Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
Fairweather

Obama and his Lying Issues

Recommended Posts

healthcare should be universal and paid for by government which funds itself through taxes, not premiums to private companies

 

Is this an article of faith or something that you've arrived at by argument (seriously)? E.g. Is this an argument from an abstract/arbitrary notion of fairness, efficiency, superior clinical efficacy, or what?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What a weird world you've invented in which healthcare is withheld if the illness is "their fault" -- is it lonely over there?

indeed, for a man who fears Big Gubimint micro-managing our freedoms, where do you see the rabbit-hole of deciding which human behaviors deserve coverage or not hits bottom? hot chicks have to pay ten times higher premiums b/c they're 10X more likely to get the clap? no coverage for donut-fans? no covering tendon-pulls nor rectal sores for gay sport climbers? :)

 

at any rate, the big boozers, bastards, brawlers n' butt-smokers i've known over the years are/were inveterate doctor-haters and don't generally use any of the services they pay for in their youth and usually accept death pretty rapidly when it wanders their way in the form of cancer, heart-failure, etc.

 

 

The alternative to "withholding care" from people who have unhealthy lifestyles or dangerous habits is a system where they pay higher premiums and the state leaves them alone.

 

I'm surprised to learn that you prefer the alternative.

 

And yet those most at risk of health problems associated with unhealthy lifestyles are those least able to bear the costs of higher taxes on cheap food and higher premiums. Somehow other governments have managed to nudge their people in the right direction and enforce more stringent regulations on food without succumbing to your tired stalinototalitarian nightmare fantasy.

 

-Governments are "nudging" poor, stupid people into spending money they can't afford to lose on gambling already in order to maximize the amount of money they make. They're killing off prize-linked savings accounts that would actually "nudge" poor stupid people into saving their money instead of losing it at the scratch-card kiosk because that would cut into their take. That may not be a reality that you choose to acknowledge, but it's reality all the same. Sorry.

 

-Arguing for "more stringent regulations on food" would be defensible from a statist/paternalist perspective if there were sufficient evidence to validate the claim that doing so has any effect whatsoever on health/obesity. There is none, because it doesn't. Ergo any "public health" argument for taxing high-calorie, low-cost food is simply a handy way to dupe a gullible cohort into endorsing higher taxes under the guise of promoting "public health" that will do nothing of the kind.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, governments start unjust wars and hurt kittens, so there's little point in expecting them to do anything to promote the general welfare blah blah blah.

 

Meanwhile, back in realityland, here we sit, after running 2 successful single payer systems within our own country, surrounded by 50 other countries with more efficient, just, and less costly health care system, still trying to 'figure it out.'

 

It's been figured out. Single payer shaves 18 or so % administrative waste off the top, maximizes price bargaining leverage, amortizes health care costs over the largest possible population, makes for a vastly superior patient experience (no, seriously, I really love spending my days arguing with my health insurer over who pays what - great use of everyone's time and energy), takes the health care burden off employers shoulders (job growth - hello?), eliminates the horrible fear of medical bankruptcy that is sadly unique to this country, and...morally tone deaf can stop reading - providing basic health care for all is the right thing to do.

 

Rather than look at how the 'gubment' behaves, let's look specifically how opponents to single payer - and that would be the GOP - are informed - by the Christ Child and Ayn't That Randian Darwinism 2.0 - This Product Contains No Cooperation. Neither has much to do with the real world, but then again neither does this thread, so thas coo.

Edited by tvashtarkatena

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of babies, FW's already hitting his speed dial for that one.

 

And speaking of babies, you can now get a 3d printout of your ultrasounded fetus. Because sometimes FB photos just aren't enough.

 

 

Edited by tvashtarkatena

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, governments start unjust wars and hurt kittens, so there's little point in expecting them to do anything to promote the general welfare blah blah blah.

 

Meanwhile, back in realityland, here we sit, after running 2 successful single payer systems within our own country, surrounded by 50 other countries with more efficient, just, and less costly health care system, still trying to 'figure it out.'

 

It's been figured out. Single payer shaves 18 or so % administrative waste off the top, maximizes price bargaining leverage, amortizes health care costs over the largest possible population, makes for a vastly superior patient experience (no, seriously, I really love spending my days arguing with my health insurer over who pays what - great use of everyone's time and energy), takes the health care burden off employers shoulders (job growth - hello?), eliminates the horrible fear of medical bankruptcy that is sadly unique to this country, and...morally tone deaf can stop reading - providing basic health care for all is the right thing to do.

 

Rather than look at how the 'gubment' behaves, let's look specifically how opponents to single payer - and that would be the GOP - are informed - by the Christ Child and Ayn't That Randian Darwinism 2.0 - This Product Contains No Cooperation. Neither has much to do with the real world, but then again neither does this thread, so thas coo.

 

I've seen the laundry list of articles of faith commingled with debatable points and sprinkled with tedious insults before. Yawn.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
healthcare should be universal and paid for by government which funds itself through taxes, not premiums to private companies

 

Is this an article of faith or something that you've arrived at by argument (seriously)? E.g. Is this an argument from an abstract/arbitrary notion of fairness, efficiency, superior clinical efficacy, or what?

 

faith, what's that? the simple gut-feeling that a thing is right? i'm not a brain in a jar and ultimately any decision i make is an emotional one, it's just a question of how extreme...

 

i love mr spock n' all, but quite a few of them vulcan fellers were flat-out assholes - how many bright phd's helped the nazis, for example?

 

 

Edited by ivan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-Arguing for "more stringent regulations on food" would be defensible from a statist/paternalist perspective if there were sufficient evidence to validate the claim that doing so has any effect whatsoever on health/obesity. There is none, because it doesn't. Ergo any "public health" argument for taxing high-calorie, low-cost food is simply a handy way to dupe a gullible cohort into endorsing higher taxes under the guise of promoting "public health" that will do nothing of the kind.

 

 

Dang, where were you during the debate on lead paint? The chemical companies could've used a good flak/hatchet man back in the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand why we have to regulate and tax cigarettes so much. Let the free market handle it!

 

I can't imagine the decline in smoking has anything to do with increased taxation, regulation, restrictions, or paternalist advocacy programs instituted through government. No way, not possible. Also, the number of left wing death-camps in America rose dramatically as a result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

odd, i hear, in america's deathcamps, smokes are used as a form of currency :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm convinced that every argument on the planet can be won by randomly selecting a photo of an atrocity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Prole, and if I recall correctly you once described both Republican Spain and the German Wiemar Republic (est. 1919!) as your political ideals. Who wouldda thought you were so vicious! :wazup:

Edited by Fairweather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×