Total Posts:133|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Healthcare

CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 4:46:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't agree with socializing anything. But uh... it's not a democracy, so what i believe doesn't matter.

People have to, and will die. All types, at all ages. With great sacrifice comes great rewards. Liberals seem to think we can reap great rewards with little to no sacrifice. It's ridiculous.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 7:48:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 4:46:57 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
I don't agree with socializing anything. But uh... it's not a democracy, so what i believe doesn't matter.

People have to, and will die. All types, at all ages. With great sacrifice comes great rewards. Liberals seem to think we can reap great rewards with little to no sacrifice. It's ridiculous.

.....a socialized democracy is not a democracy? What? And what do you mean liberals expect great rewards with no sacrifice?
Thank you for voting!
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 8:00:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Anyone (preferably Progressives) wanna debate this? http://www.debate.org...
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 8:27:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 7:48:30 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 10/13/2012 4:46:57 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
I don't agree with socializing anything. But uh... it's not a democracy, so what i believe doesn't matter.

People have to, and will die. All types, at all ages. With great sacrifice comes great rewards. Liberals seem to think we can reap great rewards with little to no sacrifice. It's ridiculous.

.....a socialized democracy is not a democracy? What? And what do you mean liberals expect great rewards with no sacrifice?

I meant that, we don't live in a democracy currently. As in, this is not a democracy that we live in. Liberals never seem to address the sacrifice when proposing their marvelous ideas. As if the world is eventually going to become this great peaceful place once everything is 'equal'.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 8:46:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 8:27:43 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 10/13/2012 7:48:30 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 10/13/2012 4:46:57 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
I don't agree with socializing anything. But uh... it's not a democracy, so what i believe doesn't matter.

People have to, and will die. All types, at all ages. With great sacrifice comes great rewards. Liberals seem to think we can reap great rewards with little to no sacrifice. It's ridiculous.

.....a socialized democracy is not a democracy? What? And what do you mean liberals expect great rewards with no sacrifice?

I meant that, we don't live in a democracy currently. As in, this is not a democracy that we live in. Liberals never seem to address the sacrifice when proposing their marvelous ideas. As if the world is eventually going to become this great peaceful place once everything is 'equal'.

Okay, so is it already 'equal'? Or in your view, what should we do about it?
Thank you for voting!
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 9:02:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 4:46:57 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
I don't agree with socializing anything. But uh... it's not a democracy, so what i believe doesn't matter.

People have to, and will die. All types, at all ages. With great sacrifice comes great rewards. Liberals seem to think we can reap great rewards with little to no sacrifice. It's ridiculous.

It seems like you're saying that socialized healthcare is bad because it aims to stop people from dieing by using other people's money to help them, which is a respectable postion. But what you wrote is pretty much just that people are going to die and that not stopping those deaths will yield rewards, and that liberals think that we can reap rewards while also not letting people die, and that that is wrong... Am I missing something?
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 9:07:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 9:02:11 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 4:46:57 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
I don't agree with socializing anything. But uh... it's not a democracy, so what i believe doesn't matter.

People have to, and will die. All types, at all ages. With great sacrifice comes great rewards. Liberals seem to think we can reap great rewards with little to no sacrifice. It's ridiculous.

It seems like you're saying that socialized healthcare is bad because it aims to stop people from dieing by using other people's money to help them, which is a respectable postion. But what you wrote is pretty much just that people are going to die and that not stopping those deaths will yield rewards, and that liberals think that we can reap rewards while also not letting people die, and that that is wrong... Am I missing something?

I'm saying that the privatized healthcare system rewards the American people with very high quality care. Something you aren't going to find in socialized healthcare. That is the reward provided by the hard work of you and your family/ancestors. And i'm saying many liberals seem to think that the nation will be better in some way (that of which I am not sure) by socializing specific, if not all industries. In my opinion this takes away the very element that makes life in America so desirable. That is, working hard to attain certain goals. When healthcare is provided to you and your family regardless of the work you put forth, it provides little to no incentive to contribute to society.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 9:14:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 9:07:43 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:

I'm saying that the privatized healthcare system rewards the American people with very high quality care. Something you aren't going to find in socialized healthcare.

...That is far more expensive than any other healthcare and its price is spiraling out of control.

Plus our healthcare system is 37th in the world.

And i'm saying many liberals seem to think that the nation will be better in some way (that of which I am not sure) by socializing specific, if not all industries. In my opinion this takes away the very element that makes life in America so desirable. That is, working hard to attain certain goals. When healthcare is provided to you and your family regardless of the work you put forth, it provides little to no incentive to contribute to society.

I think that while taking away competition all together is bad, but some things should not depend on the money you have. A child should not be allowed to die in a rich nation because its family cannot afford treatment.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 9:22:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 4:34:52 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
Came across this little beauty. Any thoughts on this video?


So, I have a right to another person's labor? No...

Also, gov't healthcare is inefficient in another way. With gov't totally funding the system, how does it know what prices should be? It doesn't, since the price mechanism is removed. Then, there will be either a shortage or surplus of healthcare in varying areas of the economy. Since gov't is pressured to cut spending when possible, this means shortages, and result in a waiting list.

Higher demand with a stable supply = higher prices, but with no price mechanism = waiting lines i.e. rationing.

Single payer would only cut about 1/7th of healthcare costs. This is relatively insignificant. I know this, because I have done the math.

Free market healthcare is a better alternative.

Net harm of health insurance regulation is $169 billion, or $2,200 a family. [1] This is the net harm. If we had free market plans, people would be free to choose their own health care plan over state lines, with lower costs, greater choice, and greater liberty to find a plan that matches their unique needs.

People with preexisting conditions would pay higher premiums because they have a higher risk. If it's unfair, other companies could offer lower prices so competition helps those people.

People would have health savings accounts linked to high deductible insurance. Empirical evidence from the RAND health insurance experiment found that those who had free health care vs those who paid for all of their health care costs used 45% more care. [2] Using proportional math, we would use 39% less health care in a private health care system.

Voluntary licensing expands the supply and therefore lowers the costs of health care. Private licensing is incentivized to gain the respect and business from consumers. With true competition, insurance companies would likely transition to an electronic records system, saving [3] $77.8 billion. Transparency saves $36 billion. [4] Private evaluators certify drugs. Some desperate people can get drugs that are unlicensed. Private certifiers like UL have greater track records than the FDA. If the FDA fails, what happens? They can't be shut down. There is no disincentive, or incentive to give solid certifications. The FDA is slow and inefficient, and by holding up the release of drugs it costs 50,000 deaths a year, and by limiting the supply of drugs it raises the costs of drugs and causes the deaths of others, and harms innovation. [5]

Those health insurance regulations, by rising costs, they lead to 7 million people uninsured, and causes 22,000 deaths annually. [6]

What is the solution? The private free market. People use their own money from health savings accounts to shop around for the lowest costs and become prudent with their health care spending. Private charities provide care for the poor, and many of them will be able to afford health care, at least the care they need. The set of statistics I've set forward show that in a private health care market, we would save $1.3058 trillion annually, or $4,148.60 a person, which would hugely increase economic growth, our international competitiveness, middle class security, maximize efficiency, and provide greater coverage. It is the equivalent of everyone getting a 7%+ pay increase.

This increase in wages as we all know would make the economy flourish. But who does it help the most? The poor, as they would benefit the most from economic growth, and join the ranks of the middle class.

Sources:
[1] http://www.cato.org...
[2] http://www.hcmsgroup.com...
[3] J. Walker et al., "The Value of Health Care Information Exchange and Interoperability."
[4] http://thomsonreuters.com...
[5] http://www.independent.org...
[6] http://www.cato.org...
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 9:41:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 9:14:46 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 10/13/2012 9:07:43 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:

I'm saying that the privatized healthcare system rewards the American people with very high quality care. Something you aren't going to find in socialized healthcare.

...That is far more expensive than any other healthcare and its price is spiraling out of control.

The price spirals with the economy.

Plus our healthcare system is 37th in the world.

What... exactly... does this mean?! 37th in what??

And i'm saying many liberals seem to think that the nation will be better in some way (that of which I am not sure) by socializing specific, if not all industries. In my opinion this takes away the very element that makes life in America so desirable. That is, working hard to attain certain goals. When healthcare is provided to you and your family regardless of the work you put forth, it provides little to no incentive to contribute to society.

I think that while taking away competition all together is bad, but some things should not depend on the money you have. A child should not be allowed to die in a rich nation because its family cannot afford treatment.

If there are people who believe this then they can pay for the treatment themselves... what is wrong with that? If i don't want to pay why should I? Don't make me conform to your ideals.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 9:56:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 9:07:43 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 10/13/2012 9:02:11 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 4:46:57 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
I don't agree with socializing anything. But uh... it's not a democracy, so what i believe doesn't matter.

People have to, and will die. All types, at all ages. With great sacrifice comes great rewards. Liberals seem to think we can reap great rewards with little to no sacrifice. It's ridiculous.

It seems like you're saying that socialized healthcare is bad because it aims to stop people from dieing by using other people's money to help them, which is a respectable postion. But what you wrote is pretty much just that people are going to die and that not stopping those deaths will yield rewards, and that liberals think that we can reap rewards while also not letting people die, and that that is wrong... Am I missing something?

I'm saying that the privatized healthcare system rewards the American people with very high quality care. Something you aren't going to find in socialized healthcare. That is the reward provided by the hard work of you and your family/ancestors. And i'm saying many liberals seem to think that the nation will be better in some way (that of which I am not sure) by socializing specific, if not all industries. In my opinion this takes away the very element that makes life in America so desirable. That is, working hard to attain certain goals. When healthcare is provided to you and your family regardless of the work you put forth, it provides little to no incentive to contribute to society.

Well for one thing healthcare is not the main incentive to work (that would be money for a house and food, and the government certainly isn't planning on providing those things to everybody). There's a basic rule that if everyone get's a piece of something, their piece will be smaller than if fewer people got a piece. So if everyone gets healthcare, the quality will be lower. That's something that liberals who believe that everybody should have healthcare are willing to accept.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 10:01:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 9:56:09 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 9:07:43 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 10/13/2012 9:02:11 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 4:46:57 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
I don't agree with socializing anything. But uh... it's not a democracy, so what i believe doesn't matter.

People have to, and will die. All types, at all ages. With great sacrifice comes great rewards. Liberals seem to think we can reap great rewards with little to no sacrifice. It's ridiculous.

It seems like you're saying that socialized healthcare is bad because it aims to stop people from dieing by using other people's money to help them, which is a respectable postion. But what you wrote is pretty much just that people are going to die and that not stopping those deaths will yield rewards, and that liberals think that we can reap rewards while also not letting people die, and that that is wrong... Am I missing something?

I'm saying that the privatized healthcare system rewards the American people with very high quality care. Something you aren't going to find in socialized healthcare. That is the reward provided by the hard work of you and your family/ancestors. And i'm saying many liberals seem to think that the nation will be better in some way (that of which I am not sure) by socializing specific, if not all industries. In my opinion this takes away the very element that makes life in America so desirable. That is, working hard to attain certain goals. When healthcare is provided to you and your family regardless of the work you put forth, it provides little to no incentive to contribute to society.

Well for one thing healthcare is not the main incentive to work (that would be money for a house and food, and the government certainly isn't planning on providing those things to everybody). There's a basic rule that if everyone get's a piece of something, their piece will be smaller than if fewer people got a piece. So if everyone gets healthcare, the quality will be lower. That's something that liberals who believe that everybody should have healthcare are willing to accept.

Yeah. They are willing to accept it without knowing what it truly means, is what is am assuming.. That's my point. When's the last time you got treated for an illness or injury within a socialized health system? Was it pleasant?
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 10:02:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I mean, how does is it work out to liberals that 'better for some and worse for some = better for all'? It isn't great logic. Not to mention most of these people have never experienced socialism and somehow seem to think it's a good idea.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 10:03:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 10:01:19 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 10/13/2012 9:56:09 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 9:07:43 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 10/13/2012 9:02:11 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 4:46:57 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
I don't agree with socializing anything. But uh... it's not a democracy, so what i believe doesn't matter.

People have to, and will die. All types, at all ages. With great sacrifice comes great rewards. Liberals seem to think we can reap great rewards with little to no sacrifice. It's ridiculous.

It seems like you're saying that socialized healthcare is bad because it aims to stop people from dieing by using other people's money to help them, which is a respectable postion. But what you wrote is pretty much just that people are going to die and that not stopping those deaths will yield rewards, and that liberals think that we can reap rewards while also not letting people die, and that that is wrong... Am I missing something?

I'm saying that the privatized healthcare system rewards the American people with very high quality care. Something you aren't going to find in socialized healthcare. That is the reward provided by the hard work of you and your family/ancestors. And i'm saying many liberals seem to think that the nation will be better in some way (that of which I am not sure) by socializing specific, if not all industries. In my opinion this takes away the very element that makes life in America so desirable. That is, working hard to attain certain goals. When healthcare is provided to you and your family regardless of the work you put forth, it provides little to no incentive to contribute to society.

Well for one thing healthcare is not the main incentive to work (that would be money for a house and food, and the government certainly isn't planning on providing those things to everybody). There's a basic rule that if everyone get's a piece of something, their piece will be smaller than if fewer people got a piece. So if everyone gets healthcare, the quality will be lower. That's something that liberals who believe that everybody should have healthcare are willing to accept.

Yeah. They are willing to accept it without knowing what it truly means, is what is am assuming.. That's my point. When's the last time you got treated for an illness or injury within a socialized health system? Was it pleasant?

From what I've heard the major complaint is that there are ungodly long waits because of the amount of people who are being treated. I don't know about the quality of the actual medical care.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 10:04:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 10:03:31 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 10:01:19 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 10/13/2012 9:56:09 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 9:07:43 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 10/13/2012 9:02:11 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 4:46:57 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
I don't agree with socializing anything. But uh... it's not a democracy, so what i believe doesn't matter.

People have to, and will die. All types, at all ages. With great sacrifice comes great rewards. Liberals seem to think we can reap great rewards with little to no sacrifice. It's ridiculous.

It seems like you're saying that socialized healthcare is bad because it aims to stop people from dieing by using other people's money to help them, which is a respectable postion. But what you wrote is pretty much just that people are going to die and that not stopping those deaths will yield rewards, and that liberals think that we can reap rewards while also not letting people die, and that that is wrong... Am I missing something?

I'm saying that the privatized healthcare system rewards the American people with very high quality care. Something you aren't going to find in socialized healthcare. That is the reward provided by the hard work of you and your family/ancestors. And i'm saying many liberals seem to think that the nation will be better in some way (that of which I am not sure) by socializing specific, if not all industries. In my opinion this takes away the very element that makes life in America so desirable. That is, working hard to attain certain goals. When healthcare is provided to you and your family regardless of the work you put forth, it provides little to no incentive to contribute to society.

Well for one thing healthcare is not the main incentive to work (that would be money for a house and food, and the government certainly isn't planning on providing those things to everybody). There's a basic rule that if everyone get's a piece of something, their piece will be smaller than if fewer people got a piece. So if everyone gets healthcare, the quality will be lower. That's something that liberals who believe that everybody should have healthcare are willing to accept.

Yeah. They are willing to accept it without knowing what it truly means, is what is am assuming.. That's my point. When's the last time you got treated for an illness or injury within a socialized health system? Was it pleasant?

From what I've heard the major complaint is that there are ungodly long waits because of the amount of people who are being treated. I don't know about the quality of the actual medical care.

Thank you.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 10:06:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 9:07:43 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:

I'm saying that the privatized healthcare system rewards the American people with very high quality care. Something you aren't going to find in socialized healthcare. That is the reward provided by the hard work of you and your family/ancestors. And I'm saying many liberals seem to think that the nation will be better in some way (that of which I am not sure) by socializing specific, if not all industries. In my opinion this takes away the very element that makes life in America so desirable. That is, working hard to attain certain goals. When healthcare is provided to you and your family regardless of the work you put forth, it provides little to no incentive to contribute to society.

We have a private healthcare system? Where? I agree that *a* private healthcare system would be great since we wouldn't have the insane high costs associated with government protected IP and licensing cartelization or the inefficiency and lack of quality associated with government bureaucracy and separating costs from payment. We just don't have one of those. It's pretty private looking compared to others, but I'd call the American healthcare system corporatist more than free market.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 10:07:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
To paint a very crude picture. Say that the middle-upper class americans could fund the whole world's healthcare. Sounds like a great idea, right? But when the reality hits, we are now paying for the entire world to get a bed, a wet towel, and a few morphine. Not a great idea anymore, but now it's too late.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 10:08:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 10:02:23 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
I mean, how does is it work out to liberals that 'better for some and worse for some = better for all'? It isn't great logic. Not to mention most of these people have never experienced socialism and somehow seem to think it's a good idea.

Well the idea is that some have more than they need and others have less than they need, and so those who have more can pay more so that those who have less can get what they need for less. That's the logic. And also there are many different types and shades of socialism, and depending on your definition America is already a socialist country. We have socialist schools and socialist roads.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 10:08:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 9:56:09 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 9:07:43 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 10/13/2012 9:02:11 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 4:46:57 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
I don't agree with socializing anything. But uh... it's not a democracy, so what i believe doesn't matter.

People have to, and will die. All types, at all ages. With great sacrifice comes great rewards. Liberals seem to think we can reap great rewards with little to no sacrifice. It's ridiculous.

It seems like you're saying that socialized healthcare is bad because it aims to stop people from dieing by using other people's money to help them, which is a respectable postion. But what you wrote is pretty much just that people are going to die and that not stopping those deaths will yield rewards, and that liberals think that we can reap rewards while also not letting people die, and that that is wrong... Am I missing something?

I'm saying that the privatized healthcare system rewards the American people with very high quality care. Something you aren't going to find in socialized healthcare. That is the reward provided by the hard work of you and your family/ancestors. And i'm saying many liberals seem to think that the nation will be better in some way (that of which I am not sure) by socializing specific, if not all industries. In my opinion this takes away the very element that makes life in America so desirable. That is, working hard to attain certain goals. When healthcare is provided to you and your family regardless of the work you put forth, it provides little to no incentive to contribute to society.

Well for one thing healthcare is not the main incentive to work (that would be money for a house and food, and the government certainly isn't planning on providing those things to everybody). There's a basic rule that if everyone get's a piece of something, their piece will be smaller than if fewer people got a piece. So if everyone gets healthcare, the quality will be lower. That's something that liberals who believe that everybody should have healthcare are willing to accept.

At least its a concession. However, if we had a more free market in healthcare, we could make more pies, and everyone could receive some.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 10:10:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 10:06:31 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/13/2012 9:07:43 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:

I'm saying that the privatized healthcare system rewards the American people with very high quality care. Something you aren't going to find in socialized healthcare. That is the reward provided by the hard work of you and your family/ancestors. And I'm saying many liberals seem to think that the nation will be better in some way (that of which I am not sure) by socializing specific, if not all industries. In my opinion this takes away the very element that makes life in America so desirable. That is, working hard to attain certain goals. When healthcare is provided to you and your family regardless of the work you put forth, it provides little to no incentive to contribute to society.

We have a private healthcare system? Where? I agree that *a* private healthcare system would be great since we wouldn't have the insane high costs associated with government protected IP and licensing cartelization or the inefficiency and lack of quality associated with government bureaucracy and separating costs from payment. We just don't have one of those. It's pretty private looking compared to others, but I'd call the American healthcare system corporatist more than free market.

Yes it's as private as there is. And also, you're right it is very corporatist. But shouldn't we be moving away from that instead of progressing into it completely? Why are people giving in and accepting corporatism to switch over to full on socialism?
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 10:11:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 10:08:18 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 10:02:23 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
I mean, how does is it work out to liberals that 'better for some and worse for some = better for all'? It isn't great logic. Not to mention most of these people have never experienced socialism and somehow seem to think it's a good idea.

Well the idea is that some have more than they need and others have less than they need, and so those who have more can pay more so that those who have less can get what they need for less. That's the logic. And also there are many different types and shades of socialism, and depending on your definition America is already a socialist country. We have socialist schools and socialist roads.

yeah, it's redistribution! That's insane man. Do you want me to come to your house right now and take half of everything you own? I mean... i would really appreciate it.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 10:13:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Half of the 'liberals' i've met at college can't even part with a cigarette, yet they want socialized health care. I don't understand, if you can't give things up on a personal level than what are you people thinking?
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 10:21:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 10:11:58 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 10/13/2012 10:08:18 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 10:02:23 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
I mean, how does is it work out to liberals that 'better for some and worse for some = better for all'? It isn't great logic. Not to mention most of these people have never experienced socialism and somehow seem to think it's a good idea.

Well the idea is that some have more than they need and others have less than they need, and so those who have more can pay more so that those who have less can get what they need for less. That's the logic. And also there are many different types and shades of socialism, and depending on your definition America is already a socialist country. We have socialist schools and socialist roads.

yeah, it's redistribution! That's insane man. Do you want me to come to your house right now and take half of everything you own? I mean... i would really appreciate it.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net...
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 10:21:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 10:08:28 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/13/2012 9:56:09 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 9:07:43 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 10/13/2012 9:02:11 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 4:46:57 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
I don't agree with socializing anything. But uh... it's not a democracy, so what i believe doesn't matter.

People have to, and will die. All types, at all ages. With great sacrifice comes great rewards. Liberals seem to think we can reap great rewards with little to no sacrifice. It's ridiculous.

It seems like you're saying that socialized healthcare is bad because it aims to stop people from dieing by using other people's money to help them, which is a respectable postion. But what you wrote is pretty much just that people are going to die and that not stopping those deaths will yield rewards, and that liberals think that we can reap rewards while also not letting people die, and that that is wrong... Am I missing something?

I'm saying that the privatized healthcare system rewards the American people with very high quality care. Something you aren't going to find in socialized healthcare. That is the reward provided by the hard work of you and your family/ancestors. And i'm saying many liberals seem to think that the nation will be better in some way (that of which I am not sure) by socializing specific, if not all industries. In my opinion this takes away the very element that makes life in America so desirable. That is, working hard to attain certain goals. When healthcare is provided to you and your family regardless of the work you put forth, it provides little to no incentive to contribute to society.

Well for one thing healthcare is not the main incentive to work (that would be money for a house and food, and the government certainly isn't planning on providing those things to everybody). There's a basic rule that if everyone get's a piece of something, their piece will be smaller than if fewer people got a piece. So if everyone gets healthcare, the quality will be lower. That's something that liberals who believe that everybody should have healthcare are willing to accept.

At least its a concession. However, if we had a more free market in healthcare, we could make more pies, and everyone could receive some.

But there would still be some people who would get very inadequite pies, regardless of whether or not it's their fault that they can't afford what they need, and it is for the sake of those people that liberals support universal healthcare. Of course conservatives have an easy time refuting universal healthcare because those aforementioned people aren't always viewed as valuable to society, or at least those of them who are perpetually unemployed, and so it could be said that there is no reason to shrink a lot of people's potential pies to enlarge there's. I think that liberals understand the consequences of universal healthcare very well, but they can live with them, whereas conservatives cannot.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 10:23:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 10:11:58 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 10/13/2012 10:08:18 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 10:02:23 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
I mean, how does is it work out to liberals that 'better for some and worse for some = better for all'? It isn't great logic. Not to mention most of these people have never experienced socialism and somehow seem to think it's a good idea.

Well the idea is that some have more than they need and others have less than they need, and so those who have more can pay more so that those who have less can get what they need for less. That's the logic. And also there are many different types and shades of socialism, and depending on your definition America is already a socialist country. We have socialist schools and socialist roads.

yeah, it's redistribution! That's insane man. Do you want me to come to your house right now and take half of everything you own? I mean... i would really appreciate it.

Yes I'm aware what I described is redistribution. Did I say I supported it?
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 10:23:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
People aren't going to be happy no matter what happens. Our perspectives will just change over time and we will still be filled with the same amount of desire no matter what situation we are in. As a matter of fact, most poor people have far less desires than rich people do as far as my life experience has shown. Equality does not exist until death, at which point our bodies reach homeostasis. I believe healthcare is a privilege, not a right. In fact, we aren't even entitled to life itself, we are merely privileged to have such a thing as a consciousness. Where is the bar set, are we trying to make it so that all Americans live until a certain age? That's completely unrealistic! And if that's not the aim, then what is? Nature balances itself out no matter what you do to it. America is the greatest country in the world because of the constitution that it follows. If you want to completely ratify that... cool I guess... but the fact that you are even here on a computer, using the internet, makes me believe that you are a very privileged member of American society, and socialism will undoubtably cause you to experience a less 'quality' life with less opportunity when your privileges are debased and redistributed.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 10:25:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 10:23:35 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 10:11:58 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 10/13/2012 10:08:18 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 10:02:23 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
I mean, how does is it work out to liberals that 'better for some and worse for some = better for all'? It isn't great logic. Not to mention most of these people have never experienced socialism and somehow seem to think it's a good idea.

Well the idea is that some have more than they need and others have less than they need, and so those who have more can pay more so that those who have less can get what they need for less. That's the logic. And also there are many different types and shades of socialism, and depending on your definition America is already a socialist country. We have socialist schools and socialist roads.

yeah, it's redistribution! That's insane man. Do you want me to come to your house right now and take half of everything you own? I mean... i would really appreciate it.

Yes I'm aware what I described is redistribution. Did I say I supported it?

Just to be clear I'm currently unsure about universal healthcare. I'm trying to form my opinions on this subject because I've always supported it without thinking too deeply or knowing too much about it.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 10:26:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 10:23:35 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 10:11:58 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 10/13/2012 10:08:18 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 10:02:23 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
I mean, how does is it work out to liberals that 'better for some and worse for some = better for all'? It isn't great logic. Not to mention most of these people have never experienced socialism and somehow seem to think it's a good idea.

Well the idea is that some have more than they need and others have less than they need, and so those who have more can pay more so that those who have less can get what they need for less. That's the logic. And also there are many different types and shades of socialism, and depending on your definition America is already a socialist country. We have socialist schools and socialist roads.

yeah, it's redistribution! That's insane man. Do you want me to come to your house right now and take half of everything you own? I mean... i would really appreciate it.

Yes I'm aware what I described is redistribution. Did I say I supported it?

Not directly, but you are in fact supporting the liberals by justifying their viewpoints. Unless i'm completely misunderstanding everything you have said.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 10:26:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 10:21:59 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 10:08:28 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/13/2012 9:56:09 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 9:07:43 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 10/13/2012 9:02:11 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 4:46:57 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
I don't agree with socializing anything. But uh... it's not a democracy, so what i believe doesn't matter.

People have to, and will die. All types, at all ages. With great sacrifice comes great rewards. Liberals seem to think we can reap great rewards with little to no sacrifice. It's ridiculous.

It seems like you're saying that socialized healthcare is bad because it aims to stop people from dieing by using other people's money to help them, which is a respectable postion. But what you wrote is pretty much just that people are going to die and that not stopping those deaths will yield rewards, and that liberals think that we can reap rewards while also not letting people die, and that that is wrong... Am I missing something?

I'm saying that the privatized healthcare system rewards the American people with very high quality care. Something you aren't going to find in socialized healthcare. That is the reward provided by the hard work of you and your family/ancestors. And i'm saying many liberals seem to think that the nation will be better in some way (that of which I am not sure) by socializing specific, if not all industries. In my opinion this takes away the very element that makes life in America so desirable. That is, working hard to attain certain goals. When healthcare is provided to you and your family regardless of the work you put forth, it provides little to no incentive to contribute to society.

Well for one thing healthcare is not the main incentive to work (that would be money for a house and food, and the government certainly isn't planning on providing those things to everybody). There's a basic rule that if everyone get's a piece of something, their piece will be smaller than if fewer people got a piece. So if everyone gets healthcare, the quality will be lower. That's something that liberals who believe that everybody should have healthcare are willing to accept.

At least its a concession. However, if we had a more free market in healthcare, we could make more pies, and everyone could receive some.

But there would still be some people who would get very inadequite pies, regardless of whether or not it's their fault that they can't afford what they need, and it is for the sake of those people that liberals support universal healthcare. Of course conservatives have an easy time refuting universal healthcare because those aforementioned people aren't always viewed as valuable to society, or at least those of them who are perpetually unemployed, and so it could be said that there is no reason to shrink a lot of people's potential pies to enlarge there's. I think that liberals understand the consequences of universal healthcare very well, but they can live with them, whereas conservatives cannot.

Socializing the program will cause reduction in innovation and efficiency though. Without competition, there will be very little incentive or even ability for people to come up with new ideas.

I don't think many liberals do accept the reality though.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...