JustinW

waitforufo,

 

For example, one could argue the environmental pollution threatens my right to life and the right to life of others. It would then be correct for the government to step in and protect the rights of the governed to stop or regulate environmental pollution. I would be my duty to support governmental environmental pollution regulation through taxation particularly if the government were freely elected by the people.

This could be stretched to encompass nearly every thing we do in life. Where it would end and when the line would be drawn would only depend on how far the public would be willing to be pushed. It seems like those who have a relaxed view on freedom are inviting the government to become tyrannical over a submissive populace in the name of "their own good".

 

 

Zapatos,

 

I beg to differ. Laws are created to both punish and prevent. You don't have to kill someone to have broken a law.

So what? You are still free to break the law. The law is implemented as an incintive not to do something(prevent) because you could go to jail(punishment) if you do. So while I agree with you about what a law does, it in no way falsifies my origional assertion.

Villain,

 

Everyone already has 100% freedom as far as their actions are conscerned. You have the freedom to kill, just like anyone else. No one can take that away from you unless they lock you in a cell to prevent it. Laws are not created to take away those freedoms, but rather provide consequences as incentive not to excersize those freedoms.

 

And "freedom to not be murdered" doesn't make any sense.

 

 

Sgt. Billko,

So Freedom does not mean that we can do what we want, or even what we think is right, but is determined by our contribution to civilisation, and the current norms of that civilisation.

It's funny, but for some reason slavery popped into my head when I read this sentence. Slaves can't do what they want, or even what they think is right, they contribute to civilization, and at one point slavery was the norm of that civilization. I know you weren't meaning it that way, but since it popped into my head, and once applied seemed to fit, I thought I would write it down.

Shouldn't the person that called 911 know who? I assumed that the witness was present at the time of the scuffle right before the shooting occured.

I thought we were supposed to be talking about the pros and cons of other systems for a hypothetical replacement of the US model?

John,

 

You haven't answered that question yet.

Because the question doesn't fit with what I said.

You said " all laws would be an attack on freedom as you put it", when that is no where close to being how I put it. So the answer to your question is an obvious no and has no bearing on the conversation. Yes, that laws are restrictive is a fact, but they still don't make you buy certain products.

 

 

Who else is going to?

I find it amazing that you think that's right.

 

 

Why do the Americans spend so much more?

Because we don't have a government that is able to supress the costs like other countries do.

 

 

It's not as if the evidence shows that they get better healthcare for their money- indeed on 2 of the most widely used criteria they do worse.

I've already explained my reasoning on these, but you refused to tell me how it was wrong. You just keep repeating it and saying that it's evidence that the US' quality is worse.

 

It's not because they have more money- I chose pairs where the per capita income is pretty much the same.

I've already explained this also.

Vent,

 

This is a nationalist viewpoint, but often times you hold an individualist viewpoint in your posts.

You're going to have to explain a little better so can know what you're referring to.

 

 

 

Captain,

But you were talking about international treaties, and now you switch to explain your personal views?

I was talking about shooting of rockets breaking international treaties. Not policies during times of war dealing with the trial of citezens on foreign soil.

You said you don't use military intimidation to go against international treaties.

And I've never said this.

And then your defense against my example is that personally you don't really agree with the human rights anyway. That's not relevant.

And I never said this. I said that I have a different opinion on human rights, and I only said so to avoid an argument that would be off topic.

 

Interestingly, this thread is supposed to talk about ethics and morals, yet you have the attitude of a colonist: Business before ethics.

What is so unethical about putting yourself in a stable economic position?

 

 

Slavery is also very profitable. Slavery can also be in a country's best interest. People decided to walk away from that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but were we talking about slavery? Are we enslaving people now? I must have missed the memo.

 

So... you only detect a dislike of 21st century American imperialism, but still loads of respect of the liberators in WWII. But the mountain of credits earned in WWII with the Europeans will run out at some point. The USA has been cashing in those credits for well over a decade now. Europeans (also the Dutch) are helping you guys out this time, in Afghanistan and Iraq. That's not our conflict... but we're still there to help out, because we're allies. But don't give me the "we helped you in WWII, so you're forever in our debt" kind of talk. That may have worked with my grandparents, but it's too long ago now. That debt has been repaid, both financially and morally.

No we saved their asses in WW2, like we're trying to do now in the middle east. Is that such an absurd way to characterize things?

John,

 

If they all ration then the question is who can pay more before they run out of cash, a government or an insurance company?

If you want indsurance for anything you are better off with a large company that can stand a big payout. The biggest company is the government.

In private insurance a person has the option to switch to another provider that does fit their needs. With a government provided system there is no option. And to stay in the context of this thread, this is another reason I would prefer the Swiss system. Because it provides more option and availability.

John,

 

You say that you want freedom and I point out that universal freedom is anarchy which you probably wouldn't like.

And all of this stems from the fact that I was saying a law doesn't make you buy a service or product. Just because you want to take a part of the conversation and twist it doesn't mean I will play along.

 

What you said. Post 147

All laws are an "attack on your freedom" as you put it.

My reply. Post 151

No there are not. A law does not mandate that you buy a service or product.

 

Your reply. Post 154

you must be kidding.

 

Any law necessarily restricts freedom. The law bans killing so it restricts my freedom to kill. The law bans parking on some parts of some streets- that removes my freedom to park there.

The idea that laws don't remove freedom is absurd and if that's the sort of thing you have to say to defend your point of view then you have lost the argument.

 

Do you see how you have twisted my response that "a law doesn't require you to buy a product", into " laws don't take freedom away"?

 

 

Are you going to pay their air fare?

I didn't mean that they had to fly around the world. Go to the next town over, or even the next if that is what it takes.

 

 

Those who are in a position to help others should do so precisely because they can.

And you think it is the government's responsibility to demand that these people do so? This is where my ideology kicks in. You may not like it, but I don't really like the idea of government mandating someone to do something just because they can. It's almost laughable.

 

 

See your own acceptance in post 151 of the criticism of a strawman attack you made in post 136

In this post I said I could see your point that people deciding not to work was different than people not being able to.

 

 

Also, in post 111 iNow explained that you were using an argument from incredulity. If you didn't know what that meant you should have looked it up or asked.

In this post I said that no one knows why the infant mortality rate is higher among African Americans. If someone wanted to prove that that argument was out of incredulity, then I challenge them to prove that someone knows the reason. So my position stands on that matter. They do and no one knows why. If you think that's wrong then prove otherwise. Just because someone says it's out of incredulity doesn't make it so.

 

Zapatos,

 

The intellectual dishonesty was in not addressing my comment, but instead dismissing it under the pretext that requiring money from citizens to fund some aspects of society is an infringement on 'freedom' and therefore not a valid argument. As I said, I don't object to you having that opinion, but to dismiss it as you did rather than offering some justification that this particular government requirement is more onus than other government requirements was my objection. And while you probably did not intend it this way, your off handed dismissal of my comment was taken by me that my comment was not worth your consideration, thus resulting in my rather poor response back to you. My bad on that.

Once explained that way, I can see where I erred. I do apologize. You might find that some of reply was mentioned in a reply to A Trip, about taxation above in post 155. I think it is wrong to directly mandate that someone pay on behalf of someone else just because they've made better choices with their lives. If they want to do so on their own that is one thing. But to have a government mandate that requires them to do so is something completely different.

Instead of providing assumptions, maybe you can start providing evidence in support of your conjectures?

Do you deny that governments ration care to cut costs in those types of systems? Why do you think they do so? To control costs of course. I could look up a bunch of links to support this, but as some people say, it's painfully obvious.(pun intended)

 

Quick definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_rationing

Bilko,

If only

What's the matter seargent? Skeerd?

 

Phi,

 

Although I don't like to see anything cut into an individuals business for alot of reasons, I can understand some of your points where corporations are conscerned. Working for the better of the few, I might have a slightly different opinion on. The ones who build a company should reep the benifits of that company. With that being said, there are some stipulations I would add such as not mixing in the political field to further their own gains. It seems to me that that falls under the same principle as insider trading.

 

Where near-instantaneous rebuttal is at least possible.

Exactly.

Implicit in this comment is the suggestion that publically funded systems are not privy to these same advancements and innovations. Why would you suggest this?

Maybe they are to some point, but not at the same level as the more wealthy nations. Most publicly funded systems try to control costs and that has to have effects in availability of expensive medicines, equipment, and resources.

ydoaPs,

 

Neither do unions. The last presidential election had alot of support from unions. Do you think that each and every employee under that union got a vote?

 

 

 

Phi,

Neither serve the people of this country as they once did.

Did they ever eally serve the people well. I know the thought of a union is to serve the people, but can you think of one that didn't serve a fat cat better?

 

 

As for campaign financing, I don't even like campaign committee involvement (though I can't imagine a viable alternative).

Yeah, I don't mind their campaigning. But I would prefer if the message came straight from the candidate and not those who pool their resources to give that candidate a voice that may not be genuine.

 

 

I'd like to see all candidates be granted free media exposure as long as it's debating with their opponents or that what they air speaks only about themselves and their representation. If they want to trash their opponents instead, even by implication, they can pay for it from their own warchest. At twice the going rate.

Sounds fair enough I guess, but even the trashing of an opponent can be achieved on the debate stage.

Zapatos,

 

What I said was "Rather than being a man and taking a critical look at your own country... (on this issue)." I did not call you "less than a man". If you are going to quote me, please quote what I actually said.

If you're going to quote yourself, why don't you actually quote the full content of what you said

What you said.

Rather than being a man and taking a critical look at your own country, you chose instead...

And I believe this rant was more or less thrown in my direction also.

I thank God our founding fathers consisted of the men we had rather than the sniveling apologetics today who don't have the balls to question their own country

I do have the balls to question my own country. My country is trying to do something that I am questioning as wrong. Is this not accurate?

 

I don't object to your opinion, but what I do object to is your apparant lack of intellectual honesty and integrity in arriving at that opinion.

 

Explain WHERE. For christ sake I only get these vague comments about me being wrong, when I'm asking as much as I can for people to tell me where and more importantly how. You would think on a forum that prides itself in logical thought that it wouldn't be this damn hard to accomplish.

 

 

People give me graphs. I tell them how either that information doesn't apply to the argument or why that information is inaccurate, and they come back and say "you're wrong" without explaining how or why. How the hell am I supposed to argue with that?

 

Dismissing the comments of others with a shrug and a cry to 'freedom' shows neither honesty nor integrity.

If you were reading the thread you would have already read where I covered our cost issue. Although between John and me, we may have confused the issue a little. I'll try to keep the issue short. Basicly you have to expect that a free market with our amount of economic output will automatically spend more than a country that is able to supress their spending through the regulation of medicine and procedures.

If you find issue with this assessment then please explain how or why.

 

 

A Trip,

 

I've been uninsured all my life because my parents are uninsured because they are self employed small farmers. I was a tad too old to benefit from that KCHIP thing my younger siblings had. I've been to the dentist less than five times in my life and--aside from this new condition I have--the doctor less than ten.

 

Me too, off and on for the most part. The only time I was ever insured was when my parents manipulated the system to get something free. I grew up with these sorts of fraudulant acts and I know full well how easy the system is to manipulate.

 

 

I was very fortunate that I've been healthy and had no terrible accidents. What would have happened then?

 

I was less fortunate on a few occasions, but we always found a way. The best thing about growing up poor is that you fully understand what it takes to survive in some situations. People may look at my ideology as harsh or insensitive, but I've learned to never ask from others what you are not willing to do yourself.

 

 

I've made the decision to go to college for STEM so I could have a good job so I could change my life situation. But I still have no medical coverage. This system is flawed because of it. I could afford some small taxes now for a government system, and when I hopefully graduate and get a good job in my field, I can pay even more into the system.

 

 

Also, the plan you linked to is atrociously limited. They don't even cover what I need. Tell me why it's ok to have public roads but not public healthcare. Because I really don't get it.

Is this tax you propose the same amount for everybody? Or will it be based on income? If you are going to make the rich pay more for the same product where does that seem fair. It seems more like punishment for being rich by carrying the burdens of others on their backs just because they made good choices in their lives. And if it wasn't that way then that tax wouldn't be as affordable to you anymore, would it?

 

 

John,

Any law necessarily restricts freedom. The law bans killing so it restricts my freedom to kill. The law bans parking on some parts of some streets- that removes my freedom to park there.

The idea that laws don't remove freedom is absurd and if that's the sort of thing you have to say to defend your point of view then you have lost the argument.

Taken in that context you are correct, but I think you know what I meant.

 

It's hard to argue with you sometimes because you have a strange way of going about it.

Like this

If this "Most people can find work somewhere. " is true (which I doubt) then it's still sufficient to show that you were wrong because it doesn't say "all people..."

 

Does every person not possess the power to work towards their future? If not, what restricts them? I'll tell you now that anything you put down, barring medical reasons, can be disputed.

 

 

I have, for example pointed out a few occasions where you were using a straw man argument and iNow pointed out some other logical fallacies.

You have been told- but you carry on anyway.

No. You just say that it's wrong. You never say how.

Jumped right on that one didn't you Phi?

 

To me a government's involvement needs to remain minimal as much as controling the individual person is conscerned. Laws that protect a person against direct harm from another and that sort of thing is understandable. But we definitely don't need to open the door in allowing them to use taxation as a punishment for behavior. No matter how you justify it, that would be wrong and detrimental to freedom

If you want a crazy right-wing nut job's point of view on this I'll keep it short. You're right. Corporations shouldn't enjoy the rights of an individual person for the simple fact that they could be going against what the majority of their employees agree with. I have had this same argument about unions. So it seems that if we allow unions to do this, we would also have to allow corporations the same benifit. I personally don't think that anyone should be helping candidates accept for their own campaign committees. It seems that if they can't get elected on their own thoughts and actions that they shouldn't be running in the first place.

iNow,

 

I imagine that part of the question asks, "Why do you support that," and then perhaps they also accept that we might discuss the relative merits and faults of each. Do you disagree?

Okay, the Swiss might spend more than most, but they are still privvy to all the advancements in technology and latest innovations. I think for the minimal restraint on choices that they and their doctors are allowed to make, the cost is worth it considering their economic output and availability.

 

 

So, please refrain from preempting my responses since I have already agreed to look at this thread with a certain amount of objectivity.

 

 

 

Also I would be happy to debate freedom with you. Just say the word.

John,

 

Justin,

All laws are an "attack on your freedom" as you put it.

No there are not. A law does not mandate that you buy a service or product.

 

So, do you see what you have done there- you have attacked a strawman version of my assertion.

You pretended that I wrote that there were no free loaders and attacked that assertion.

But it's not what I said.

Alright, I can see your point on that one. I just wanted you to see the flip side of your comment.

 

 

Now, will you kindly address the issue of how it can be true that "each and every person in this world has the power to work towards their future." when some people can't find work?

So it is that they simply can't find work? Or is it alright to assert that they are not looking hard enough? Most people can find work somewhere. Whether they have to go abroad to do so, or step up the level of initiative, enginuity, or willingness to work under their level of qualifications, I cannot believe that the majority of those people cannot find some type of work somewhere.

 

 

 

A Trip,

I'm not even sure what this sentence is supposed to mean.

I missread when you said this in post 129.

I suppose I am being a college kid and only having a part time job.

 

For some reason, in my mind I thought you said acting like a college kid. I will try and pay more attention to the text from now on.

 

Ah, sweet. Find one that cheap for me that doesn't have a deductible of $5,000. Find one that I can actually use to go get this pancreatic ultrasound the doctors on campus told me I needed.

Sure here you go. http://www.sasid.com/our-product/core-health-insurance-limited-indemnity-medical-insurance/

It's not the best in the world, like a major medical plan would be, but it does the trick till something better comes along and you get to a more sound financial state.

 

 

You're defending a system that allows people like me (and many others that are far worse off) to go without medical care because we can't afford the exorbitant costs.

And have you made any choices that would have allowed you to afford some sort of plan. Or did you make a decision that put you in the spot you are in?

 

 

iNow,

 

Not to mention the countless flaws, factual errors, and logical fallacies pointed out throughout these previous 8 pages of discussion

Do you see the vagueness of this statement. You have given me nothing but vague accusations of where I'm wrong without telling me WHAT is so wrong about it.

iNow,

 

So, basically... Obamacare.

Yep. And price doesn't conscern me as much as a surpression of cost with the regulating of procedures and medicines that are allowed to be used.

I am under the assumption that the major factor of this thread is to talk about systems that coverage encompasses everyone?

iNow,

 

What if we just extended Medicare to everyone, instead of just the elderly? How would you feel about that? I'm not a terrible fan of trying to make this work with private insurers, myself.

I don't know... I think I would be more in favor of setting up a task force to purge medicaid of the fraudulant people who abuse it, see how much that opens that program up for growth, and spread it's coverage accordingly.

 

A Trip,

 

It's hard to find more hours when you already carry 19 credit hours of upper level physics/mathematics courses, 20 hours at a local drug store, 5 hours doing undergrad research, and then other free hours doing tutoring and essay services.

Well it does seem like your day is pretty full. By the way you said that you were acting like a college kid seemed to imply that you were only acting, not doing, and I wondered if it was only by choice.

 

 

Yes, I have looked at private policies. They are abysmal. I think the cheapest in my area was $549 a month for a healthy 22-year old male that doesn't drink or smoke.

Hmmm, that's funny, I found one for my wife for $134 a month last quarter.

 

 

I'm really looking forward as to how you're going to analyze my situation to align with your skewed ideologies of private > government.

What's so skewed about it. Can you cite anywhere that I have presented an argument that wasn't valid?

 

Reply for posts 143-145

Hahaha...It's amazing how well you fellas can pat eachother on the back and poke fun at someone for disagreeing, but can't tell me EXACTLY where I'm wrong. All you can do is cheerlead for your cause or do like Zapatos and call me "less than a man". Which is alright, because someone like Zapatos, who talks fightin' words while hiding behind a computer screen really isn't much of a man in my opinion either.

That being said I would still like to hear where my logic doesn't apply and how. (and don't forget the how, that's the part I been wanting, but have yet to recieve with any detail)

Zapatos,

 

Rather than being a man and taking a critical look at your own country, you chose instead to shrug your shoulders and cry Freedom.

So this is what you've resorted to? Calling me less than a man? Oh, if only...If I didn't like critical discussion so much I might have some choice words.

 

 

As if we would not have freedom in this country if we modified our healthcare system.

By mandating that you buy something is an attack on your freedom. Some may argue that they mandate that you buy auto insurance, but they don't. Only if you choose to drive. Mandating that you buy something because you choose to live is an attack on freedom.

iNow,

 

Not necessarily. For purposes of discussion, let's assume we WERE going to replace the US system. Let's just take that as a given. If you do, which other country would you like to model?

Okay, I'll play along. Assuming that we were going to replace the US system for another countries model I wouldn't like to model any ONE country. I think that would be asking for the same troubles already implied by the OP in various different countries. But that being said, instead of nit-picking through the pros and cons of each individual countries healthcare system, I would probably choose the Swiss' system. If only we could get over the fact that people think a wealthier nation shouldn't spend more on their healthcare than less wealthier nations.

 

I think this article covers most of why I would find it appealing in this scenario. http://www.forbes.co...th-care-system/

 

 

 

Sorry, cross posted with John5746

If you'll pardon the seeming idiocracy of this, I have a couple of questions.

 

MigL,

 

Whether finite or infinite is of no consequence, we do know that it cannot be bounded, Otherwise you need to account for the 'other' side of the boundary.

How do we know that it cannot be bounded?

If the BB origionated from a single point, and in that point was "all there is", then there would be no "outside", right? That would be assuming that there is an outside of "all there is", which in my mind would be just as speculative as anything.

 

 

 

And I've seen moderators crack down on speculative remarks in this thread. Considering the OP, "What was before the Big Bang", how could this thread be anything but speculative? It seems to me that a person's metaphysical or philosophical logical would fit right in with any other theory on the subject.

OK, this thread is for those who agree that the US system is among the worst in the "first" world.

I guess this excludes me?

iNow,

 

Pointing out facts and questioning your ideological conclusions is not equivalent to "trash talking of this country." Just because I think your argument is faulty, and just because I think your case is extremely weak, and just because I look at the facts that show we're really pathetic relative to the rest of the world in this context does not mean I am trash talking this country... and frankly I don't appreciate the implicit questioning of my patriotism merely for disagreeing with your completely specious conclusions.

 

 

And I don't appreciate the sarcastic "USA, USA, USA" comments either. And no it's not because you disagree with me, it's because of comments like I've bolded. And there are two reasons that I find faulty with your justification. First, you have had this type of negative attitude, championing different parts of the world, on numerous subjects, not just in this context. And second, when your "facts" can be shown not to apply to the context of an argument you still assert that they are usefull.

 

 

There were merely examples. Sure... I stipulate that I misframed those examples. It still doesn't support your contention that our infant mortality rate is higher than large swaths of other countries in the civilized world is due to there being a higher percentage of black people in the US than in countries like the UK. I have countered that assertion in at least two other ways, so focusing on the example of Cuba misses the mark a bit.

I wasn't focusing too much on the examples, John asked I answered, but that's beside the point. With the sheer numbers, and I haven't even included Hispanics in this, along with the difference in reporting criteria, how could it not come close to making up the difference between countries? I still haven't been fully let in on your reasoning for this.

Captain,

I am not even in the US. I would prefer a more objective analysis of the military, or none at all.

I guess I can see your point.

 

 

So, did GW Bush not sign the The Hague Invasion Act, which authorizes the invasion of MY country (the Netherlands) by any means necessary, without even approval of congress, if we would try a US soldier at a court of human rights? Human Rights, FFS! Not some Guantanamo Bay prison of torture, but a human rights court.

It's not the same. Not to mention my interpretation of human rights are not taken well by some people, as I see human rights as only that which is percieved as a right to the one who holds the most power. And I know that some see human rights as inalienable and God given(for lack of a better term), and not as something that is given by another human. Hence the one who holds the power to give such a right. But I think that is a little off topic.

 

 

How is ignoring human rights, and then signing an act that authorizes violence against a civilized country like the Netherlands not exactly what you say the US does not do?

Aside from a different interpretation of human rights, I do believe he authorized violence against anyone who are percieved as a threat to the US or it's citizens.

 

Captain,

 

So, while you are smart enough to not to want to occupy countries, you definitely want to conquer - economically.

So? Is it not in our best interest to do so? Were we not the ones who took the most risk in these exchanges? From a business standpoint would it be viable to walk away from something that could benifit you in the long run?

 

John,

 

A quick look at Wiki tells me that "42 Scud missiles in total were fired into Israel.[25] They killed one Israeli directly and one Saudi security guard. "

And how many rockets/mortars over the past decade?