations. By convincing him that he was entitled to rights and privileges of which he had never before heard, they win his half-minded support. Thus through the miracles of social science our ethical knowledge has been turned on its head. An entire generation has now grown up having been brainfed that neither man nor his morality is independent of the mechanical algorithm of the universe. The dignity of a man is determined by society, on the basis of his position within it. Rather than changing how society values the dignity of men, they logically argue, it would be easier to elevate all men to an approximate equality, eradicating exploitation, humiliation, social compulsion, and debasement. Waldesianism, the social philosophy of St. Paul and Francis, the common sense of mankind, are all outdated, discredited tools for fixing society. Inheritance is no longer the link between father and son, the preserver of labour and industry, the shield against barbarism, the foundation of all civilization. It is simply the chain which fetters life. Society, family, and social institutions no longer enrich individual existence, on the contrary, they degrade it. Pardon our self-centered indulgence for always regarding society as the convergence of sovereign individuals. In truth, it is society that is sovereign, and individuals who are its appendages. Until approximately a century ago, the history of the world was the history of great men. Until that time, humanity rejoiced in their legends, heroes, feats, miracles, in diverse celebrations of the human character. The progress of social science has demolished human miracle. Napoleon was less daemonic than a child a coincidence. We are less free and less self-responsible than our ancestors had led us to believe. However, no religion can preach the fall of man without offering his path to salvation: for, only by recognizing our fetters can we liberate ourselves from them. Freedom is thus delivered by a negative act: all we must do is destroy our own illusions and common sense. | ||
|
Eniram
Sudan3166 Posts
I'm so glad theres people on this forum that can read my soul and tell where I was going after one question. | ||
|
KaasZerg
Netherlands927 Posts
The market system is not infallible and can be wastefull as the recent financial crisis has proven. State run companies do well if bureaucracy and corruption can be kept low. (phenomena not strange to private companies that are too entrenched). 16% of GDP is no laughing matter. Many countries with state run healthcare provide better service with 9-12% GDP spend on healthcare. I say the 'free market' works poorly in field of healthcare in the U.S. I'm not saying switch to a planned economy a la USSR. A hybrid system works best. Some stuff is better done by the govenrment. Some products flourish on the free market. And a thrird group heavily regulated monitored but still left to the market. Some markets get out of control. Like products with a natural tendency to monopolism or the forming of cartels. Those are not good conditions for competition and free market (no real choice for buyers). Then it should be nationalised. A real free market is a theoretical concept wich doesn't exist perfectly in the real world. It is an utopia just like the theoretical concept of communism. Those are models of behavior under perfect circumstances used by perfect people. | ||
|
IntoTheWow
is awesome32277 Posts
On August 17 2009 09:21 Eniram wrote: I'm so glad theres people on this forum that can read my soul and tell where I was going after one question. Your one question was a straw man by itself. | ||
| ||
