Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Medicaid Doesn't Improve Health

jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 9:23:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
That is according to a RCT (the best kind of study) from Oregon:

http://www.forbes.com...

I know this is kind of old news, but I didn't see people posting about it. Basically, Medicaid has no statistically significant effect on health.

BTW, the effect on depression isn't measured by clinical outcomes and is probably a result of a placebo effect. Don't forget that self reported health did improve with Medicaid. But, actual health did not.

In other words, Medicaid makes you think you're healthier even though you actually aren't.

Of course, being the "fact driven", "science loving" pragmatists that they are, progressives like Krugman, Klein, Delong, etc. all admitted they were wrong about Medicaid and that expanding the program may not have the wonderful impact that they originally claimed.

Okay, that last part was a joke.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 9:31:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Seeing how it's forbes magazine that printed the article, forgive me if I'm not inclined to believe that the situation is made to appear [sarcasm]slightly[/sarcasm] skewed. But I come from Canada, where everyone has free health care, and people aren't dying from diseases because they can't afford to treat them.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 10:15:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This rather ignores the socio-financial side of things for the uninsured, doesn't it?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 10:16:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 9:31:35 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Seeing how it's forbes magazine that printed the article, forgive me if I'm inclined to believe that the situation is made to appear [sarcasm]slightly[/sarcasm] skewed. But I come from Canada, where everyone has free health care, and people aren't dying from diseases because they can't afford to treat them.

Fixed.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 10:16:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 9:31:35 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Seeing how it's forbes magazine that printed the article, forgive me if I'm not inclined to believe that the situation is made to appear [sarcasm]slightly[/sarcasm] skewed. But I come from Canada, where everyone has free health care, and people aren't dying from diseases because they can't afford to treat them.

Okay, so you discount this based on an ad hominem argument.

And, you are from Canada where the state uses force to force you to pay for other people's health care. We have that in the USA too. It's called Medicare and Medicaid.

Government intervention has fucked up both of our health care systems. Instead of debating over who's is better, maybe we should recognize that we both have the same disease.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 10:19:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 10:16:51 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 9:31:35 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Seeing how it's forbes magazine that printed the article, forgive me if I'm not inclined to believe that the situation is made to appear [sarcasm]slightly[/sarcasm] skewed. But I come from Canada, where everyone has free health care, and people aren't dying from diseases because they can't afford to treat them.

Okay, so you discount this based on an ad hominem argument.

And, you are from Canada where the state uses force to force you to pay for other people's health care. We have that in the USA too. It's called Medicare and Medicaid.

Government intervention has fucked up both of our health care systems. Instead of debating over who's is better, maybe we should recognize that we both have the same disease.

Actually, a lack of government intervention is what has effed up our health care system, in my opinion. Granted, that's a lack of competent intervention, but most providers of medicine are like war profiterrers in peacetime: they're gouging people simply because they can, because they can get away with it because the people that can't afford it just die.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 10:25:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 10:16:51 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 9:31:35 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Seeing how it's forbes magazine that printed the article, forgive me if I'm not inclined to believe that the situation is made to appear [sarcasm]slightly[/sarcasm] skewed. But I come from Canada, where everyone has free health care, and people aren't dying from diseases because they can't afford to treat them.

Okay, so you discount this based on an ad hominem argument.

No, I discount this based on the fact that if I get cancer I wont have to worry about affording treatment.


And, you are from Canada where the state uses force to force you to pay for other people's health care. We have that in the USA too. It's called Medicare and Medicaid.

Big difference. You guys have what amounts to state sponsored crappy insurance. I can walk into a hospital with a serious injury, and not worry about how much my hospital bill is going to put me back.


Government intervention has fucked up both of our health care systems.

It may have fvcked up yours, but it hasn't ours.

Instead of debating over who's is better, maybe we should recognize that we both have the same disease.

No, see, our government health care paid for the treatment. Yours must not have covered it.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 10:25:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 10:19:52 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:16:51 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 9:31:35 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Seeing how it's forbes magazine that printed the article, forgive me if I'm not inclined to believe that the situation is made to appear [sarcasm]slightly[/sarcasm] skewed. But I come from Canada, where everyone has free health care, and people aren't dying from diseases because they can't afford to treat them.

Okay, so you discount this based on an ad hominem argument.

And, you are from Canada where the state uses force to force you to pay for other people's health care. We have that in the USA too. It's called Medicare and Medicaid.

Government intervention has fucked up both of our health care systems. Instead of debating over who's is better, maybe we should recognize that we both have the same disease.

Actually, a lack of government intervention is what has effed up our health care system, in my opinion. Granted, that's a lack of competent intervention, but most providers of medicine are like war profiterrers in peacetime: they're gouging people simply because they can, because they can get away with it because the people that can't afford it just die.

This is what I love about the government. We have a market that is working relatively well. Health care back in 1960 before major government intervention cost about 5% of GDP.

Well, they start intervening and all of the sudden HC is 18% of GDP. And, then all the progressives start saying that the problem is that we didn't give the government enough power.

Kind of reminds me of the IRS targetting Tea Party groups and then blaming lack of funding.

Take note how the least functional markets in the USA are health care, housing, and education, where the government intervenes the most.

We don't have the government run the food industry, and that market works quite well. Ditto for most electronics.

The fact is that profits play a vital role in any economy. They are reinvested and are a signal to producers. Railing against them may get you votes, but it is terrible economics.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 10:28:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 10:25:24 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:19:52 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:16:51 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 9:31:35 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Seeing how it's forbes magazine that printed the article, forgive me if I'm not inclined to believe that the situation is made to appear [sarcasm]slightly[/sarcasm] skewed. But I come from Canada, where everyone has free health care, and people aren't dying from diseases because they can't afford to treat them.

Okay, so you discount this based on an ad hominem argument.

And, you are from Canada where the state uses force to force you to pay for other people's health care. We have that in the USA too. It's called Medicare and Medicaid.

Government intervention has fucked up both of our health care systems. Instead of debating over who's is better, maybe we should recognize that we both have the same disease.

Actually, a lack of government intervention is what has effed up our health care system, in my opinion. Granted, that's a lack of competent intervention, but most providers of medicine are like war profiterrers in peacetime: they're gouging people simply because they can, because they can get away with it because the people that can't afford it just die.


This is what I love about the government. We have a market that is working relatively well. Health care back in 1960 before major government intervention cost about 5% of GDP.

Well, they start intervening and all of the sudden HC is 18% of GDP. And, then all the progressives start saying that the problem is that we didn't give the government enough power.

Kind of reminds me of the IRS targetting Tea Party groups and then blaming lack of funding.

Take note how the least functional markets in the USA are health care, housing, and education, where the government intervenes the most.

We don't have the government run the food industry, and that market works quite well. Ditto for most electronics.

The fact is that profits play a vital role in any economy. They are reinvested and are a signal to producers. Railing against them may get you votes, but it is terrible economics.

See, that's your problem. You care more about economics, then you do peoples lives.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 10:29:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 10:25:17 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:16:51 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 9:31:35 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Seeing how it's forbes magazine that printed the article, forgive me if I'm not inclined to believe that the situation is made to appear [sarcasm]slightly[/sarcasm] skewed. But I come from Canada, where everyone has free health care, and people aren't dying from diseases because they can't afford to treat them.

Okay, so you discount this based on an ad hominem argument.

No, I discount this based on the fact that if I get cancer I wont have to worry about affording treatment.

How would you even know if you had cancer in Canada?

Canada is woefully short in MRIs and CAT Scanners, so it is hard to catch cancer early.

And, even if you do, you have to worry about the out of date technology and long waiting lines.



And, you are from Canada where the state uses force to force you to pay for other people's health care. We have that in the USA too. It's called Medicare and Medicaid.

Big difference. You guys have what amounts to state sponsored crappy insurance. I can walk into a hospital with a serious injury, and not worry about how much my hospital bill is going to put me back.

Again, you guys pay for HC through higher taxes and longer waiting times. You also have crappy quality HC.



Government intervention has fucked up both of our health care systems.

It may have fvcked up yours, but it hasn't ours.

I'm sure the government up there tells you that.


Instead of debating over who's is better, maybe we should recognize that we both have the same disease.

No, see, our government health care paid for the treatment. Yours must not have covered it.

Actually, your government treats you all like sheep and relies on your ignorance. They've actually tricked you guys into thinking your coercive, centrally planned, out of date, inefficient, slow health care system is actually something to be proud of.
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 10:31:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 10:28:08 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:25:24 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:19:52 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:16:51 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 9:31:35 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Seeing how it's forbes magazine that printed the article, forgive me if I'm not inclined to believe that the situation is made to appear [sarcasm]slightly[/sarcasm] skewed. But I come from Canada, where everyone has free health care, and people aren't dying from diseases because they can't afford to treat them.

Okay, so you discount this based on an ad hominem argument.

And, you are from Canada where the state uses force to force you to pay for other people's health care. We have that in the USA too. It's called Medicare and Medicaid.

Government intervention has fucked up both of our health care systems. Instead of debating over who's is better, maybe we should recognize that we both have the same disease.

Actually, a lack of government intervention is what has effed up our health care system, in my opinion. Granted, that's a lack of competent intervention, but most providers of medicine are like war profiterrers in peacetime: they're gouging people simply because they can, because they can get away with it because the people that can't afford it just die.


This is what I love about the government. We have a market that is working relatively well. Health care back in 1960 before major government intervention cost about 5% of GDP.

Well, they start intervening and all of the sudden HC is 18% of GDP. And, then all the progressives start saying that the problem is that we didn't give the government enough power.

Kind of reminds me of the IRS targetting Tea Party groups and then blaming lack of funding.

Take note how the least functional markets in the USA are health care, housing, and education, where the government intervenes the most.

We don't have the government run the food industry, and that market works quite well. Ditto for most electronics.

The fact is that profits play a vital role in any economy. They are reinvested and are a signal to producers. Railing against them may get you votes, but it is terrible economics.

See, that's your problem. You care more about economics, then you do peoples lives.

I think that says it all. This is an argument between reason and emotion. You are relying on left wing slogans (PEOPLE OVER PROFITS!) and emotional appeals while I am trying to argue based on reason.

That defines the debate on health care. One one side, you have statists and progressives using emotion. On the other side, you have libertarians using reason.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 10:33:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 10:31:16 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:28:08 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:25:24 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:19:52 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:16:51 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 9:31:35 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Seeing how it's forbes magazine that printed the article, forgive me if I'm not inclined to believe that the situation is made to appear [sarcasm]slightly[/sarcasm] skewed. But I come from Canada, where everyone has free health care, and people aren't dying from diseases because they can't afford to treat them.

Okay, so you discount this based on an ad hominem argument.

And, you are from Canada where the state uses force to force you to pay for other people's health care. We have that in the USA too. It's called Medicare and Medicaid.

Government intervention has fucked up both of our health care systems. Instead of debating over who's is better, maybe we should recognize that we both have the same disease.

Actually, a lack of government intervention is what has effed up our health care system, in my opinion. Granted, that's a lack of competent intervention, but most providers of medicine are like war profiterrers in peacetime: they're gouging people simply because they can, because they can get away with it because the people that can't afford it just die.


This is what I love about the government. We have a market that is working relatively well. Health care back in 1960 before major government intervention cost about 5% of GDP.

Well, they start intervening and all of the sudden HC is 18% of GDP. And, then all the progressives start saying that the problem is that we didn't give the government enough power.

Kind of reminds me of the IRS targetting Tea Party groups and then blaming lack of funding.

Take note how the least functional markets in the USA are health care, housing, and education, where the government intervenes the most.

We don't have the government run the food industry, and that market works quite well. Ditto for most electronics.

The fact is that profits play a vital role in any economy. They are reinvested and are a signal to producers. Railing against them may get you votes, but it is terrible economics.

See, that's your problem. You care more about economics, then you do peoples lives.

I think that says it all. This is an argument between reason and emotion. You are relying on left wing slogans (PEOPLE OVER PROFITS!) and emotional appeals while I am trying to argue based on reason.

That defines the debate on health care. One one side, you have statists and progressives using emotion. On the other side, you have libertarians using reason.

Ok, sure, I use emotion. You, on the other hand, should go die in a ditch. I actually, honestly, hope you get cancer.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 10:36:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 10:33:38 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:31:16 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:28:08 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:25:24 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:19:52 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:16:51 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 9:31:35 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Seeing how it's forbes magazine that printed the article, forgive me if I'm not inclined to believe that the situation is made to appear [sarcasm]slightly[/sarcasm] skewed. But I come from Canada, where everyone has free health care, and people aren't dying from diseases because they can't afford to treat them.

Okay, so you discount this based on an ad hominem argument.

And, you are from Canada where the state uses force to force you to pay for other people's health care. We have that in the USA too. It's called Medicare and Medicaid.

Government intervention has fucked up both of our health care systems. Instead of debating over who's is better, maybe we should recognize that we both have the same disease.

Actually, a lack of government intervention is what has effed up our health care system, in my opinion. Granted, that's a lack of competent intervention, but most providers of medicine are like war profiterrers in peacetime: they're gouging people simply because they can, because they can get away with it because the people that can't afford it just die.


This is what I love about the government. We have a market that is working relatively well. Health care back in 1960 before major government intervention cost about 5% of GDP.

Well, they start intervening and all of the sudden HC is 18% of GDP. And, then all the progressives start saying that the problem is that we didn't give the government enough power.

Kind of reminds me of the IRS targetting Tea Party groups and then blaming lack of funding.

Take note how the least functional markets in the USA are health care, housing, and education, where the government intervenes the most.

We don't have the government run the food industry, and that market works quite well. Ditto for most electronics.

The fact is that profits play a vital role in any economy. They are reinvested and are a signal to producers. Railing against them may get you votes, but it is terrible economics.

See, that's your problem. You care more about economics, then you do peoples lives.

I think that says it all. This is an argument between reason and emotion. You are relying on left wing slogans (PEOPLE OVER PROFITS!) and emotional appeals while I am trying to argue based on reason.

That defines the debate on health care. One one side, you have statists and progressives using emotion. On the other side, you have libertarians using reason.

Ok, sure, I use emotion. You, on the other hand, should go die in a ditch. I actually, honestly, hope you get cancer.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 10:37:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 10:29:20 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:25:17 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:16:51 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 9:31:35 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Seeing how it's forbes magazine that printed the article, forgive me if I'm not inclined to believe that the situation is made to appear [sarcasm]slightly[/sarcasm] skewed. But I come from Canada, where everyone has free health care, and people aren't dying from diseases because they can't afford to treat them.

Okay, so you discount this based on an ad hominem argument.

No, I discount this based on the fact that if I get cancer I wont have to worry about affording treatment.



How would you even know if you had cancer in Canada?

The usual ways....


Canada is woefully short in MRIs and CAT Scanners, so it is hard to catch cancer early.

And america isn't?


And, even if you do, you have to worry about the out of date technology and long waiting lines.

Uhhhhhh, no to both of those.





And, you are from Canada where the state uses force to force you to pay for other people's health care. We have that in the USA too. It's called Medicare and Medicaid.

Big difference. You guys have what amounts to state sponsored crappy insurance. I can walk into a hospital with a serious injury, and not worry about how much my hospital bill is going to put me back.



Again, you guys pay for HC through higher taxes and longer waiting times. You also have crappy quality HC.

Our free health care is better then yours. And I'll gladly pay high taxes to save someones life.






Government intervention has fucked up both of our health care systems.

It may have fvcked up yours, but it hasn't ours.


I'm sure the government up there tells you that.

And I'm sure you tell yourself that you're more important than everyone else. But, really, you don't deserve the life you have.





Instead of debating over who's is better, maybe we should recognize that we both have the same disease.

No, see, our government health care paid for the treatment. Yours must not have covered it.


Actually, your government treats you all like sheep and relies on your ignorance. They've actually tricked you guys into thinking your coercive, centrally planned, out of date, inefficient, slow health care system is actually something to be proud of.

Yeah, its all a conspiracy. Go tell Alex Jones, he might report on it.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 10:45:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 10:33:38 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:31:16 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:28:08 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:25:24 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:19:52 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:16:51 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 9:31:35 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Seeing how it's forbes magazine that printed the article, forgive me if I'm not inclined to believe that the situation is made to appear [sarcasm]slightly[/sarcasm] skewed. But I come from Canada, where everyone has free health care, and people aren't dying from diseases because they can't afford to treat them.

Okay, so you discount this based on an ad hominem argument.

And, you are from Canada where the state uses force to force you to pay for other people's health care. We have that in the USA too. It's called Medicare and Medicaid.

Government intervention has fucked up both of our health care systems. Instead of debating over who's is better, maybe we should recognize that we both have the same disease.

Actually, a lack of government intervention is what has effed up our health care system, in my opinion. Granted, that's a lack of competent intervention, but most providers of medicine are like war profiterrers in peacetime: they're gouging people simply because they can, because they can get away with it because the people that can't afford it just die.


This is what I love about the government. We have a market that is working relatively well. Health care back in 1960 before major government intervention cost about 5% of GDP.

Well, they start intervening and all of the sudden HC is 18% of GDP. And, then all the progressives start saying that the problem is that we didn't give the government enough power.

Kind of reminds me of the IRS targetting Tea Party groups and then blaming lack of funding.

Take note how the least functional markets in the USA are health care, housing, and education, where the government intervenes the most.

We don't have the government run the food industry, and that market works quite well. Ditto for most electronics.

The fact is that profits play a vital role in any economy. They are reinvested and are a signal to producers. Railing against them may get you votes, but it is terrible economics.

See, that's your problem. You care more about economics, then you do peoples lives.

I think that says it all. This is an argument between reason and emotion. You are relying on left wing slogans (PEOPLE OVER PROFITS!) and emotional appeals while I am trying to argue based on reason.

That defines the debate on health care. One one side, you have statists and progressives using emotion. On the other side, you have libertarians using reason.

Ok, sure, I use emotion. You, on the other hand, should go die in a ditch. I actually, honestly, hope you get cancer.

Wow. That was uncalled for.

You should try a little grace next time you lose an argument.
flaskblob
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 10:47:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 10:28:08 PM, muzebreak wrote:
See, that's your problem. You care more about economics, then you do peoples lives.

*than

Economics is the collective study of how to improve peoples lives.
Of course I'm using those fallacies; they're the only logical ones." - f3ffy
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 10:49:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 10:37:32 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:29:20 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:25:17 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:16:51 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 9:31:35 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Seeing how it's forbes magazine that printed the article, forgive me if I'm not inclined to believe that the situation is made to appear [sarcasm]slightly[/sarcasm] skewed. But I come from Canada, where everyone has free health care, and people aren't dying from diseases because they can't afford to treat them.

Okay, so you discount this based on an ad hominem argument.

No, I discount this based on the fact that if I get cancer I wont have to worry about affording treatment.



How would you even know if you had cancer in Canada?

The usual ways....


Canada is woefully short in MRIs and CAT Scanners, so it is hard to catch cancer early.

And america isn't?

In fact we are not.



And, even if you do, you have to worry about the out of date technology and long waiting lines.

Uhhhhhh, no to both of those.

Again, you are in denial.






And, you are from Canada where the state uses force to force you to pay for other people's health care. We have that in the USA too. It's called Medicare and Medicaid.

Big difference. You guys have what amounts to state sponsored crappy insurance. I can walk into a hospital with a serious injury, and not worry about how much my hospital bill is going to put me back.



Again, you guys pay for HC through higher taxes and longer waiting times. You also have crappy quality HC.

Our free health care is better then yours. And I'll gladly pay high taxes to save someones life.

I'd gladly voluntarily give money to save someone's life. No need to use force. And, no, you health care system isn't very good.







Government intervention has fucked up both of our health care systems.

It may have fvcked up yours, but it hasn't ours.


I'm sure the government up there tells you that.

And I'm sure you tell yourself that you're more important than everyone else. But, really, you don't deserve the life you have.

Wow.






Instead of debating over who's is better, maybe we should recognize that we both have the same disease.

No, see, our government health care paid for the treatment. Yours must not have covered it.


Actually, your government treats you all like sheep and relies on your ignorance. They've actually tricked you guys into thinking your coercive, centrally planned, out of date, inefficient, slow health care system is actually something to be proud of.

Yeah, its all a conspiracy. Go tell Alex Jones, he might report on it.

I think you've embarassed yourself enough.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 10:49:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 10:45:51 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:33:38 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:31:16 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:28:08 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:25:24 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:19:52 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:16:51 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 9:31:35 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Seeing how it's forbes magazine that printed the article, forgive me if I'm not inclined to believe that the situation is made to appear [sarcasm]slightly[/sarcasm] skewed. But I come from Canada, where everyone has free health care, and people aren't dying from diseases because they can't afford to treat them.

Okay, so you discount this based on an ad hominem argument.

And, you are from Canada where the state uses force to force you to pay for other people's health care. We have that in the USA too. It's called Medicare and Medicaid.

Government intervention has fucked up both of our health care systems. Instead of debating over who's is better, maybe we should recognize that we both have the same disease.

Actually, a lack of government intervention is what has effed up our health care system, in my opinion. Granted, that's a lack of competent intervention, but most providers of medicine are like war profiterrers in peacetime: they're gouging people simply because they can, because they can get away with it because the people that can't afford it just die.


This is what I love about the government. We have a market that is working relatively well. Health care back in 1960 before major government intervention cost about 5% of GDP.

Well, they start intervening and all of the sudden HC is 18% of GDP. And, then all the progressives start saying that the problem is that we didn't give the government enough power.

Kind of reminds me of the IRS targetting Tea Party groups and then blaming lack of funding.

Take note how the least functional markets in the USA are health care, housing, and education, where the government intervenes the most.

We don't have the government run the food industry, and that market works quite well. Ditto for most electronics.

The fact is that profits play a vital role in any economy. They are reinvested and are a signal to producers. Railing against them may get you votes, but it is terrible economics.

See, that's your problem. You care more about economics, then you do peoples lives.

I think that says it all. This is an argument between reason and emotion. You are relying on left wing slogans (PEOPLE OVER PROFITS!) and emotional appeals while I am trying to argue based on reason.

That defines the debate on health care. One one side, you have statists and progressives using emotion. On the other side, you have libertarians using reason.

Ok, sure, I use emotion. You, on the other hand, should go die in a ditch. I actually, honestly, hope you get cancer.

Wow. That was uncalled for.

No, it's completely called for. Because that's the fate your logic bestows on many people.


You should try a little grace next time you lose an argument.

I'm perfectly graceful when I lose an argument. I didn't lose an argument though, because there is no argument. Just me telling you you're wrong.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 10:50:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 10:47:22 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:28:08 PM, muzebreak wrote:
See, that's your problem. You care more about economics, then you do peoples lives.

*than

Economics is the collective study of how to improve peoples lives.

That is wrong to an absurd degree.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
flaskblob
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 10:56:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 10:50:38 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:47:22 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:28:08 PM, muzebreak wrote:
See, that's your problem. You care more about economics, then you do peoples lives.

*than

Economics is the collective study of how to improve peoples lives.

That is wrong to an absurd degree.

Please enlighten me as to how efficiently allocating resources harms peoples lives.
Of course I'm using those fallacies; they're the only logical ones." - f3ffy
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 10:57:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 10:56:52 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:50:38 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:47:22 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:28:08 PM, muzebreak wrote:
See, that's your problem. You care more about economics, then you do peoples lives.

*than

Economics is the collective study of how to improve peoples lives.

That is wrong to an absurd degree.

Please enlighten me as to how efficiently allocating resources harms peoples lives.

Please enlighten me as to when I said that.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
flaskblob
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 11:05:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 10:57:53 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:56:52 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:50:38 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:47:22 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:28:08 PM, muzebreak wrote:
See, that's your problem. You care more about economics, then you do peoples lives.

*than

Economics is the collective study of how to improve peoples lives.

That is wrong to an absurd degree.

Please enlighten me as to how efficiently allocating resources harms peoples lives.

Please enlighten me as to when I said that.

Apparently you don't know what the word economics means or what its study entails. Economics is the study of allocating scarce resources efficiently.
Of course I'm using those fallacies; they're the only logical ones." - f3ffy
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 11:08:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 11:05:37 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:57:53 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:56:52 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:50:38 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:47:22 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:28:08 PM, muzebreak wrote:
See, that's your problem. You care more about economics, then you do peoples lives.

*than

Economics is the collective study of how to improve peoples lives.

That is wrong to an absurd degree.

Please enlighten me as to how efficiently allocating resources harms peoples lives.

Please enlighten me as to when I said that.

Apparently you don't know what the word economics means or what its study entails. Economics is the study of allocating scarce resources efficiently.

Apparently you don't know what it is either, then. Because economics is the branch of knowledge concerned with production, consumption, and transfer, of wealth.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
flaskblob
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 11:09:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 11:08:18 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:05:37 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:57:53 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:56:52 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:50:38 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:47:22 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:28:08 PM, muzebreak wrote:
See, that's your problem. You care more about economics, then you do peoples lives.

*than

Economics is the collective study of how to improve peoples lives.

That is wrong to an absurd degree.

Please enlighten me as to how efficiently allocating resources harms peoples lives.

Please enlighten me as to when I said that.

Apparently you don't know what the word economics means or what its study entails. Economics is the study of allocating scarce resources efficiently.

Apparently you don't know what it is either, then. Because economics is the branch of knowledge concerned with production, consumption, and transfer, of wealth.

Except that I'm employed in the field whereas you googled the term and pasted it here.
Of course I'm using those fallacies; they're the only logical ones." - f3ffy
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 11:12:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 11:09:04 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:08:18 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:05:37 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:57:53 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:56:52 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:50:38 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:47:22 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:28:08 PM, muzebreak wrote:
See, that's your problem. You care more about economics, then you do peoples lives.

*than

Economics is the collective study of how to improve peoples lives.

That is wrong to an absurd degree.

Please enlighten me as to how efficiently allocating resources harms peoples lives.

Please enlighten me as to when I said that.

Apparently you don't know what the word economics means or what its study entails. Economics is the study of allocating scarce resources efficiently.

Apparently you don't know what it is either, then. Because economics is the branch of knowledge concerned with production, consumption, and transfer, of wealth.

Except that I'm employed in the field whereas you googled the term and pasted it here.

Cool, an argument from authority. Got any better ones?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
flaskblob
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 11:16:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 11:12:04 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:09:04 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:08:18 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:05:37 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:57:53 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:56:52 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:50:38 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:47:22 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:28:08 PM, muzebreak wrote:
See, that's your problem. You care more about economics, then you do peoples lives.

*than

Economics is the collective study of how to improve peoples lives.

That is wrong to an absurd degree.

Please enlighten me as to how efficiently allocating resources harms peoples lives.

Please enlighten me as to when I said that.

Apparently you don't know what the word economics means or what its study entails. Economics is the study of allocating scarce resources efficiently.

Apparently you don't know what it is either, then. Because economics is the branch of knowledge concerned with production, consumption, and transfer, of wealth.

Except that I'm employed in the field whereas you googled the term and pasted it here.

Cool, an argument from authority. Got any better ones?

I tried to top the aimlessly criticize an entire area of study and post a google definition in defense but I guess i came up short.
Of course I'm using those fallacies; they're the only logical ones." - f3ffy
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 11:16:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 10:49:18 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:45:51 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:33:38 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:31:16 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:28:08 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:25:24 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:19:52 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:16:51 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 5/25/2013 9:31:35 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Seeing how it's forbes magazine that printed the article, forgive me if I'm not inclined to believe that the situation is made to appear [sarcasm]slightly[/sarcasm] skewed. But I come from Canada, where everyone has free health care, and people aren't dying from diseases because they can't afford to treat them.

Okay, so you discount this based on an ad hominem argument.

And, you are from Canada where the state uses force to force you to pay for other people's health care. We have that in the USA too. It's called Medicare and Medicaid.

Government intervention has fucked up both of our health care systems. Instead of debating over who's is better, maybe we should recognize that we both have the same disease.

Actually, a lack of government intervention is what has effed up our health care system, in my opinion. Granted, that's a lack of competent intervention, but most providers of medicine are like war profiterrers in peacetime: they're gouging people simply because they can, because they can get away with it because the people that can't afford it just die.


This is what I love about the government. We have a market that is working relatively well. Health care back in 1960 before major government intervention cost about 5% of GDP.

Well, they start intervening and all of the sudden HC is 18% of GDP. And, then all the progressives start saying that the problem is that we didn't give the government enough power.

Kind of reminds me of the IRS targetting Tea Party groups and then blaming lack of funding.

Take note how the least functional markets in the USA are health care, housing, and education, where the government intervenes the most.

We don't have the government run the food industry, and that market works quite well. Ditto for most electronics.

The fact is that profits play a vital role in any economy. They are reinvested and are a signal to producers. Railing against them may get you votes, but it is terrible economics.

See, that's your problem. You care more about economics, then you do peoples lives.

I think that says it all. This is an argument between reason and emotion. You are relying on left wing slogans (PEOPLE OVER PROFITS!) and emotional appeals while I am trying to argue based on reason.

That defines the debate on health care. One one side, you have statists and progressives using emotion. On the other side, you have libertarians using reason.

Ok, sure, I use emotion. You, on the other hand, should go die in a ditch. I actually, honestly, hope you get cancer.

Wow. That was uncalled for.

No, it's completely called for. Because that's the fate your logic bestows on many people.


You should try a little grace next time you lose an argument.

I'm perfectly graceful when I lose an argument. I didn't lose an argument though, because there is no argument. Just me telling you you're wrong.

I genuinely believe that free market health care will make for better lives. I think your ideas will lead to sicker people, but I also believe your intentions are pure.

You disagree with me. But, that is no reason for you to wish death on me.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 11:18:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 11:16:15 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:12:04 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:09:04 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:08:18 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:05:37 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:57:53 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:56:52 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:50:38 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:47:22 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:28:08 PM, muzebreak wrote:
See, that's your problem. You care more about economics, then you do peoples lives.

*than

Economics is the collective study of how to improve peoples lives.

That is wrong to an absurd degree.

Please enlighten me as to how efficiently allocating resources harms peoples lives.

Please enlighten me as to when I said that.

Apparently you don't know what the word economics means or what its study entails. Economics is the study of allocating scarce resources efficiently.

Apparently you don't know what it is either, then. Because economics is the branch of knowledge concerned with production, consumption, and transfer, of wealth.

Except that I'm employed in the field whereas you googled the term and pasted it here.

Cool, an argument from authority. Got any better ones?

I tried to top the aimlessly criticize an entire area of study and post a google definition in defense but I guess i came up short.

I have yet to criticize economics, so we can put that up there with me saying that efficiently allocating resources harms people, on the list of things you somehow believe I have said, but I really didn't.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
flaskblob
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 11:23:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 11:18:34 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:16:15 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:12:04 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:09:04 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:08:18 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:05:37 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:57:53 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:56:52 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:50:38 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:47:22 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:28:08 PM, muzebreak wrote:
See, that's your problem. You care more about economics, then you do peoples lives.

*than

Economics is the collective study of how to improve peoples lives.

That is wrong to an absurd degree.

Please enlighten me as to how efficiently allocating resources harms peoples lives.

Please enlighten me as to when I said that.

Apparently you don't know what the word economics means or what its study entails. Economics is the study of allocating scarce resources efficiently.

Apparently you don't know what it is either, then. Because economics is the branch of knowledge concerned with production, consumption, and transfer, of wealth.

Except that I'm employed in the field whereas you googled the term and pasted it here.

Cool, an argument from authority. Got any better ones?

I tried to top the aimlessly criticize an entire area of study and post a google definition in defense but I guess i came up short.

I have yet to criticize economics, so we can put that up there with me saying that efficiently allocating resources harms people, on the list of things you somehow believe I have said, but I really didn't.

Ridiculous assertions you have made:

The study of Economics does not improve peoples lives.
Of course I'm using those fallacies; they're the only logical ones." - f3ffy
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 11:26:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 11:23:41 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:18:34 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:16:15 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:12:04 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:09:04 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:08:18 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:05:37 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:57:53 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:56:52 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:50:38 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:47:22 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 10:28:08 PM, muzebreak wrote:
See, that's your problem. You care more about economics, then you do peoples lives.

*than

Economics is the collective study of how to improve peoples lives.

That is wrong to an absurd degree.

Please enlighten me as to how efficiently allocating resources harms peoples lives.

Please enlighten me as to when I said that.

Apparently you don't know what the word economics means or what its study entails. Economics is the study of allocating scarce resources efficiently.

Apparently you don't know what it is either, then. Because economics is the branch of knowledge concerned with production, consumption, and transfer, of wealth.

Except that I'm employed in the field whereas you googled the term and pasted it here.

Cool, an argument from authority. Got any better ones?

I tried to top the aimlessly criticize an entire area of study and post a google definition in defense but I guess i came up short.

I have yet to criticize economics, so we can put that up there with me saying that efficiently allocating resources harms people, on the list of things you somehow believe I have said, but I really didn't.

Ridiculous assertions you have made:

The study of Economics does not improve peoples lives.

Ridiculous assertions you have made:

That I criticized economics

That I said that efficient allocation of resources harms people

That I said the study of economics does not improve peoples lives

Looks like you've made more then me. Does that mean you win or lose?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.