the new health care?

And now in the spirit of constructive dialogue rather than argument, I am going to try and make sure I understand your position and see if there is common ground with mine that can be expanded.

I agree with you as to single payer option. Taking a market that has already got market flaws and basically remove any market controls is a recipe for a decline in quality and rise in cost.

I, too, am for covering the uninsured. I just don't know if it can be done "by reasonable means".

"Reasonable" is a fudgy undefined word that means different things to different people. Again, I and my wife are willing to make sacrifices both personally and as a family, to address the needs of others who cannot help themselves. I think most on the forum would take that position. Yes, there are some truly selfish individuals who would refuse to even consider the needs of others - but, let's start from an assumption that if we could reach a consensus on "reasonable means" the vast majority of americans would be happy to fund UHC. I think its safe to say your definition of "reasonable" is much broader than mine and many others.

As to my understanding of "reasonable means", I think I have already stated that, although I am willing to bear some increased cost to address the health needs of the truly uninsured, I will not accept any decline in quality of care for my wife and children as "reasonable". I understand you believe the current system is headed for a decline in quality as it currently exists - I am not sure that is true but would be willing to defer to a Schneed call on that one (he may have already been addressed this point but, again, I just don't know). Also, if it can be demonstrated to me with a high degree of certainty that a real life saving benefit will accrue to those who cannot help themselves, then I think I could agree to some marginal decrease in the quality of care for my kids (for that one you need some damn solid proof and not merely anecdotal crap - as I would hope for all parents, the interests of my children are paramount and I will defend them to the death as they cannot do so for themselves). Also, in terms of increasing the federal deficit to create or fund UHC, I oppose it, unless it is a moderate one time expenditure, as I don't think creating a system that cannot fund itself is "reasonable".

Honestly, I am not exactly sure what you consider "reasonable means". I am not trying to pick a fight here, I am trying to understand - I think I have pretty well spelled out what I consider "reasonable". In the spirit of finding common ground, tell me the impact (in terms of cost and quality of care) you would expect me to bear as "reasonable" in return for implementation of UHC. If you have already explained your definition in this manner, please, humor me and do so again as I simply do not recall you doing so.

I also think we agree that the current system is flawed for any number of reasons. Because the flaws and their solutions are so complicated, I whole heartedly agree a commission should be created to brutally analyze the system and find creative solutions to the burgeoning health care problems.

I think we both agree that the pending legislation shouldn't go through before the recess. Maybe I am wrong on that because, while you indicated you would rather have a commission study things for a year and then issue a report (a principle I agree with), you have also indicated that you believe something/anything is better than nothing. Can you clarify - would you rather the current legislation pass without your study being done or would you be willing to call you legislator and ask him to table the current bills and commission a study.

I am afraid that the "anything/something" will result in a excerbating the ills of an already flawed infrastructure and that we, as a country, probably only have one shot at this issue b/c once something is done no one will be able to muster the political will to open it back up again. I like your idea of a study, but how to keep the fire under it and political will alive to effect real change would be a challenge. Got any suggestions?



So, it seems to me that the main hurdle we have to clear as a preliminary matter is to define "reasonable means" in a manner that a majority will support. Also, can we agree that the current legislation should be tabled [I]and figure out a way to get the government to focus its resources on really breaking down the current system and come up with creative solutions to fix it.

Not sure if we can reach common ground on this but I (and I imagine many others) would be willing to try IF you will agree to question your assumptions as to right/wrong and not simply dismiss ideas that don't fit within those presumptions.

And this next part is argument -- Hopefully, you can find a way to turn it into constructive dialogue: You state "unlike you there are 'many folks' who just don't care to explore the subject to begin with. I don't care for these people at all." I assert that many of the people you dismiss as not wishing to explore the subject have actually done so and run into the same wall mentioned above - but that their resolution of these roadblocks involves assumptions (as pointed out in my prior post) that run contrary to your belief system and so you dismiss them. Perhaps if you engaged in a less dismissive fashion, questioned your assumptions, and sought common ground you might actually find a creative solutions that had not appeared to you or the "many folks" you so casually dismiss.

SHIT!!!! Do you have a job? I bet it took you an hour to type all that!

ohhhh and your wrong Saden is right.....................just deal with it. :tongue





P.S. You can go back to work now. :)

And now in the spirit of constructive dialogue rather than argument, I am going to try and make sure I understand your position and see if there is common ground with mine that can be expanded.
...
SHIT!!!! Do you have a job? I bet it took you an hour to type all that!

ohhhh and your wrong Saden is right.....................just deal with it.
Miller, I bolded Joe's first line, you seemed to have forgotten it by the time you quoted him.

Miller, I bolded Joe's first line, you seemed to have forgotten it by the time you quoted him.

It was just a joke man. You need to chill out. I mean, you saw how long his posts were....................I was like dang! Who has time to write all that? And do it four times..........................

And Joe, You're still wrong even after writing all that. :)

Well we on the right might be wrong (thats millers words) but it aint getting passed anytime soon.

It was just a joke man. You need to chill out. I mean, you saw how long his posts were....................I was like dang! Who has time to write all that? And do it four times..........................

And Joe, You're still wrong even after writing all that. :)

Yeah, but Joe's longwinded and writes like that all the time. Heck, he probably even gets paid to write long winded briefs!

Yeah, but Joe's longwinded and writes like that all the time. Heck, he probably even gets paid to write long winded briefs!
While his post are long I wish I had 1/2 his writing skills.

Yeah, but Joe's longwinded and writes like that all the time. Heck, he probably even gets paid to write long winded briefs!saden accused him of jabs...and he delivers several connecting major combinations.

DOWN GOES saden! DOWN GOES saden! :boxing:

Selfish: (adj) 1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others ; 2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives.

Self-interest (n): 1. regard for one's own interest or advantage, esp. with disregard for others; 2. personal interest or advantage.

I disagree with you conclusion that we are "selfish" creatures. It is not our doom to be "devoted to or caring only for oneself". Perhaps it is your choice to be so, it my desire not to be so. (See my thread on selfishness and human nature - I await with interest your response to the questions posed).

I suppose the first meaning of self-interest is irrelevant? Talk about cheery picking Joe. I hope the cherries are at least ripe and juicy. I'll address the issue of selfishness/self-interest in your voraciously verbal Selfishness and Human Nature thread.

"Selfish" is the word you chose and it has a specific meaning. "[V]oting with your interest in mind." is different than voting selfishly. I agree that it is appropriate to "vot[e] with my [personal interest or advantage] in mind" as, hopefully, I am in the best position to understand my own interests. It is inappropriate for me to vote selfishly and in a manner that promotes my "personal interest or advantage" "regardless of [the interests of] others[.]" You want to play with the big boys little man, say what you mean and mean what you say.


Cock-a-Doodle-Doo Joe, cock-a-doodle-doo! You fail to see the conflict of interests that ensues when your interest do not align with that of others and the fact that self-interest is a zero-sum game. What do you intend to do then Joe? Will you sacrifice your vacation with your family and their super-dooper health care? Of course not, you've said as much with your "my first consideration is the needs of my wife and children" nugget bellow. Oh, no, wait, you're not being selfish but less selfless towards others. If you look in the mirror Joe you'll see that "The Prince" has no cloths.

Then let me simplify the error in your imperfect analogy that you attempt to assert as a truism. – In setting forth the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution, the express language of the Preamble explicitly states that the Federal Government must “provide for the common defense”. It is impossible for the federal government “to provide for the common defense” if it does not fund defense spending. No such express language exists for UHC. Thus, no mandate for such spending exists unless it can be determined that UHC would “promote the General Welfare.” Whether a system of UHC would, in fact, now “promote the General Welfare” is debatable. As such, whether enacting a UHC system in the US may or may not be within the origin, scope or purpose of the Constitution while defense spending most certainly is.

You don't fool me Joe, not one bit. I see right through your bait and switch, and domain elevation based arguments.


You don’t deal in hypotheticals?? You’re entire belief system is based on hypotheticals which you assert as truisms… but I digress [and before you go all kettle/pot ranty – I acknowledge that this is true of my belief system as well].

Well, despite you’re oh so extensive training, you seem unable to recognize a predicate to an argument. The numbers in the predicate question are irrelevant and used only to roughly reflect what everyone with any actual knowledge of the current health care system seems to expect as the likely effect of UHC on that system. -- But fine, I’ll try to walk you through again. Now pay attention -- and remember THIS IS NOT THE ARGUMENT but simply the predicate to it: If an action by the federal government increases the welfare of a small group of society by some degree while at the same time decreasing the welfare of a much larger group of society by a some degree, has the federal government “promoted the general welfare”? Still with me? Good. Carefully read the next paragraph in my original post. … Back yet? Okay, this next part is tricky so stay with me --- Did you notice how the following paragraph made an assertion rather than posing a question. That’s called an “argument”.

Argument (n) … 4. A statement, reason, or fact for or against a point: This is a strong argument in favor of her theory.

The argument I assert, for which the question is predicate, is that reasonable people may disagree over whether an action that has positive effects for one portion of society but negative effects to others “promotes the general welfare”.

To be clear - I agree that, as a practical matter the ultimate answer to the predicate question turns on correctly identifying the groups affected and the actual degrees of change (which in turn requires further definitions). The fact that so many variables exist in the predicate question only reinforces the validity of the actual argument presented.


Next time, try actually getting to the argument before you ignore it.


My belief system is not based on hypotheticals asserted as truisms but on reality and deducing the best course of action for a give circumstance, the fact that we disagree on what the best course of action is entirely a different matter. As for your non-argument argument what you fail to notice is that your argument, and it is an argument, is a perfect example of both informal and rhetorical argument.


“Implicitly implying” ?? ---- Digging deep for a non-existent meaning within the statement aren’t we. I’ll give you a pass on this because you’re still working on basic concepts and your training apparently didn’t equip you to follow multi-sentence arguments.


It most certainly was up until you added "[Yes.- We can debate the amount to spend on defense and how it is used, but under the express intent of the Constitution, the Feds must provide "defense" funding. This is simply not true of UHC]." My master and I are still working on the mind reading chapter of the curriculum.


Quick follow-up lesson: whereas my predicate question did not contain the assertion of truth being argued, your leading questions incorrectly assert that I assert (1) the general subject of general welfare is debatable but the general subject of common defense is not; and (2) Somehow I think it’s reasonable to argue against a common defense. See how my question was not an argument but yours are? Awkward and sloppy arguments, but arguments nonetheless. I guess it’s a first step.

As to (1): Providing funding for the common defense is not debatable. Providing funding for the general welfare is not debatable. What constitutes each is debatable. Given the costs, coverage and care provided by the current system and the costs, coverage and care expected to be provided by a UHC system (particularly as proposed by Obama), it is a reasonable position to hold that implementing UHC will not “promote the general welfare”.


We agree that both "provide for common defense" and "promotes the general welfare" can't be debated and that what constitutes defense and welfare spending can be debated.


As to (2): wow, just wow. I concede, I cannot see how this assertion is “implicitly implied” by my assertion. I mean, seriously, you got me. See, to me, this is the classic example of an ignorable argument – it is so unrelated to any point made in my assertion that, even if I could figure out your logic, I wouldn’t bother to refute it.



saden: We should pay for it just like we pay for defense (implying that funding should be mandatory).
Joe: I think the defense spending v. UHC spending is not a perfect analogy (taking UHC and equating it to entire domain of defense spending).
saden: Your implicit suggestion that the subject can be debate but not really has also been noted (suggestion that defense spending can be debated).
Joe: Defense spending can't be debated because you can't "provide common defense" without defense spending (talk about begging the question).



Again, sloppy, sloppy argument and English. Preliminarily, you only quote the assertion but ignore the included disclaimers. I said: “I will not sacrifice anything I provide to my family other than outright luxuries (of which I provide few) unless it is required to address the dire, life threatening needs of those who cannot help themselves”

First, there was no qualification at all on my willingness to sacrifice the few luxuries I am able to provide my family. To be clear, I am willing to sacrifice these luxuries for the needs of others if it can be shown that the need is real, my family’s sacrifice will help alleviate the need, and the sacrifice made bears some reasonable relationship to the need. Further, in terms of sacrificing things beyond mere luxuries, I made it very clear to everyone but you, apparently, that if the need is dire and those in need cannot help themselves, I will place the needs of others over the needs of my family. In each case, I made it clear that I am willing to place the interests of others over my own.

Selfish means what it means: “devoted to or caring only for oneself”. Unlike you I understand words have defined terms and I strive to use words within the context of their definitions. When I say I am unwilling to sacrifice anything I give to my family, I meant just that. I strive to give selflessly to my family always. In determining whether I will give selflessly to others, my first consideration is the needs of my wife and children. Thus, in giving selflessly to my family, and not as selflessly to others, I am not acting selfishly. I am simply prioritizing the needs of others.


The meat of this paragraph is the last few sentences and that tells me all I really need to know. I feel exactly the same way too BTW. Oh and I am not dismissive, I am simply prioritizing the ideas of others into buckets of worthy and unworthy.


NO. You’re just so wrong. Given your sloppy use of it, please don’t lecture me as to what English means. I am not “one” with these things. I am individual within the various corporate wholes and, as such, I am responsible for my actions within those entities. If an entity acts selfishly, I may be complicit in the entity’s selfishness but not necessarily so. If I am tirelessly working to change the selfish attitude of the corporate whole, am I selfish? By definition - No.


I repeat, "in action you are one with yourself, your family, your community, your nation, and your planet." That is to say when you act in the interest of yourself, your family, your community, your nation, and your planet you are one in the same.


It is only a “false choice” because you disagree with the precept. As you have stated many times – you assert there is no justification for failing to cover all people. You can argue this point, but it is not, in and of itself inherently true or false. The statement I indicated seems to be held by many reasonable, good people. Because it is a choice contrary to your beliefs, however, you deem it “false”. Prove it as false. No matter how hard you argue it, however, it will always be an opionion not a fact.


Reasonable people they might be under certain circumstances but reasonable position they do not hold on this subject matter. As far as proving it, it is already being proven in the 36 countries ahead of us in healthcare.


Hence reinforcing the quote to which you respond. Very convincing. Rag tag lama dhago ee wuxuu ku tago ayaa la tusiya.


LOL...that was pretty good find on the proverb. My statement actually contradicts your take Joe. I fully understand who I am and what I'm capable and those three characters (the good, the bad, and the ugly) speak of my "real spiritual or moral self-doubt" and "capacity of self-examination."


No. It's not an open club. It a label you mockingly apply to individuals who disagree with you and is appplicable as you see fit. Ultimately, it applies to anyone who does not see the brilliance of saden and buy into his leap of faith.


If you don't subscribe to my "belief system" I can't put you in club "my folks" can I now Joe? There's room for everyone in club "my folks," membership is open and anyone can apply for entry.

I waited a week for this pile of steaming rhetorical BS?

I suppose the first meaning of self-interest is irrelevant? Talk about cheery picking Joe. I hope the cherries are at least ripe and juicy. I'll address the issue of selfishness/self-interest in your voraciously verbal Selfishness and Human Nature thread.

As you chose the word “selfish” and accused me and all mankind of “selfishness”, I provided the definition of the term and disputed its applicability. On the other hand, self-interest was my term and I was making clear what definition I was using so we wouldn’t be confused as to any possible “colloquialisms”. If you have a definition for “selfish” that does not include the disregard of others, I’ll be happy to concede I was splitting rhetorical hairs.

Cock-a-Doodle-Doo Joe, cock-a-doodle-doo! You fail to see the conflict of interests that ensues when your interest do not align with that of others and the fact that self-interest is a zero-sum game. What do you intend to do then Joe? Will you sacrifice your vacation with your family and their super-dooper health care? Of course not, you've said as much with your "my first consideration is the needs of my wife and children" nugget bellow. Oh, no, wait, you're not being selfish but less selfless towards others. If you look in the mirror Joe you'll see that "The Prince" has no cloths.

My point was in response to your accusation that I (not my family) was selfish. You: “You are selfish animal Joe and so I'm I.” I responded by saying that, while I consider my own interests (including the happiness I personally receive by providing for my family), I do not do so with disregard to others as your original accusation expressly stated.

If you believe self-interest to be a zero-sum game, fine. I disagree. When multiple people act with an appropriate balance between self-interest and a consideration for the needs of others, the sum does not necessarily equal zero. Rather, I believe action inspired in such a fashion allows for determining whether or not we, as individuals acting within a group, are, in fact, able to promote the general welfare. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium)

And again, you state as unequivocal that upon which I have equivocated. You: “Will you sacrifice your vacation with your family (a luxury) and their super-dooper health care (a necessity)?” I have clearly and concisely stated when and how the needs of those outside my family will come into play. You of course conveniently ignore my statements to accuse me, yet again, of acting selfishly. No matter how you cut it, by its definition, I am not acting “selfishly” as I am expressly considering and prioritizing the needs of others when I consider my personal interests or advantages.

You cling to a word, ignore its definition, and ignore my statements that would remove me from its definition. Can you recognize this point or is arguing for the sake of arguing all you can now do?

This prince is well clothed (and often provides clothing for others - thank you very much).


You don't fool me Joe, not one bit. I see right through your bait and switch, and domain elevation based arguments.

Bait and switch? Bullshit. Stop attempting to move the target to save face. Your original analogy was imperfect: “If you want to make the argument that young adults should have a choice in whether they want participate or not I can also make similar argument with respect to whether or not I want to contribute to defense spending.” Defense spending is specifically mandated by the express language of the Preamble - funding for UHC is not so mandated. If you can find, “universal health care” in the Constitution please point it out to me.

You can’t, you lose.

My belief system is not based on hypotheticals asserted as truisms but on reality and deducing the best course of action for a give circumstance, the fact that we disagree on what the best course of action is entirely a different matter. As for your non-argument argument what you fail to notice is that your argument, and it is an argument, is a perfect example of both informal and rhetorical argument.

You’re belief system is not now and never has been self validating. Rather, it is based on your belief that secular humanism ultimately defines the universe and the appropriate actions of humans within that universe. It is your failure to see the act of faith implicit in this belief that is proof of my statement.

As to the question, it was a hypothetical that was predicate to the statement I asserted as true. The original question and the numbers relied were expressly not posed for the truth of its numerical assertions which you assert invalidated the underlying question. Although a structural part of the entire argument it was not the ultimate fact I asserted as true. The ultimate fact which I assert as true was made in the following paragraph - an argument which you neither acknowledge nor address. Rather, you once again attempt to displace your rhetorical failure by asserting a deeper knowledge of rhetorical argument than you actually display - You know the words, but you can’t speak the language.

It most certainly was up until you added "[Yes.- We can debate the amount to spend on defense and how it is used, but under the express intent of the Constitution, the Feds must provide "defense" funding. This is simply not true of UHC]." My master and I are still working on the mind reading chapter of the curriculum.

Tell your master to read the preamble and tell me where he finds UHC.

We agree that both "provide for common defense" and "promotes the general welfare" can't be debated and that what constitutes defense and welfare spending can be debated.

So why all the rhetorical bullshit leading up to this concession? Rather than simply say this up front, you are intent on finding ways to accuse me of rhetorical lapses ("your bait and switch, and domain elevation based arguments"). Petty and wasteful.

saden: We should pay for it just like we pay for defense (implying that funding should be mandatory).
Joe: I think the defense spending v. UHC spending is not a perfect analogy (taking UHC and equating it to entire domain of defense spending).
saden: Your implicit suggestion that the subject can be debate but not really has also been noted (suggestion that defense spending can be debated).
Joe: Defense spending can't be debated because you can't "provide common defense" without defense spending (talk about begging the question).

All of which is logically disconnected from the argument actually posed and to which your statement responded that being: “reasonable people may disagree over whether an action that has positive effects for one portion of society but negative effects to others ‘promotes the general welfare’.”

The meat of this paragraph is the last few sentences and that tells me all I really need to know. I feel exactly the same way too BTW. Oh and I am not dismissive, I am simply prioritizing the ideas of others into buckets of worthy and unworthy.

Fine, I would not accuse you of being “selfish” in your actions.

Yes - You are being dismissive as your “prioritization” is simply a division based on your refusal to consider the possibility that your preconceived ideas and beliefs are subject to question.

I repeat, "in action you are one with yourself, your family, your community, your nation, and your planet." That is to say when you act in the interest of yourself, your family, your community, your nation, and your planet you are one in the same.

And I repeat, I am not “one” with any group either by action or thought. I am and always will be an individual and will be responsible for my actions accordingly. You may wish to subject your individuality to the some groupthink, I refuse to concede this. My family is a group of individuals of varying capacity for self-awareness and I act within in it and, on occasion, for it but I am not “it” in any sense of the word.

Reasonable people they might be under certain circumstances but reasonable position they do not hold on this subject matter. As far as proving it, it is already being proven in the 36 countries ahead of us in healthcare.

Again, claiming your position alone defines reasonableness on this issue and, thus, demonstrating the truth of my assertion. As for the proof of the 36 countries, it is what “proof” they provide for the US and its system that has been subject of much of this debate. In your opinion, they provide “proof”. In the eyes of many, and for many reasons, they do not.

LOL...that was pretty good find on the proverb. My statement actually contradicts your take Joe. I fully understand who I am and what I'm capable and those three characters (the good, the bad, and the ugly) speak of my "real spiritual or moral self-doubt" and "capacity of self-examination."

Blah Blah Blah – Aren’t you the clever little boy. The characters chosen are also a perfect example of your unfounded intellectual arrogance. The day I see you exhibit "real spiritual or moral self-doubt" and a "capacity of self-examination” on this forum is the day Hell freezes over.

If you don't subscribe to my "belief system" I can't put you in club "my folks" can I now Joe? There's room for everyone in club "my folks," membership is open and anyone can apply for entry.

You have no club. You have labels and arrogance.

But, let’s cut all the rhetorical crap. At the end of the day, you bring two things to the table: 1) The US must provide everyone coverage; 2) The Government should do a study. All your arrogance, dismissiveness, accusations of selfishness in others boils down to this.

You are so concerned with being right, both substantively and rhetorically, that you cannot acknowledge you bring nothing truly creative to the table. Clearly, in choosing to respond to this rather than my second post, your show that your priority is now to simply split rhetorical hairs rather than to actually accept my invitation to see if we can reach consensus.

I waited a week for this pile of steaming rhetorical BS?Sorry you had to wait Joe but my job and vacation come first.

As you chose the word “selfish” and accused me and all mankind of “selfishness”, I provided the definition of the term and disputed its applicability. On the other hand, self-interest was my term and I was making clear what definition I was using so we wouldn’t be confused as to any possible “colloquialisms”. If you have a definition for “selfish” that does not include the disregard of others, I’ll be happy to concede I was splitting rhetorical hairs.The fact that you have a finite limit to your selflessness makes you inherently selfish, even if marginally. That is to say at certain point you will abandon your altruism and therefore disregard the interest of others in favor of your own. Let me paint you a picture that you will comprehend Joe. At one extreme of the selfish spectrum you have Jesus (zero and therefore completely selfless) and at the other you have the devil (completely selfish); with Humans somewhere in between. You can sugar coat your selfishness with self-interest all you want Joe, still you remain selfish. Further more, you've debased this whole topic to "is oral-sex sex" Joe and no further discussion in this matter is warranted.


If you believe self-interest to be a zero-sum game, fine. I disagree. When multiple people act with an appropriate balance between self-interest and a consideration for the needs of others, the sum does not necessarily equal zero. Rather, I believe action inspired in such a fashion allows for determining whether or not we, as individuals acting within a group, are, in fact, able to promote the general welfare.


For someone concerned about the potential decrease in healthcare quality I find it ironic that you're not a zero sum man. You Nash equilibrium eh? Who is the utopian idealist now Joe?


Sorry, you cannot decrease costs and increase quality of care and service. Do I hope I am wrong? Sure. Do I think this is a utopian statement that is either intentionally misleading or so incredibly naive as to be idiotic? Yes.
And again, you state as unequivocal that upon which I have equivocated. You: “Will you sacrifice your vacation with your family (a luxury) and their super-dooper health care (a necessity)?” I have clearly and concisely stated when and how the needs of those outside my family will come into play. You of course conveniently ignore my statements to accuse me, yet again, of acting selfishly. No matter how you cut it, by its definition, I am not acting “selfishly” as I am expressly considering and prioritizing the needs of others when I consider my personal interests or advantages.

You cling to a word, ignore its definition, and ignore my statements that would remove me from its definition. Can you recognize this point or is arguing for the sake of arguing all you can now do?

This prince is well clothed (and often provides clothing for others - thank you very much).I'm not ignoring you Joe, you simply haven't said anything meaningful besides "I'll help others as much as possible but ultimatly my family comes first." I have said I am the same way and that "we're both selfish creatures." What you want from me isn't quite clear to me and I'm not sure I can give it to you.

Bait and switch? Bullshit. Stop attempting to move the target to save face. Your original analogy was imperfect: “If you want to make the argument that young adults should have a choice in whether they want participate or not I can also make similar argument with respect to whether or not I want to contribute to defense spending.” Defense spending is specifically mandated by the express language of the Preamble - funding for UHC is not so mandated. If you can find, “universal health care” in the Constitution please point it out to me.

You can’t, you lose.Save face? This face doesn't need saving Joe, it's pretty like Ali and rugged like Frazier. Let me show the error of your ways Joe:

Here is my picture:



common defense

program x <-- defense spending
program y <-- defense spending
program z <-- defense spending


general welfare

program UHC <-- welfare spending
program y <-- welfare spending
program z <-- welfare spending



a) Both a and 1 are not debatable as indicated implicitly (and later explicitly even though this is something that is given and should require affirmation).
b) If programs under 2 can be debated programs under 1 can also be debated.

Here's your desecration of my beautiful picture Joe:



common defense <-- defense spending
general welfare

program UHC <-- welfare spending
program y <-- welfare spending
program z <-- welfare spending




a) If 2.1 can be debated 1 can also be debated.
b) Given a, 1 is debatable.


You’re belief system is not now and never has been self validating. Rather, it is based on your belief that secular humanism ultimately defines the universe and the appropriate actions of humans within that universe. It is your failure to see the act of faith implicit in this belief that is proof of my statement.There is no act of faith involved Joe, because faith does not require deduction or reasoning. That is not how I operate as explicitly indicated...it's all about pluses vs. minuses backed fair and solid rational.

As to the question, it was a hypothetical that was predicate to the statement I asserted as true. The original question and the numbers relied were expressly not posed for the truth of its numerical assertions which you assert invalidated the underlying question. Although a structural part of the entire argument it was not the ultimate fact I asserted as true. The ultimate fact which I assert as true was made in the following paragraph - an argument which you neither acknowledge nor to which you respond. Rather, you once again attempt to displace your rhetorical failure by asserting a deeper knowledge of rhetorical argument than you actually display - You know the words, but you can’t speak the language.I have addressed your question though I suspect not in a manner you would like. As indicated you're merely presenting a hyperbolic claim and asserting it's validity, and I don't believe this claim to be worthy of debate. It's that simple.

Tell your master to read the preamble and tell me where he finds UHC.My master tells me to tell you're in need of training and that you're not ready for the tournament.

So why all the rhetorical bullshit leading up to this concession? Rather than simply say this up front, you are intent on finding ways to accuse me of rhetorical lapses ("your bait and switch, and domain elevation based arguments"). Petty and wasteful.

All of which is logically disconnected from the argument actually posed and to which your statement responded that being: “reasonable people may disagree over whether an action that has positive effects for one portion of society but negative effects to others ‘promotes the general welfare’.”
I have actually given you deference in this matter Joe in hopes of just moving on yet you still stagger around in the ring all bloodied. The truth is Joe UHC is not debatable under the "promote the general welfare statue" at all. If it was enacted today and you challenged it in the highest court of the land you would lose. Better men have tried and failed (http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html). Similarly I cannot go into court and challenge certain defense appropriations (i.e. rendition and torture expenditure) and expect to win. Certainly you can go into court and argue on the basis of your hyperbole but the truth is there is also a hyperbole that can also be used to argue against common defense so the question becomes what is the point of using a hyperbole in first place to argue against UHC?

Fine, I would not accuse you of being “selfish” in your actions.

Yes - You are being dismissive as your “prioritization” is simply a division based on your refusal to consider the possibility that your preconceived ideas and beliefs are subject to question.
My beliefs and ideas are open to valid questions, when I see some I'll be sure to answer them.


And I repeat, I am not “one” with any group either by action or thought. I am and always will be an individual and will be responsible for my actions accordingly. You may wish to subject your individuality to the some groupthink, I refuse to concede this. My family is a group of individuals of varying capacity for self-awareness and I act within in it and, on occasion, for it but I am not “it” in any sense of the word.There you go again...rambling on about something completely tangent. It's quite pathetic really. When you go to work, you got to work for yourself and your family, when you do community service you're serving yourself and your community, when you join the military you're joining for yourself and your country, etc etc.


Again, claiming your position alone defines reasonableness on this issue and, thus, demonstrating the truth of my assertion. As for the proof of the 36 countries, it is what “proof” they provide for the US and its system that has been subject of much of this debate. In your opinion, they provide “proof”. In the eyes of many, and for many reasons, they do not.In the eyes of many, and for many reasons, Obama is not a naturally born citizen. You go right ahead and keep lowering the bar Joe.

Blah Blah Blah – Aren’t you the clever little boy. The characters chosen are also a perfect example of your unfounded intellectual arrogance. The day I see you exhibit "real spiritual or moral self-doubt" and a "capacity of self-examination” on this forum is the day Hell freezes over.I can't tell if you're joking or not. I'm a little concerned you can't tell your ideal-self from your true-self Joe.


You have no club. You have labels and arrogance.For someone that abhors labels you sure do use a lot of adjectives Joe. Don't wield a brush you don't know how to use properly Joe.

But, let’s cut all the rhetorical crap. At the end of the day, you bring two things to the table: 1) The US must provide everyone coverage; 2) The Government should do a study. All your arrogance, dismissiveness, accusations of selfishness in others boils down to this.

You are so concerned with being right, both substantively and rhetorically, that you cannot acknowledge you bring nothing truly creative to the table. Clearly, in choosing to respond to this rather than my second post, your show that your priority is now to simply split rhetorical hairs rather than to actually accept my invitation to see if we can reach consensus.If you would be so patient with this idiot he will address your valid questions and take on your challenge of coming up with suggestions for healtcare reform.
__________________