Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

The Individual Mandate

Steelerman6794
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2011 6:31:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I've heard all the conservatives and libertarians (including myself) rail against the horrible precedent the health care mandate would set, but I want to specifically hear from progressives (1) why it's constitutional and (2) what makes it okay to require people to engage in a specific private enterprise.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2011 9:28:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/2/2011 6:31:05 PM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
I've heard all the conservatives and libertarians (including myself) rail against the horrible precedent the health care mandate would set, but I want to specifically hear from progressives (1) why it's constitutional and (2) what makes it okay to require people to engage in a specific private enterprise.

1) I don't care

2) Because it benefits all of society. If we require all people to act a certain way to benefit society, why shouldn't we require everyone to buy something that benefits society?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2011 9:46:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/2/2011 9:28:15 PM, OreEle wrote:

2) Because it benefits all of society.
It benefits the health care industry which is already cartelized/monopolized under state licensing and patents.

The primary determinants of happiness in society are marital and job satisfaction http://econfaculty.gmu.edu... . Massive health care expenditures are totally superfluous.

Also see China which spends ~$200 per person on health care http://en.wikipedia.org... with life expectancy very close to that of the US http://en.wikipedia.org... .

Also see http://www.wikihow.com... for information on how to extend your lifespan. If Americans really cared about their health, they wouldn't eat McDonalds or smoke.

So I don't see why we need to spend another billion billion dollars on health care.

If we require all people to act a certain way to benefit society, why shouldn't we require everyone to buy something that benefits society?

"Benefit society"? Utility and emotions are fundamentally individual. You cannot aggregate them.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2011 9:59:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Does mandating Auto Insurance benefit all of society? No; because it most often costs more to file a claim than what one gets, filing for a claim is frequently skipped to save money. Mandated insurance guarantees that the coerced doesn't benefit. This makes auto-insurance mandates just another tax, except to big business.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2011 11:13:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/2/2011 9:46:28 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 2/2/2011 9:28:15 PM, OreEle wrote:

2) Because it benefits all of society.
It benefits the health care industry which is already cartelized/monopolized under state licensing and patents.

The primary determinants of happiness in society are marital and job satisfaction http://econfaculty.gmu.edu... . Massive health care expenditures are totally superfluous.

happiness =/= benefits to society.


Also see China which spends ~$200 per person on health care http://en.wikipedia.org... with life expectancy very close to that of the US http://en.wikipedia.org... .

And they have an average income of about $1,100 per person, so they are spending about 22% of their income on healthcare. While the US average income is about $50,000, and we spend an average of $7,500 per person on healthcare, or 15% of our income.


Also see http://www.wikihow.com... for information on how to extend your lifespan. If Americans really cared about their health, they wouldn't eat McDonalds or smoke.

So I don't see why we need to spend another billion billion dollars on health care.

We are not spending more, unless we are preforming more operations and procedures (the only difference is that the burden is being shifted and brought forth). Many people don't pay for their operations, thus passing those costs on to other payers.


If we require all people to act a certain way to benefit society, why shouldn't we require everyone to buy something that benefits society?

"Benefit society"? Utility and emotions are fundamentally individual. You cannot aggregate them.

Who is talking about emotions?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2011 11:59:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/2/2011 9:28:15 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/2/2011 6:31:05 PM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
I've heard all the conservatives and libertarians (including myself) rail against the horrible precedent the health care mandate would set, but I want to specifically hear from progressives (1) why it's constitutional and (2) what makes it okay to require people to engage in a specific private enterprise.

1) I don't care
Theres a good argument.
Part of the deal when passing legislation is that we have to abide by the Constitution. The constitution says we can throw it out and make a new one, it says we can make amendments to it in order to fit our needs but until we do one of those two things the government has to abide by it.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2011 1:39:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/2/2011 9:59:43 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Does mandating Auto Insurance benefit all of society? No; because it most often costs more to file a claim than what one gets, filing for a claim is frequently skipped to save money. Mandated insurance guarantees that the coerced doesn't benefit. This makes auto-insurance mandates just another tax, except to big business.

I always thought the comparison to mandatory car insurance is silly. You aren't required to use a car, so you're not required to buy auto insurance the way they're requiring us to buy health insurance.

Basically, I guess they're saying "it's required to live, so you're required to buy health insurance - even if you don't want to". Which is not "you're required to buy auto insurance if you buy a car". There is no "if" in living, but I'm not going suicidal just cause of this bill. I'll just complain about the flaws.

In a few famous words that everyone remembers, but can't recall who said it, "Give me liberty or give me death!"
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2011 3:20:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/3/2011 1:39:17 AM, M.Torres wrote:.

In a few famous words that everyone remembers, but can't recall who said it, "Give me liberty or give me death!"

You can't have liberty and you have to buy this insurance so we can be sure we do our best to keep you from dying.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Steelerman6794
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2011 6:34:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/2/2011 9:28:15 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/2/2011 6:31:05 PM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
I've heard all the conservatives and libertarians (including myself) rail against the horrible precedent the health care mandate would set, but I want to specifically hear from progressives (1) why it's constitutional and (2) what makes it okay to require people to engage in a specific private enterprise.

1) I don't care


Er...you better. That's how our gov't works.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2011 9:21:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/3/2011 6:34:47 AM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
At 2/2/2011 9:28:15 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/2/2011 6:31:05 PM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
I've heard all the conservatives and libertarians (including myself) rail against the horrible precedent the health care mandate would set, but I want to specifically hear from progressives (1) why it's constitutional and (2) what makes it okay to require people to engage in a specific private enterprise.

1) I don't care


Er...you better. That's how our gov't works.

Really? As seeing how different people read the constitution completely differently, its objectivity is gone, even at the supreme court level. There are already numerous laws that violate the constitution (pending on how you read the constitution). And since we only abide by it when it is convenient for us, and ignore it when it is not, it doesn't matter.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2011 9:23:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/2/2011 11:59:19 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/2/2011 9:28:15 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/2/2011 6:31:05 PM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
I've heard all the conservatives and libertarians (including myself) rail against the horrible precedent the health care mandate would set, but I want to specifically hear from progressives (1) why it's constitutional and (2) what makes it okay to require people to engage in a specific private enterprise.

1) I don't care
Theres a good argument.
Part of the deal when passing legislation is that we have to abide by the Constitution. The constitution says we can throw it out and make a new one, it says we can make amendments to it in order to fit our needs but until we do one of those two things the government has to abide by it.

Appeal to authority.

Or you could just ignore the constitution (i.e. throw it out and only keep it as a historical document) and not make a new one.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2011 10:54:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/2/2011 11:13:55 PM, OreEle wrote:

happiness =/= benefits to society.
So you'd support policies that make people less happy? That's a weird kind of utilitarianism.

Also see China which spends ~$200 per person on health care http://en.wikipedia.org... with life expectancy very close to that of the US http://en.wikipedia.org... .

And they have an average income of about $1,100 per person, so they are spending about 22% of their income on healthcare. While the US average income is about $50,000, and we spend an average of $7,500 per person on healthcare, or 15% of our income.

Not a rebuttal. I never made pct based arguments.

Also see http://www.wikihow.com... for information on how to extend your lifespan. If Americans really cared about their health, they wouldn't eat McDonalds or smoke.

We are not spending more, unless we are preforming more operations and procedures (the only difference is that the burden is being shifted and brought forth). Many people don't pay for their operations, thus passing those costs on to other payers.

1) We will spend more because more people will have and use insurance. You're imagining that the healthcare will cover stuff people go in for anyway, which is mostly emergencies. It neglects the non-emergency part of health care...

2) You should ask why the costs get shifted onto other payers

3) If the hypothesis is that some people can't pay for health insurance so they shift costs onto others, forcing them to buy insurance isn't going to raise revenues since we JUST sad they don't have the money for it. You'd have to maintain that people have these untapped savings accounts that they just stonewall the hospitals over... Evidence?

If we require all people to act a certain way to benefit society, why shouldn't we require everyone to buy something that benefits society?

"Benefit society"? Utility and emotions are fundamentally individual. You cannot aggregate them.

Who is talking about emotions?

So what are you talking about? "Social benefit" is what? If it isn't emotions, it clearly isn't something that individuals feel...
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2011 12:07:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/3/2011 10:54:09 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 2/2/2011 11:13:55 PM, OreEle wrote:

happiness =/= benefits to society.
So you'd support policies that make people less happy? That's a weird kind of utilitarianism.

Happiness, while something that should be promoted, is not the ultimate objective that takes place above everything else.


Also see China which spends ~$200 per person on health care http://en.wikipedia.org... with life expectancy very close to that of the US http://en.wikipedia.org... .

And they have an average income of about $1,100 per person, so they are spending about 22% of their income on healthcare. While the US average income is about $50,000, and we spend an average of $7,500 per person on healthcare, or 15% of our income.

Not a rebuttal. I never made pct based arguments.

Of course you didn't, because the pct show that China pays more then we do in respect to the average person's income. You brought up China to suggest that they pay so little yet have a similar life span. I showed that it was wrong and that they actually pay more.


Also see http://www.wikihow.com... for information on how to extend your lifespan. If Americans really cared about their health, they wouldn't eat McDonalds or smoke.

We are not spending more, unless we are preforming more operations and procedures (the only difference is that the burden is being shifted and brought forth). Many people don't pay for their operations, thus passing those costs on to other payers.

1) We will spend more because more people will have and use insurance. You're imagining that the healthcare will cover stuff people go in for anyway, which is mostly emergencies. It neglects the non-emergency part of health care...

http://www.nejm.org...

Unfortunately, healthcare options are not so simple that it is either preventive care or emergency care, as a dichotomy, but more of a sliding scale. So obviously extreme preventive care will be very costly, while doing only emergency care will also be very costly.

The ideal way to save money will be to get everyone into the right balance of the two, so that everyone is paying the least, and so our nation is paying the least possible (without simply scaping the notion that people ought be covered).


2) You should ask why the costs get shifted onto other payers

Because some people can't pay, and the hospitals need to make those losses up somehow. That means higher costs for everything. The less that don't pay, the less that we need to eat those higher costs.


3) If the hypothesis is that some people can't pay for health insurance so they shift costs onto others, forcing them to buy insurance isn't going to raise revenues since we JUST sad they don't have the money for it. You'd have to maintain that people have these untapped savings accounts that they just stonewall the hospitals over... Evidence?

The hypothesis is that they (many people) can't afford the emergency care (which can add up to over $100,000 real quick). Those that can't afford the actual insurance have it subsidized. Those that can afford it, but choose not to, lose that option.


If we require all people to act a certain way to benefit society, why shouldn't we require everyone to buy something that benefits society?

"Benefit society"? Utility and emotions are fundamentally individual. You cannot aggregate them.

Who is talking about emotions?

So what are you talking about? "Social benefit" is what? If it isn't emotions, it clearly isn't something that individuals feel...

First, you have to look at what is society. Society is the collection of individuals. So while it is impossible to cater to each and every individual within society, it is possible to cater to the masses of society, the commonalities of which most individuals share.

To benefit society is to attempt to make society, as a whole, a better place to live for the average individual. Like providing a safe environment for children to learn in. To help the poor to an extent that their children can continue and finish school and not have to drop out to help their parents pay for food (which would cut short their own education and have a negative impact on their future).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Walrasian_Equilibrium
Posts: 52
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2011 12:28:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
People are diverse. Something seemingly uncontroversial like trying to make the average person better off is in reality very difficult because everyone wants different things. That's why economists developed things like Pareto Optimality. Making the average person better off is a daunting/impossible/incoherent task--much easier to unambiguously increase overall welfare.

Also Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. Hard to talk about social choice without it. Good luck trying to aggregate preferences. Making society better off really isn't the same thing as making the average person better off.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2011 12:29:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/3/2011 12:07:59 PM, OreEle wrote:

So you'd support policies that make people less happy? That's a weird kind of utilitarianism.

Happiness, while something that should be promoted, is not the ultimate objective that takes place above everything else.
Please be less specific about your criterion for policy.

Not a rebuttal. I never made pct based arguments.

Of course you didn't, because the pct show that China pays more then we do in respect to the average person's income. You brought up China to suggest that they pay so little yet have a similar life span. I showed that it was wrong and that they actually pay more.

More as a pct of their income. But if we also paid $200 for health care, we'd probably have the same life expectancy ceteris parabis. Quality depends on absolute dollar amounts, not some fraction of your total income... FFS man if I buy an iPod, its the same as Tiger Woods', even though its a tinier fraction of his income.

Unfortunately, healthcare options are not so simple that it is either preventive care or emergency care, as a dichotomy, but more of a sliding scale. So obviously extreme preventive care will be very costly, while doing only emergency care will also be very costly.

Red herring. I'm not proposing that we do one or the other. I'm saying that the TYPE of care currently shifted to others tends to be emergency-type care, while less urgent medical problems ALSO covered under the health plan are currently NOT shifted to others. So you can't make the shifting costs argument with a straight face.

The ideal way to save money will be to get everyone into the right balance of the two, so that everyone is paying the least, and so our nation is paying the least possible (without simply scaping the notion that people ought be covered).
Or you could like, scrap government health care because no one really wants it and its grossly inefficient.

2) You should ask why the costs get shifted onto other payers

Because some people can't pay, and the hospitals need to make those losses up somehow. That means higher costs for everything. The less that don't pay, the less that we need to eat those higher costs.

Why doesn't someone open a hospital that doesn't shift costs? They could have lower prices for paying customers and undercut all the other hospitals.

Herpa derp lets work inside the existing system by adding more laws instead of removing cancerous regulatory codes propping up state cartels herpa derp.

The hypothesis is that they (many people) can't afford the emergency care (which can add up to over $100,000 real quick). Those that can't afford the actual insurance have it subsidized. Those that can afford it, but choose not to, lose that option.

This seems like it would exacerbate the issue of cost-pushing. Make up your mind man.

First, you have to look at what is society. Society is the collection of individuals. So while it is impossible to cater to each and every individual within society,
Why is it impossible to cater? Half the people like pepsi. Half the people like coke. They go buy their soft drinks of choice and win.

That's also a loaded word... I don't know how far "cater" goes. Presumably it means to fulfill their desires. But humans have infinite desires so...

it is possible to cater to the masses of society, the commonalities of which most individuals share.
But even though all individuals need oxygen, their need is still fundamentally INDIVIDUAL. If you value oxygen, it makes sense to value it on an individualistic basis. The need for oxygen has no "collective" sense.

You're also implicitly making interpersonal comparisons of utility because the health care plan is a zero sum game. Resources must be taken from elsewhere in the economy and funneled into health care. What's the net effect? Dunno, because value is fundamentally individual and subjective.

To benefit society is to attempt to make society, as a whole, a better place to live for the average individual. Like providing a safe environment for children to learn in. To help the poor to an extent that their children can continue and finish school and not have to drop out to help their parents pay for food (which would cut short their own education and have a negative impact on their future).

So its basically just whatever will make you feel good about yourself. Because I already gave you evidence that people were happiest when their careers and marriages were doing well, and I already gave you evidence that people don't care about health care. But that's okay because for some reason happiness isn't even on your radar. This is just some liberal masturbatory fantasy. Go play with your lego cities and stop pointing a gun in my face.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2011 1:08:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/3/2011 12:29:04 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 2/3/2011 12:07:59 PM, OreEle wrote:

So you'd support policies that make people less happy? That's a weird kind of utilitarianism.

Happiness, while something that should be promoted, is not the ultimate objective that takes place above everything else.
Please be less specific about your criterion for policy.

That's irrelevant for this particular topic.


Not a rebuttal. I never made pct based arguments.

Of course you didn't, because the pct show that China pays more then we do in respect to the average person's income. You brought up China to suggest that they pay so little yet have a similar life span. I showed that it was wrong and that they actually pay more.

More as a pct of their income. But if we also paid $200 for health care, we'd probably have the same life expectancy ceteris parabis. Quality depends on absolute dollar amounts, not some fraction of your total income... FFS man if I buy an iPod, its the same as Tiger Woods', even though its a tinier fraction of his income.

An ipod in the US costs a different amount then an ipod in China, or in Italy, or in any other nation, yet they are of the same quality. Ergo, quality cannot be measured in absolute dollars.


Unfortunately, healthcare options are not so simple that it is either preventive care or emergency care, as a dichotomy, but more of a sliding scale. So obviously extreme preventive care will be very costly, while doing only emergency care will also be very costly.

Red herring. I'm not proposing that we do one or the other. I'm saying that the TYPE of care currently shifted to others tends to be emergency-type care, while less urgent medical problems ALSO covered under the health plan are currently NOT shifted to others. So you can't make the shifting costs argument with a straight face.

I never said you were. Since the emergency care is shifted by hospitals to those that can pay, they try to ease the burden by shifting it all around, not just to the same procedure, that shift is picked up by those that can pay, which is mostly the insurance companies, who also shift it around to everyone. Which includes the preventive care things.


The ideal way to save money will be to get everyone into the right balance of the two, so that everyone is paying the least, and so our nation is paying the least possible (without simply scaping the notion that people ought be covered).
Or you could like, scrap government health care because no one really wants it and its grossly inefficient.

Yeah, those millions on medicare don't really want it.


2) You should ask why the costs get shifted onto other payers

Because some people can't pay, and the hospitals need to make those losses up somehow. That means higher costs for everything. The less that don't pay, the less that we need to eat those higher costs.

Why doesn't someone open a hospital that doesn't shift costs? They could have lower prices for paying customers and undercut all the other hospitals.

Because it would go out of business. Every company has an estimated budget of writen off collections. They predict how much they think that they will fail to collect on (this is usually an adjustment of the aging report). Those losses have to be made up somehow. Now, if you are making $30 million in revenue, and you have $10 million in written off collections, then you can take the hit. But if you have $5 million in revenue and $10 million in written off collections, then you can't. You have to raise your revenue.


Herpa derp lets work inside the existing system by adding more laws instead of removing cancerous regulatory codes propping up state cartels herpa derp.

Strawman. No one said that we couldn't remove poor regulatory codes.


The hypothesis is that they (many people) can't afford the emergency care (which can add up to over $100,000 real quick). Those that can't afford the actual insurance have it subsidized. Those that can afford it, but choose not to, lose that option.

This seems like it would exacerbate the issue of cost-pushing. Make up your mind man.

No, because those that cannot pay and wait until they have that $100,000 bill (which gets passed on) would pass on less if they were provided with subsidized preventive care (subsidized by the tax payers) rather then provided with subsidized emergency care (subsidized by the insurance payers).



First, you have to look at what is society. Society is the collection of individuals. So while it is impossible to cater to each and every individual within society,
Why is it impossible to cater? Half the people like pepsi. Half the people like coke. They go buy their soft drinks of choice and win.

That's also a loaded word... I don't know how far "cater" goes. Presumably it means to fulfill their desires. But humans have infinite desires so...

I'd say it means (the way I mean it when I say it), to make a reasonable attempt to fulfill. Now for unreasonable deisres, there cannot be a reasonable attempt (however, "reasonable" itself is a subjective word).


it is possible to cater to the masses of society, the commonalities of which most individuals share.
But even though all individuals need oxygen, their need is still fundamentally INDIVIDUAL. If you value oxygen, it makes sense to value it on an individualistic basis. The need for oxygen has no "collective" sense.

It only doesn't because of its abundance. If it was not abundent, then it would, like the collective need for clean water.


You're also implicitly making interpersonal comparisons of utility because the health care plan is a zero sum game. Resources must be taken from elsewhere in the economy and funneled into health care. What's the net effect? Dunno, because value is fundamentally individual and subjective.

It actually frees up money, because preventive care saves money, rather then costs money.


To benefit society is to attempt to make society, as a whole, a better place to live for the average individual. Like providing a safe environment for children to learn in. To help the poor to an extent that their children can continue and finish school and not have to drop out to help their parents pay for food (which would cut short their own education and have a negative impact on their future).

So its basically just whatever will make you feel good about yourself. Because I already gave you evidence that people were happiest when their careers and marriages were doing well, and I already gave you evidence that people don't care about health care. But that's okay because for some reason happiness isn't even on your radar. This is just some liberal masturbatory fantasy. Go play with your lego cities and stop pointing a gun in my face.

Another hissy fit?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2011 1:45:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/3/2011 1:08:40 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/3/2011 12:29:04 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 2/3/2011 12:07:59 PM, OreEle wrote:

So you'd support policies that make people less happy? That's a weird kind of utilitarianism.

Happiness, while something that should be promoted, is not the ultimate objective that takes place above everything else.
Please be less specific about your criterion for policy.

That's irrelevant for this particular topic.
It is what you're using to justify health care. It is relevant.

More as a pct of their income. But if we also paid $200 for health care, we'd probably have the same life expectancy ceteris parabis. Quality depends on absolute dollar amounts, not some fraction of your total income... FFS man if I buy an iPod, its the same as Tiger Woods', even though its a tinier fraction of his income.

An ipod in the US costs a different amount then an ipod in China, or in Italy, or in any other nation, yet they are of the same quality. Ergo, quality cannot be measured in absolute dollars.

*Yawn* So just get a PPP, which my source already included. http://en.wikipedia.org... Do you know ANYTHING about economics or economic metrics? Please make more elementary mistakes to waste my time.

I never said you were. Since the emergency care is shifted by hospitals to those that can pay, they try to ease the burden by shifting it all around, not just to the same procedure, that shift is picked up by those that can pay, which is mostly the insurance companies, who also shift it around to everyone. Which includes the preventive care things.

Way to dodge my observation that the health plan doesn't just avoid cost shifting - that it in fact increases expenditures.

Yeah, those millions on medicare don't really want it.
People tend to take free things. Also, complete non rebuttal to my evidence.

Why doesn't someone open a hospital that doesn't shift costs? They could have lower prices for paying customers and undercut all the other hospitals.

I can't read
Err, why isn't there a hospital that doesn't treat people who don't pay. I.e. ONLY SERVES PAYING CUSTOMERS. Someone who can't pay does not receive services, so the hospital would be able to charge lower prices because it does not shift costs.

Herpa derp lets work inside the existing system by adding more laws instead of removing cancerous regulatory codes propping up state cartels herpa derp.

Strawman. No one said that we couldn't remove poor regulatory codes.

The problems in health care are caused by these laws. Address them first, then see what happens.

No, because those that cannot pay and wait until they have that $100,000 bill (which gets passed on) would pass on less if they were provided with subsidized preventive care (subsidized by the tax payers) rather then provided with subsidized emergency care (subsidized by the insurance payers).

Subsidizing something doesn't make it cost less overall. Preventive care, if it is indeed cheaper, would be provided for free by hospitals so they wouldn't have to eat the hardcore emergency costs.

I'd say it means (the way I mean it when I say it), to make a reasonable attempt to fulfill. Now for unreasonable deisres, there cannot be a reasonable attempt (however, "reasonable" itself is a subjective word).

Way to shift the ambiguity from "cater" to "reasonable".

It only doesn't because of its abundance. If it was not abundent, then it would, like the collective need for clean water.

Uhh missing the point. Its about value being fundamentally individual. So when you say "oxygen existing is good for the collective", that doesn't make any sense because value is subjective and individual.

It actually frees up money, because preventive care saves money, rather then costs money.

And how does that balance against people's new behavior under universal health care? And even if you save money, you STILL are making interpersonal comparisons of utility because there are net tax consumers and net tax payers.

So its basically just whatever will make you feel good about yourself. Because I already gave you evidence that people were happiest when their careers and marriages were doing well, and I already gave you evidence that people don't care about health care. But that's okay because for some reason happiness isn't even on your radar. This is just some liberal masturbatory fantasy. Go play with your lego cities and stop pointing a gun in my face.

Another hissy fit?

Another non-rebuttal? Durr I spend 2% of my income on an iPod, so bill gates must also spend 2% of his income to get a similar product herp derp
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2011 1:54:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/2/2011 6:31:05 PM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
I've heard all the conservatives and libertarians (including myself) rail against the horrible precedent the health care mandate would set, but I want to specifically hear from progressives (1) why it's constitutional and (2) what makes it okay to require people to engage in a specific private enterprise.:

Neo-conservatives should take notice. ObamaCare is RomneyCare repackaged, and those conservatives were all for it. But as long as it says Obama on it, they hate it. Romney is also frantically trying to disassociate himself with the bill because he knows he'll lose his base of rightwing loonies.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2011 2:26:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/3/2011 1:45:58 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 2/3/2011 1:08:40 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/3/2011 12:29:04 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 2/3/2011 12:07:59 PM, OreEle wrote:

So you'd support policies that make people less happy? That's a weird kind of utilitarianism.

Happiness, while something that should be promoted, is not the ultimate objective that takes place above everything else.
Please be less specific about your criterion for policy.

That's irrelevant for this particular topic.
It is what you're using to justify health care. It is relevant.

What I use for this policy is relevant, not what I use for policy in general. I've already said the criteria for this particular one.




More as a pct of their income. But if we also paid $200 for health care, we'd probably have the same life expectancy ceteris parabis. Quality depends on absolute dollar amounts, not some fraction of your total income... FFS man if I buy an iPod, its the same as Tiger Woods', even though its a tinier fraction of his income.

An ipod in the US costs a different amount then an ipod in China, or in Italy, or in any other nation, yet they are of the same quality. Ergo, quality cannot be measured in absolute dollars.

*Yawn* So just get a PPP, which my source already included. http://en.wikipedia.org... Do you know ANYTHING about economics or economic metrics? Please make more elementary mistakes to waste my time.

It still makes little difference when compared to their average income.

China is 5.25% and the US is 4.55%

http://www.worldsalaries.org...
http://www.worldsalaries.org...


I never said you were. Since the emergency care is shifted by hospitals to those that can pay, they try to ease the burden by shifting it all around, not just to the same procedure, that shift is picked up by those that can pay, which is mostly the insurance companies, who also shift it around to everyone. Which includes the preventive care things.

Way to dodge my observation that the health plan doesn't just avoid cost shifting - that it in fact increases expenditures.

Yeah, those millions on medicare don't really want it.
People tend to take free things. Also, complete non rebuttal to my evidence.

No rebuttal was needed, since it was false. You stated that Americans don't want government healthcare, and I showed that millions do.


Why doesn't someone open a hospital that doesn't shift costs? They could have lower prices for paying customers and undercut all the other hospitals.

I can't read
Err, why isn't there a hospital that doesn't treat people who don't pay. I.e. ONLY SERVES PAYING CUSTOMERS. Someone who can't pay does not receive services, so the hospital would be able to charge lower prices because it does not shift costs.

Because people and insurance pay AFTER the service, not before. Insurance companies are not going to cough up money for procedures before they are done. If you require people to wait, then they will leave and go somewhere else, where they can get the treatment that they need.

You will limit yourself to only people that can pay upfront and so, only be able to work with a very small portion of the population (those that have tens of thousands of dollars saved up that they can go spend). Given that small niche, you won't be able to under cut the other hosipitals because your target group is too small.


Herpa derp lets work inside the existing system by adding more laws instead of removing cancerous regulatory codes propping up state cartels herpa derp.

Strawman. No one said that we couldn't remove poor regulatory codes.

The problems in health care are caused by these laws. Address them first, then see what happens.

Address them both.


No, because those that cannot pay and wait until they have that $100,000 bill (which gets passed on) would pass on less if they were provided with subsidized preventive care (subsidized by the tax payers) rather then provided with subsidized emergency care (subsidized by the insurance payers).

Subsidizing something doesn't make it cost less overall. Preventive care, if it is indeed cheaper, would be provided for free by hospitals so they wouldn't have to eat the hardcore emergency costs.

Why on earth would they do that? They want to make money (at least break even). Treating people for free does not reach that goal, and doing preventive care cuts into their emergency care (which is a big source of revenue).


I'd say it means (the way I mean it when I say it), to make a reasonable attempt to fulfill. Now for unreasonable deisres, there cannot be a reasonable attempt (however, "reasonable" itself is a subjective word).

Way to shift the ambiguity from "cater" to "reasonable".

It only doesn't because of its abundance. If it was not abundent, then it would, like the collective need for clean water.

Uhh missing the point. Its about value being fundamentally individual. So when you say "oxygen existing is good for the collective", that doesn't make any sense because value is subjective and individual.

True, different things have different values to different people, but regardless of how they personally value it, they still need it to survive, and so it still has a value to them (except the suicidal).


It actually frees up money, because preventive care saves money, rather then costs money.

And how does that balance against people's new behavior under universal health care? And even if you save money, you STILL are making interpersonal comparisons of utility because there are net tax consumers and net tax payers.

So its basically just whatever will make you feel good about yourself. Because I already gave you evidence that people were happiest when their careers and marriages were doing well, and I already gave you evidence that people don't care about health care. But that's okay because for some reason happiness isn't even on your radar. This is just some liberal masturbatory fantasy. Go play with your lego cities and stop pointing a gun in my face.

Another hissy fit?

Another non-rebuttal? Durr I spend 2% of my income on an iPod, so bill gates must also spend 2% of his income to get a similar product herp derp

Your logic is amazing.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2011 3:16:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/3/2011 2:26:10 PM, OreEle wrote:

What I use for this policy is relevant, not what I use for policy in general. I've already said the criteria for this particular one.
No you've been entirely unclear and evasive.

*Yawn* So just get a PPP, which my source already included. http://en.wikipedia.org... Do you know ANYTHING about economics or economic metrics? Please make more elementary mistakes to waste my time.

It still makes little difference when compared to their average income.

China is 5.25% and the US is 4.55%

http://www.worldsalaries.org...
http://www.worldsalaries.org...

Happenstance. Please use economic logic instead of cherry picking which statistical metric you use.

Yeah, those millions on medicare don't really want it.
People tend to take free things. Also, complete non rebuttal to my evidence.

No rebuttal was needed, since it was false. You stated that Americans don't want government healthcare, and I showed that millions do.

No you didn't. You just said that rich people take medicare. I showed that there are very easy ways to improve your health that people don't follow. If people wanted health care they wouldn't smoke or gorge themselves on fast food and soda.

Because people and insurance pay AFTER the service, not before. Insurance companies are not going to cough up money for procedures before they are done. If you require people to wait, then they will leave and go somewhere else, where they can get the treatment that they need.

... Lol. So hospitals could just require that you establish ability to pay before you go in for a service. Its just like OTHER industries where you pay "after" you receive the service. Restaurants, tech support, etc. This is a total non-issue in economic text books.

You will limit yourself to only people that can pay upfront and so, only be able to work with a very small portion of the population (those that have tens of thousands of dollars saved up that they can go spend). Given that small niche, you won't be able to under cut the other hosipitals because your target group is too small.

How do you know? Most people have health insurance. I'm asking where there aren't hospitals that only serve people who can pay (whether out of pocket or insurance). Stop dodging the question.

Herpa derp lets work inside the existing system by adding more laws instead of removing cancerous regulatory codes propping up state cartels herpa derp.

Strawman. No one said that we couldn't remove poor regulatory codes.

The problems in health care are caused by these laws. Address them first, then see what happens.

Address them both.
What "them both"? You don't know what will happen to health care if the cartels are broken.

Subsidizing something doesn't make it cost less overall. Preventive care, if it is indeed cheaper, would be provided for free by hospitals so they wouldn't have to eat the hardcore emergency costs.

Why on earth would they do that? They want to make money (at least break even). Treating people for free does not reach that goal, and doing preventive care cuts into their emergency care (which is a big source of revenue).

Are you dumb? If they're going to spend 10X treating people ANYWAY for emergencies, it makes more sense for them to spend X on the preventive care.

Uhh missing the point. Its about value being fundamentally individual. So when you say "oxygen existing is good for the collective", that doesn't make any sense because value is subjective and individual.

True, different things have different values to different people, but regardless of how they personally value it, they still need it to survive, and so it still has a value to them (except the suicidal).

So what? So homogenizing everything into "social benefit" is bs? Exactly.

Another non-rebuttal? Durr I spend 2% of my income on an iPod, so bill gates must also spend 2% of his income to get a similar product herp derp

Your logic is amazing.
That's YOUR logic. YOU'RE the one claiming we should look at pct income. Its incredibly stupid and I wonder how you function in life if you think like this.

Hey, I know. I'll give you 50% of my income, and you give me 50% of yours. Problem?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2011 4:14:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/2/2011 9:28:15 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/2/2011 6:31:05 PM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
I've heard all the conservatives and libertarians (including myself) rail against the horrible precedent the health care mandate would set, but I want to specifically hear from progressives (1) why it's constitutional and (2) what makes it okay to require people to engage in a specific private enterprise.

1) I don't care

2) Because it benefits all of society. If we require all people to act a certain way to benefit society, why shouldn't we require everyone to buy something that benefits society?
Your main points are being taken care of but...
You realize that your ideological compatriots are always trying to convince us that slippery slopes aren't real?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2011 5:30:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/3/2011 4:14:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/2/2011 9:28:15 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/2/2011 6:31:05 PM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
I've heard all the conservatives and libertarians (including myself) rail against the horrible precedent the health care mandate would set, but I want to specifically hear from progressives (1) why it's constitutional and (2) what makes it okay to require people to engage in a specific private enterprise.

1) I don't care

2) Because it benefits all of society. If we require all people to act a certain way to benefit society, why shouldn't we require everyone to buy something that benefits society?
Your main points are being taken care of but...
You realize that your ideological compatriots are always trying to convince us that slippery slopes aren't real?

Slippery slopes are not real by default. I would plan on going a certian distance and stopping. There are some people that want to go in the same direction as me, but not as far, and there are some people that want to go the same direction as me, but even further. Just like there are for every political position.

But it is not true that just because we are making a step to the left that we are going, by default, make another step to the left, and then another, then another, then...

That logic would tell us that any action, taken in any direction, means that we will go to the extreme of that side. That any cut in taxes is going to lead to the disolving of all taxes. That any cuts in government will lead to anarchy. That any increases in government will lead to communism.

Those arguments that something will lead to another, by default, is false. Of course, there are some cases where people admit that they want to go further.

Like the measure to start up medical marijuana distributors in Oregon, the leader of the initive said that "this is the first step to legalizing personal majiuana use." He said that if it worked out well, they would keep pushing in the next election.

If you want, I could tell you exactly what I want to see for Healthcare in this nation, and that is where I would stop.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2011 9:59:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/3/2011 5:30:15 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/3/2011 4:14:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/2/2011 9:28:15 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/2/2011 6:31:05 PM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
I've heard all the conservatives and libertarians (including myself) rail against the horrible precedent the health care mandate would set, but I want to specifically hear from progressives (1) why it's constitutional and (2) what makes it okay to require people to engage in a specific private enterprise.

1) I don't care

2) Because it benefits all of society. If we require all people to act a certain way to benefit society, why shouldn't we require everyone to buy something that benefits society?
Your main points are being taken care of but...
You realize that your ideological compatriots are always trying to convince us that slippery slopes aren't real?

Slippery slopes are not real by default. I would plan on going a certian distance and stopping.
The same is what was said every time we "required people to act a certain way to benefit society." Now here you are "Well, we already do that, lets slip down this damn slope."

But it is not true that just because we are making a step to the left that we are going, by default, make another step to the left
It is true that you just attempted to justify a step to the left by the fact of a previous step to the left.

That logic would tell us that any action, taken in any direction, means that we will go to the extreme of that side. That any cut in taxes is going to lead to the disolving of all taxes.
If taken ON THE BASIS of being a cut in taxes, it will. And I will openly admit that what I want is the extreme. But you will not, and hence you have a problem.

If you want, I could tell you exactly what I want to see for Healthcare in this nation, and that is where I would stop.
And then the next guy will say ""we're already doing" (where you stopped). And when pressed on this, he'll say "Oh no, we'll stop" (somewhere else).

And then there's the next guy...
If everyone along the way is placated by this, then it will never stop. And yet you attempt to placate us. ^_^
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2011 11:07:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/3/2011 9:59:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/3/2011 5:30:15 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/3/2011 4:14:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/2/2011 9:28:15 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/2/2011 6:31:05 PM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
I've heard all the conservatives and libertarians (including myself) rail against the horrible precedent the health care mandate would set, but I want to specifically hear from progressives (1) why it's constitutional and (2) what makes it okay to require people to engage in a specific private enterprise.

1) I don't care

2) Because it benefits all of society. If we require all people to act a certain way to benefit society, why shouldn't we require everyone to buy something that benefits society?
Your main points are being taken care of but...
You realize that your ideological compatriots are always trying to convince us that slippery slopes aren't real?

Slippery slopes are not real by default. I would plan on going a certian distance and stopping.
The same is what was said every time we "required people to act a certain way to benefit society." Now here you are "Well, we already do that, lets slip down this damn slope."

But it is not true that just because we are making a step to the left that we are going, by default, make another step to the left
It is true that you just attempted to justify a step to the left by the fact of a previous step to the left.

No you don't. One says, I want to take 10 steps to the left, but let's start with 1 at a time. That is completely different from saying that they only want 1 step to the left total.

Of course, it is true that some people will lie and say that they only want 1 step, when they want 10, however to assume that everyone is always lying and that they always want the extreme is what makes it a fallacy.


That logic would tell us that any action, taken in any direction, means that we will go to the extreme of that side. That any cut in taxes is going to lead to the disolving of all taxes.
If taken ON THE BASIS of being a cut in taxes, it will. And I will openly admit that what I want is the extreme. But you will not, and hence you have a problem.

I don't want the extreme (well, you might consider it extreme, since it is the opposite direction then what you want), and I would fight against the extreme because I recognize that the far extreme is not benefitial.


If you want, I could tell you exactly what I want to see for Healthcare in this nation, and that is where I would stop.
And then the next guy will say ""we're already doing" (where you stopped). And when pressed on this, he'll say "Oh no, we'll stop" (somewhere else).

And then there's the next guy...
If everyone along the way is placated by this, then it will never stop. And yet you attempt to placate us. ^_^

You should only be placated by logic, and if logic supports the extreme, then it is fine, but logic doesn't support the extreme, so there is no reason to be placated to it, only tricked to it.

And I would fight against him, not on the grounds of a slippery slope, but because I believe that the destination that I picked out is better then the destination that he picked out.

That is what every person should do, pick a destination that they believe is best and fight to reach that destination.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2011 12:00:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/4/2011 11:07:06 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/3/2011 9:59:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/3/2011 5:30:15 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/3/2011 4:14:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/2/2011 9:28:15 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/2/2011 6:31:05 PM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
I've heard all the conservatives and libertarians (including myself) rail against the horrible precedent the health care mandate would set, but I want to specifically hear from progressives (1) why it's constitutional and (2) what makes it okay to require people to engage in a specific private enterprise.

1) I don't care

2) Because it benefits all of society. If we require all people to act a certain way to benefit society, why shouldn't we require everyone to buy something that benefits society?
Your main points are being taken care of but...
You realize that your ideological compatriots are always trying to convince us that slippery slopes aren't real?

Slippery slopes are not real by default. I would plan on going a certian distance and stopping.
The same is what was said every time we "required people to act a certain way to benefit society." Now here you are "Well, we already do that, lets slip down this damn slope."

But it is not true that just because we are making a step to the left that we are going, by default, make another step to the left
It is true that you just attempted to justify a step to the left by the fact of a previous step to the left.

No you don't. One says, I want to take 10 steps to the left, but let's start with 1 at a time. That is completely different from saying that they only want 1 step to the left total.
Whereas a third is "We already took 9 steps, let's take one more."


That logic would tell us that any action, taken in any direction, means that we will go to the extreme of that side. That any cut in taxes is going to lead to the disolving of all taxes.
If taken ON THE BASIS of being a cut in taxes, it will. And I will openly admit that what I want is the extreme. But you will not, and hence you have a problem.

I don't want the extreme (well, you might consider it extreme, since it is the opposite direction then what you want), and I would fight against the extreme because I recognize that the far extreme is not benefitial.
On what grounds?
Hint, you have a logical problem if the same grounds could attack the non extreme, it's known as ad hoc.

You should only be placated by logic, and if logic supports the extreme
Logic always supports AN extreme. It can never support moderation, i.e., inconsistent application of a premise.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2011 3:53:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/2/2011 6:31:05 PM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
I've heard all the conservatives and libertarians (including myself) rail against the horrible precedent the health care mandate would set, but I want to specifically hear from progressives (1) why it's constitutional and (2) what makes it okay to require people to engage in a specific private enterprise.

1) The argument being used for constitutionality is that the penalty (fine) associated with the individual mandate is not a penalty (fine) at all. Rather, it is a tax on everyone. Those who purchase insurance are exempt from this tax. Some also argue that the interstate commerce clause applies.
I responded because I don't think anyone has addressed this question of yours as of yet.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2011 3:56:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/4/2011 3:53:11 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 2/2/2011 6:31:05 PM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
I've heard all the conservatives and libertarians (including myself) rail against the horrible precedent the health care mandate would set, but I want to specifically hear from progressives (1) why it's constitutional and (2) what makes it okay to require people to engage in a specific private enterprise.

1) The argument being used for constitutionality is that the penalty (fine) associated with the individual mandate is not a penalty (fine) at all. Rather, it is a tax on everyone. Those who purchase insurance are exempt from this tax. Some also argue that the interstate commerce clause applies.
I responded because I don't think anyone has addressed this question of yours as of yet.

Health insurance, which is not sold across state lines, is interstate commerce. That makes sense.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2011 6:37:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/4/2011 12:00:09 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/4/2011 11:07:06 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/3/2011 9:59:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/3/2011 5:30:15 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/3/2011 4:14:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/2/2011 9:28:15 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/2/2011 6:31:05 PM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
I've heard all the conservatives and libertarians (including myself) rail against the horrible precedent the health care mandate would set, but I want to specifically hear from progressives (1) why it's constitutional and (2) what makes it okay to require people to engage in a specific private enterprise.

1) I don't care

2) Because it benefits all of society. If we require all people to act a certain way to benefit society, why shouldn't we require everyone to buy something that benefits society?
Your main points are being taken care of but...
You realize that your ideological compatriots are always trying to convince us that slippery slopes aren't real?

Slippery slopes are not real by default. I would plan on going a certian distance and stopping.
The same is what was said every time we "required people to act a certain way to benefit society." Now here you are "Well, we already do that, lets slip down this damn slope."

But it is not true that just because we are making a step to the left that we are going, by default, make another step to the left
It is true that you just attempted to justify a step to the left by the fact of a previous step to the left.

No you don't. One says, I want to take 10 steps to the left, but let's start with 1 at a time. That is completely different from saying that they only want 1 step to the left total.
Whereas a third is "We already took 9 steps, let's take one more."



That logic would tell us that any action, taken in any direction, means that we will go to the extreme of that side. That any cut in taxes is going to lead to the disolving of all taxes.
If taken ON THE BASIS of being a cut in taxes, it will. And I will openly admit that what I want is the extreme. But you will not, and hence you have a problem.

I don't want the extreme (well, you might consider it extreme, since it is the opposite direction then what you want), and I would fight against the extreme because I recognize that the far extreme is not benefitial.
On what grounds?
Hint, you have a logical problem if the same grounds could attack the non extreme, it's known as ad hoc.

That varies from issue to issue. The reason I don't want a 100% tax rate is different from the reason I don't want no military at all.



You should only be placated by logic, and if logic supports the extreme
Logic always supports AN extreme. It can never support moderation, i.e., inconsistent application of a premise.

No it doesn't

Simple Diff EQ, like the predator/prey relations.
What price make a company the most money for its product.
How much should you pay an employee for a particular job.
What would be the best action for a particular international situation (to maintain the highest international image).
What speed should I drive to maximize my MPG.
And many more...

The logic used in all of those points to a middle ground, not to an extreme.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2011 6:53:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
That varies from issue to issue. The reason I don't want a 100% tax rate is different from the reason I don't want no military at all.
That's not an answer to the question.


Simple Diff EQ, like the predator/prey relations.
What price make a company the most money for its product.
How much should you pay an employee for a particular job.
What would be the best action for a particular international situation (to maintain the highest international image).
What speed should I drive to maximize my MPG.
Those are numbers, not "moderation." For any one of those, you will use the same reasoning to determine your answer in any particular case of that one of those, e.g you will have to have an extreme adherence to your algorithm or heuristic. You can't sometimes have a sign on some term in your MPG equation and sometimes not, for example.

The exception is the "international situation" question, which doesn't mean anything, which is not a good sign as it's the closest to the subject matter of what we were originally discussing.(there's no such thing as "measuring" "international image.") If it did mean something, however, it too would require extreme adherence to certain principles, certain algorithms
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.