[helene_t]

Maybe what Americans need to discuss is how to make health care more affordable. jtfanclub's example with the ambulance shows that there must be scope for reducing prices. Another option could be to get rid of the medical malpractice lawsuits that make physicians' salaries so high because they need to be able to pay for their malpractice-lawsuit insurances.

[jdonn]

helene_t, on Feb 14 2008, 07:06 PM, said:

Maybe what Americans need to discuss is how to make health care more affordable.

Barack Obama claims that as the basic tenet of his health plan, reducing costs to make it more affordable. Hillary Clinton also claims that as a major component of her plan, although to me it seems more like a response to when Obama says it than because it's actually her focus. That is just my opinion, but regardless of what I think at least they are aware that reducing cost would be an important step and something the public favors. Whether anyone in particular believes that either one of them can or intend to do so is a different issue of course.

[jdonn]

DrTodd13, on Feb 14 2008, 06:41 PM, said:

I would prefer civilization without government but that isn't available to me.

There is no civilization in existance without government? Hmmm I wonder if we have stumbled upon a correlation there. Nahhhh

Quote

It's like a guy given a choice between getting beaten with a tire iron or a baseball bat and then told to stop complaining during the beating because he was given his choice of form of torture.

Well there are hundreds of countries. I think it might be a nice idea to simply be thankful that there are hundreds of other worse things you could be beaten with, but you have been able to exercise the choice not to be.
(By "worse" I don't mean other countries are worse, just that you must consider them worse options given that you choose to live here.)

[finally17]

jdonn, on Feb 14 2008, 07:15 PM, said:

helene_t, on Feb 14 2008, 07:06 PM, said:

Maybe what Americans need to discuss is how to make health care more affordable.

Barack Obama claims that as the basic tenet of his health plan, reducing costs to make it more affordable. Hillary Clinton also claims that as a major component of her plan, although to me it seems more like a response to when Obama says it than because it's actually her focus. That is just my opinion, but regardless of what I think at least they are aware that reducing cost would be an important step and something the public favors. Whether anyone in particular believes that either one of them can or intend to do so is a different issue of course.

Having read "The Audacity of Hope" my guess is that Obama has no real clue how to effect anything, nor does he intend to do so. My conclusion from reading the book and seeing his record so far (including what is said about him by Beltway folks) is that he's all show and little substance. Good at appearing to be "all things to all people."

[finally17]

[quote name='blackshoe' date='Feb 14 2008, 01:51 AM'] [quote name='finally17' date='Feb 13 2008, 07:52 PM'] First off, I said "SEEM TO." That means "this is my interpretation, but I acknowledge that it is not clear and that others will have valid disagreement. [/QUOTE]
Yes, and I've disagreed. So?

[quote]Secondly, let me explain why they SEEM TO: because of the word FIRST, which you completely ignored.[QUOTE]

Making unfounded assumptions will not lead you to the right conclusion, grasshopper. The fact I didn't mention it doesn't mean I ignored it.

[quote]If the idea that harm is bad takes primacy, is most important, more significant than anything else, then INACTION when you can help is essentially harm, and is therefore as bad as active harm. But all that is just my interpretation.[/QUOTE]

Yes. Again we disagree. That's life. [/quote]
I'm 100% fine with disagreement. The problem is that you state your opinions and interpretations as though they are fact, not interpretation.

As for ignoring the word first, google "define ignore." Here, let me do it for you: [url="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define+ignore&btnG=Google+Search"]definition of ignore[/url]. Note the very first return. It says "refuse to acknowledge; "She cut him dead at the meeting." You most certainly did ignore the word first. You remarked on every part of the statement except that one particular word.

But go ahead and disagree all you want. Just don't state your opinion-based disagreements as fact. Then, if I respond, I'll say "I disagree," instead of spending so much time validating my opinion.

[finally17]

luke warm, on Feb 14 2008, 06:22 AM, said:

finally17, on Feb 13 2008, 08:35 PM, said:

I have however made it clear that I believe there are ideas which are greater than the individual.  One of those is that service to my fellow is paramount.  If you would see and accept that, this service the medical professionals perform would not be slavery but freedom.

even if this is true, and i think it is, todd's point is that this service should not be coerced, it *can't* be coerced (for long, anyway)

I don't think that's todd's point. He seems pretty clearly stuck on very Randian, objectivist views...and Rand couldn't stand uncompensated service to anyone.

But of course you can't coerce it. The fact that coercion of service constitutes slavery does not mean that the service isn't a moral good. Service being my obligation is not remotely similar to slavery.

[finally17]

jdonn, on Feb 14 2008, 04:30 PM, said:

han, on Feb 14 2008, 03:54 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Feb 13 2008, 04:16 PM, said:

The fundamental presumption of health care as a right is totally ridiculous.

I do not know what a right is. I only know that I would greatly prefer to live in a country where everybody has health care.

I love you han.

I will take this moment to agree with jdonn, and probably bow out of this discussion.

Han's post is full of win.

[DrTodd13]

finally17, on Feb 14 2008, 05:15 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 14 2008, 06:22 AM, said:

finally17, on Feb 13 2008, 08:35 PM, said:

I have however made it clear that I believe there are ideas which are greater than the individual.  One of those is that service to my fellow is paramount.  If you would see and accept that, this service the medical professionals perform would not be slavery but freedom.

even if this is true, and i think it is, todd's point is that this service should not be coerced, it *can't* be coerced (for long, anyway)

I don't think that's todd's point. He seems pretty clearly stuck on very Randian, objectivist views...and Rand couldn't stand uncompensated service to anyone.

But of course you can't coerce it. The fact that coercion of service constitutes slavery does not mean that the service isn't a moral good. Service being my obligation is not remotely similar to slavery.

I'm not an Objectivist. Just because I may agree with them on one particular issue does not mean I buy the whole hog. From what I know of Rand, I think she would say that even voluntary altruism was wrong. I don't believe that. I think that service is a moral good but it loses it's moral goodness when it is forced, either by the person doing it or by the people doing the forcing.

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on Feb 14 2008, 07:06 PM, said:

Maybe what Americans need to discuss is how to make health care more affordable. jtfanclub's example with the ambulance shows that there must be scope for reducing prices. Another option could be to get rid of the medical malpractice lawsuits that make physicians' salaries so high because they need to be able to pay for their malpractice-lawsuit insurances.

About 25 years ago or so, I discovered that my father's annual medical malpractice insurance premium (he was a cardiologist) was nearly twice my annual income. Definitely something wrong there, imo.

[Winstonm]

Quote

I discovered that my father's annual medical malpractice insurance premium (he was a cardiologist) was nearly twice my annual income.  Definitely something wrong there, imo.

No, it's when your 2-day hospital bill is 2 times your annual income that you have the problem - sure glad Congress tightened the banruptcy laws to ensure the "pound of flesh" can't be avoided.

[hrothgar]

DrTodd13, on Feb 15 2008, 02:41 AM, said:

Because I didn't see it.

I agree an advanced civilized society has many benefits. What I reject is that civilization is equivalent to government. I would prefer civilization without government but that isn't available to me. Just because I prefer civilization with government to lack of civilization with no government does not mean that I lose my right to lobby for what I think would be a better system.

Hi Todd:

I have no issue if you want lobby in favor of some idealised theocratic anarchist collective or whatever your pipe dream d'jour might be...

However, I do dispute the validity of some of your claims: In particular, I seem to recall that you've made a number of statements suggesting that the government doesn't have the right to punish you if for refusing to pay your taxes.

I am suggesting that your decision to participate in civilized society here the United States waives certain rights that might otherwise exist in the State of Nature. The act of enjoying the benefits of civilized society requires that you assume a set of responsibilities as well.

[han]

luke warm, on Feb 14 2008, 06:10 PM, said:

han, do you disagree with him that before we embark upon some nat'l health plan we (the american people) should know what it will cost us, individually? do you disagree with him when he says we shouldn't merely trust a president or a congress when they say, "this is the right thing to do regardless of the cost - trust us"? he likens that to the congress' votes on viet nam and iraq, do you agree with this?

that's all he's saying, but i have a bet with myself that i already know your answer... it will be "no" ... period

I have no idea if I disagree with him or not, because as usual, I have no idea what mike777 thinks. My impression is that mike777 will say anything to make the democrats look bad. Now, I don't trust any of these democrats either, but I appreciate that at least it seems like they will make a serious effort to improve the situation of health benefits in the US.

I don't think that is like Iraq at all. The first time we voted for Bush (well, I didn't of course, I am not a citizen and wouldn't have voted for him if I was), his campaign didn't have a hint of a suggestion of a plan to go to war. On the contrary.

This is not similar to Iraq for two more reasons. First, the motivations for the national health plan are out on the table. At least I have not heard any conspiracy theories about oil is involved this time.

Second, and more importantly, the power of the president to push through social issues is much more limited than the power of the president to make defensive decisions in times of war (well, we both know that the war on terror was a made up term, but it is hard to see how a president could pull off such a trick in the case of the national health plan).

What I am saying is that once one of these democratic candidates is elected, they will have to come up with a very good and detailed plan to get it through congress, unlike the attack on Iraq. Other presidents who attempted to improve the health plan have failed miserably. Presidents who tried to convince congress to attack other countries have been quite succesful in the last 50 years or so.

But yes, it would be better if they had more detailed plans, I agree. I don't know if that's feasible given how complicated the issue is, maybe it is. As it is, I would vote for the president who seems most committed to this issue as it is very important to me.

period

[helene_t]

han, on Feb 15 2008, 05:51 PM, said:

Second, and more importantly, the power of the president to push through social issues is much more limited than the power of the president to make defensive decisions in times of war [...]
But yes, it would be better if they had more detailed plans, I agree. I don't know if that's feasible given how complicated the issue is, maybe it is.

It may be feasible but it would probably be a waste of time to make such a plan for the purpose of the election campaign since the plan would have to be negotiated with congress, so whatever the president "promised" during the campaign would be modified before passing.

This is the way it works and the way it should work. If there were a detailed plan and it was simply a question of yes or no, there should just be a referendum about it. No reason (in that hypothetical case) to make it an issue for a presidential and/or congress election.

Quote

As it is, I would vote for the president who seems most committed to this issue as it is very important to me.

That makes sense.

[hrothgar]

For what its worth, The New Republic (www.tnr.com) has sponsored a number of debates about Health Care over the past few years. I've always felt that these provided some of the best informed discussions on this topic.

You can probably find these archived on the site. I might try to find some information over the course of the weekend.

[finally17]

helene_t, on Feb 15 2008, 12:29 PM, said:

This is the way it works and the way it should work. If there were a detailed plan and it was simply a question of yes or no, there should just be a referendum about it. No reason (in that hypothetical case) to make it an issue for a presidential and/or congress election.

Quote

As it is, I would vote for the president who seems most committed to this issue as it is very important to me.

That makes sense.

The US does not have referenda for Federal situations. Ever. Our Federal laws are written and passed by Congress (ok, presented and passed, not always written), okayed by the President, and if challenged, determined Constitutional or not by the Supreme Court. The people's only say is in whom to elect for these positions. That's "representative democracy" for you.

Some states, such as Illinois, the one I live in, do not even have a state referendum system (others do, I am not certain how common this is).

Unless you mean by "referendum" something other than how it is used in the US (to my understanding).

[luke warm]

han, on Feb 15 2008, 11:51 AM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 14 2008, 06:10 PM, said:

han, do you disagree with him that before we embark upon some nat'l health plan we (the american people) should know what it will cost us, individually? do you disagree with him when he says we shouldn't merely trust a president or a congress when they say, "this is the right thing to do regardless of the cost - trust us"? he likens that to the congress' votes on viet nam and iraq, do you agree with this?

that's all he's saying, but i have a bet with myself that i already know your answer... it will be "no" ... period

I have no idea if I disagree with him or not, because as usual, I have no idea what mike777 thinks. My impression is that mike777 will say anything to make the democrats look bad. Now, I don't trust any of these democrats either, but I appreciate that at least it seems like they will make a serious effort to improve the situation of health benefits in the US.

I don't think that is like Iraq at all. The first time we voted for Bush (well, I didn't of course, I am not a citizen and wouldn't have voted for him if I was), his campaign didn't have a hint of a suggestion of a plan to go to war. On the contrary.

This is not similar to Iraq for two more reasons. First, the motivations for the national health plan are out on the table. At least I have not heard any conspiracy theories about oil is involved this time.

Second, and more importantly, the power of the president to push through social issues is much more limited than the power of the president to make defensive decisions in times of war (well, we both know that the war on terror was a made up term, but it is hard to see how a president could pull off such a trick in the case of the national health plan).

What I am saying is that once one of these democratic candidates is elected, they will have to come up with a very good and detailed plan to get it through congress, unlike the attack on Iraq. Other presidents who attempted to improve the health plan have failed miserably. Presidents who tried to convince congress to attack other countries have been quite succesful in the last 50 years or so.

But yes, it would be better if they had more detailed plans, I agree. I don't know if that's feasible given how complicated the issue is, maybe it is. As it is, I would vote for the president who seems most committed to this issue as it is very important to me.

period

i think mike was saying what i posted, but he can correct me if not... as for the rest of your post, well said

[cherdano]

Jimmy I really don't understand how you can still take mike777 serious, all he does is trying to provoke with inconsistent remarks in confusing directions while he never says what his opinion actually is. You are reading too much into his words.

[Winstonm]

I am wary of the use of modified Socratic methods, as often the point is not to encourage investigation but to lead by carefully framed questions to a preconceived point of view.

Not that this is ill-intentioned always - a person may believe his own logic and think this the best method to enlighten others.

We are all biased. We are all human. In this, we are all equal. We can challenge the logic - we can challenge methods - but the person should be respected as an equal f%ck up, just like ourselves.

[han]

If by that you mean that one should not complain if someone is utterly annoying then I disagree Winston.

[cherdano]

Winstonm, on Feb 16 2008, 01:00 AM, said:

We are all biased. We are all human. In this, we are all equal. We can challenge the logic - we can challenge methods - but the person should be respected as an equal f%ck up, just like ourselves.

I probably respect the person behind mike777 - I have no idea since I don't know him. I don't respect mike777 the forum poster, and see no reason why I should - he has chosen his role on BBF not me, and it probably has little to do with mike777 the person.