the new health care?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I have fully explained why I believe the quality of my health care will diminish in the "New Health Care Thread". http://www.thewarpath.net/parking-lo...th-care-7.html

Does your 85% include those who choose to be uninsured even if financially able but unwilling to pay (and, as "financially able" as those who are able because they chose to pay for insurance as opposed to the mortgage - I am referring to the significant portion of young healthy, productive adults who choose not to purchase health insurance)? Does it include only those currently not on medicaid? Must it increase benefits for those on medicaid or will it simply be enough to expand the benefits provided medicaid to cover those not currently covered?

I mean we can go around on this all day, there have been at least three threads and pages and pages of posts discussing all these issues and more without any general consensus being reached. It's a knotty problem and one that shouldn't be rammed through in a 1000 page bill on one month review.

I believe we should collectively pay for it just like we pay for defense. Some of us more so than others (progressive tax). 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. This matter should not be open to choice IMO because man is inherently selfish and will always do what is best for him. Also, when this young man doesn't have 30K for a broken foot surgery who will pay for it?

You're right, this bill should take more than 30 days but our politics is so adversarial that one must get their punches in before the round is over. If anyone truly believed Republicans would be interested in exploring the possibility of a universal heathcare solution I truly believe they would have taken their time. The Republican and lobbyist game is delay, and the Democrats game is get it passed ASAP. Personally, I would have commissioned a one year study whose goal is to do full analysis on how to best implement universal healthcare and put out a plain english and public proposal.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

I believe we should collectively pay for it just like we pay for defense. Some of us more so than others (progressive tax). 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. This matter should not be open to choice IMO because man is inherently selfish and will always do what is best for him. Also, when this young man doesn't have 30K for a broken foot surgery who will pay for it?.

You're right, this bill should take more than 30 days but our politics is so adversarial that one must get their punches in before the round is over. If anyone truly believed Republicans would be interested in exploring the possibility of a universal heathcare solution I truly believe they would have taken their time. The Republican and lobbyist game is delay, and the Democrats game is get it passed ASAP. Personally, I would have commissioned a one year study whose goal is to do full analysis on how to best implement universal healthcare and put out a plain english and public proposal.

I am a Republican. I am not in favor of delay for the sake of delay or (as I believe you have intimated elsewhere) for retaining wealth out of greed. I am interested in gaining and retaining wealth so that (in part) I can obtain high quality care for my wife and children. While willing to make sacrifices to my personal lifestyle so that others may receive basic needs, 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. I do not believe this position to be "selfish" - you may disagree.

While I think the defense spending v. UHC spending is not a perfect analogy, I agree that, similar to defense spending, a universal health care system can "protect" the entire society. The difference, IMO, being that spending on the armed forces bears a much more direct relationship to the constitutional requirement that the Federal government "provide for the common defense" than the funding of a UHC bears to the constitutional requirement that the Feds "promote the general welfare". I say that b/c w/out a national armed force there simply is no "common defense" whereas it is debatable that a federally funded UHC will actually improve in any signicant way the "general welfare" of society. [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.]

If a federally created UHC directly increases the welfare of ~5 - 10% of the population by providing HC coverage for those who desire it but cannot afford it BUT decreases the welfare of ~50% by increasing their costs and decreasing their quality of coverage, does it actually "promote the general welfare"?? [the 50% is a number pulled from my ass to represent people like me who can afford good coverage and pay for it but any cost increase, even minimal, will require me to choose between less good coverage or changes to my most assuredly not luxurious lifestyle]??

Clearly, you say yes it does promote the general welfare. Many others say it does not. I would suggest each has a valid, reasonable argument.

Contrary to your continual "you folk" references, I would also assert that those who disagree with your position are not necessarily acting out of personal selfishness or even direct self-interest. As one example: "It is better for society, as a whole, if the vast majority have very good health coverage even if a some 'fall between the cracks', then to lower the quality of care for all but a small minority." I don't personally ascribe to this reasoning but I understand it and can accept it as a view held by reasonable people.

[BTW -Your constant insinuation that those who don't agree with your guiding principles are all fools, acting out of selfishness, or are driven by something less than your morally pure motives is incredible (and unwarranted) intellectual and moral arrogance. To me, it appears that you have no capability for real spiritual or moral self-doubt and thus no capacity for real self-examination (Yes - on a rare occasion, you will acknowledge differing intellectual proofs or admit factaul errors. Not quite the same thing, though, as questioning your beliefs). It is why I believe you to be one of the most insufferably self-righteous individuals with whom I have ever dealt. -- Rant Over]

Further, when determining if creating a UHC system will "promote the general welfare", I would also suggest many many of all but the "truly uninsured" would say it really depends on what the actual facts are as to the numbers: Is the number of "true" uninsured 5% of the population or 10%? What impact, if any, will cost increases have on lifestyle -- (What real sacrifices will I have to make? Can I still provide for my kids supplemental education/ recreation needs? Will I have to take a long weekend at the beach instead a full week rental for my annual vacation? Can I take a vacationat all? etc.)? Is a decrease in quality of care inevitable? If inevitable, how much of decline? What will the relationship between increased costs, decreases in quality of care be and the amount of "true" uninsured be -- High cost with significant decrease in care with an extension of coverage to a small population of "true uninsureds"? OR Low cost, minimal affect to care, and an extension of coverage to a large population of "true uninsureds".

Simply put - a lot of people are willing to make sacrifices to provide for others, but, before they do, they want to make sure it is a sacrifice they can bear and that the sacrifice required bears some rationale relationship to the good being provided. Again, IMHO, this is a perfectly reasonable expectation.

And just so we are clear, I absolutely agree with you on one point: If we are going to provide UHC within the current multiple insurer framework, then mandatory participation is a must. The only way to even begin to offset the cost of insuring the "truly uninsured" is by making the "uninsured by choice" pay for the societal benefit they reap from insuring the "truly uninsured" (To me, the market benefits to having no uninsureds are similar and analogous to those resulting from the alleviation of mass poverty. A healthy society is a productive society thus benefitting all).

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I am a Republican. I am not in favor of delay for the sake of delay or (as I believe you have intimated elsewhere) for retaining wealth out of greed. I am interested in gaining and retaining wealth so that (in part) I can obtain high quality care for my wife and children. While willing to make sacrifices to my personal lifestyle so that others may receive basic needs, 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. I do not believe this position to be "selfish" - you may disagree.

Oh jeez Joe, this whole post would be one big rant/whine fest if it weren't for the last few paragraphs. You are selfish animal Joe and so I'm I. This is the reality of our world and the nature of man. We are a "me, myself and I" creatures. There's nothing particularly wrong with being selfish and voting with your interest in mind. You're free to make decisions that are best for your family and I expect others to do the same. This is what is meant by selfish not the colloquial sense of the word.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

While I think the defense spending v. UHC spending is not a perfect analogy, I agree that, similar to defense spending, a universal health care system can "protect" the entire society. The difference, IMO, being that spending on the armed forces bears a much more direct relationship to the constitutional requirement that the Federal government "provide for the common defense" than the funding of a UHC bears to the constitutional requirement that the Feds "promote the general welfare". I say that b/c w/out a national armed force there simply is no "common defense" whereas it is debatable that a federally funded UHC will actually improve in any signicant way the "general welfare" of society. [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.]

Your opinion and discursiveness of "promote the general welfare" is duly noted. Your implicit suggestion that the subject can be debate but not really has also been noted.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

If a federally created UHC directly increases the welfare of ~5 - 10% of the population by providing HC coverage for those who desire it but cannot afford it BUT decreases the welfare of ~50% by increasing their costs and decreasing their quality of coverage, does it actually "promote the general welfare"?? [the 50% is a number pulled from my ass to represent people like me who can afford good coverage and pay for it but any cost increase, even minimal, will require me to choose between less good coverage or changes to my most assuredly not luxurious lifestyle]??

I don't deal in hypotheticals and I am well trained in the art of seeing right through fallacious arguments presenting fictitious numbers. You're at the grown up table Joe, don't swing your dangling legs - it's impolite. I will grant you that wait time will increase and I have suggested that this is a problem we'll faces with or without UHC. Note to all "you folks," the above quoted text is a perfect example of an ignorable argument each and every time.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Clearly, you say yes it does promote the general welfare. Many others say it does not. I would suggest each has a valid, reasonable argument.

Implicitly implying that the subject of general welfare is debatable but common defense is not? Perhaps you also think it's reasonable to argue against common defense?

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Contrary to your continual "you folk" references, I would also assert that those who disagree with your position are not necessarily acting out of personal selfishness or even direct self-interest. As one example: "It is better for society, as a whole, if the vast majority have very good health coverage even if a some 'fall between the cracks', then to lower the quality of care for all but a small minority." I don't personally ascribe to this reasoning but I understand it and can accept it as a view held by reasonable people.

When you say "I will not sacrifice anything I provide to my family" you're acting selfishly. Selfish is not limited to the realm of what you do for yourself. In action you are one with yourself, your family, your community, your nation, and your planet. Hearing this constant false choice and deference given to the current system is so tiresome and ignorable.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

[BTW -Your constant insinuation that those who don't agree with your guiding principles are all fools, acting out of selfishness, or are driven by something less than your morally pure motives is incredible (and unwarranted) intellectual and moral arrogance. To me, it appears that you have no capability for real spiritual or moral self-doubt and thus no capacity for real self-examination (Yes - on a rare occasion, you will acknowledge differing intellectual proofs or admit factaul errors. Not quite the same thing, though, as questioning your beliefs). It is why I believe you to be one of the most insufferably self-righteous individuals with whom I have ever dealt. -- Rant Over]

Sticks and stones may break an ordinary man's bones but I'm Superman, Robin Hood, and Genghis Khan all rolled into a single Superforce. Calaacal na ga dhaaf.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Further, when determining if UHC is an impovement of the general welfare, I would also suggest many many of all but the "truly uninsured" would say it really depends on what the actual facts are as to the numbers: Is the number of "true" uninsured 5% of the population or 10%? What impact, if any, will cost increases have on lifestyle -- (What real sacrifices will I have to make? Can I still provide for my kids supplemental education/ recreation needs? Will I have to take a long weekend at the beach instead a full week rental for my annual vacation? Can I take a vacationat all? etc.)? Is a decrease in quality of care inevitable? If inevitable, how much of decline? What will the relationship between increased costs, decreases in quality of care be and the amount of "true" uninsured be -- High cost with significant decrease in care with an extension of coverage to a small population of "true uninsureds"? OR Low cost, minimal affect to care, and an extension of coverage to a large population of "true uninsureds".

Simply put - a lot of people are willing to make sacrifices to provide for others, but, before they do, they want to make sure it is a sacrifice they can bear and that the sacrifice required bears some rationale relationship to the good being provided. Again, IMHO, this is a perfectly reasonable expectation.

And just so we are clear, I absolutely agree with you on one point: Ifwe are going to provide UHC within the current multiple insurer framework, then mandatory participation is a must. The only way to even begin to offset the cost of insuring the "truly uninsured" is by making the "uninsured by choice" pay for the societal benefit they reap from insuring the "truly uninsured" (To me, the market benefits to having no uninsureds are similar and analogous to those resulting from the alleviation of mass poverty. A healthy society is a productive society thus benefitting all).

Nice recovery. All great questions requiring answers. Of course these same questions are not limited to UHC. I'm not for single payer, I'm for covering the uninsured not by any means necessary as you make it sound but by reasonable means. There are many factors that aught to be considered but 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.


p.s. "You folks" membership is an open membership. You're free to join or leave as you please. You're not required to play ping-pong, swim, or box if you don't wish to do so.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

Oh jeez Joe, this whole post would be one big rant/whine fest if it weren't for the last few paragraphs. You are selfish animal Joe and so I'm I. This is the reality of our world and the nature of man. We are a "me, myself and I" creatures. There's nothing particularly wrong with being selfish and voting with your interest in mind. You're free to make decisions that are best for your family and I expect others to do the same. This is what is meant by selfish not the colloquial sense of the word.

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).

"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.

Originally Posted by saden1

Your opinion and discursiveness of "promote the general welfare" is duly noted. Your implicit suggestion that the subject can be debate but not really has also been noted.

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.

Originally Posted by saden1

I don't deal in hypotheticals and I am well trained in the art of seeing right through fallacious arguments presenting fictitious numbers. You're at the grown up table Joe, don't swing your dangling legs - it's impolite. I will grant you that wait time will increase and I have suggested that this is a problem we'll faces with or without UHC.

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.

Originally Posted by saden1

Note to all "you folks," the above quoted text is a perfect example of an ignorable argument each and every time.

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

Originally Posted by saden1

Implicitly implying that the subject of general welfare is debatable but common defense is not? Perhaps you also think it's reasonable to argue against common defense?

“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.

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”.

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.

Originally Posted by saden1

When you say "I will not sacrifice anything I provide to my family" you're acting selfishly.

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.

Originally Posted by saden1

Selfish is not limited to the realm of what you do for yourself. In action you are one with yourself, your family, your community, your nation, and your planet.

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.

Originally Posted by saden1

Hearing this constant false choice and deference given to the current system is so tiresome and ignorable.

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.

Originally Posted by saden1

Sticks and stones may break an ordinary man's bones but I'm Superman, Robin Hood, and Genghis Khan all rolled into a single Superforce. Calaacal na ga dhaaf.

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

Originally Posted by saden1

p.s. "You folks" membership is an open membership. You're free to join or leave as you please. You're not required to play ping-pong, swim, or box if you don't wish to do so.

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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

"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.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

“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.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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).

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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."

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

[JoeRedskin]

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

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

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).

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

Originally Posted by saden1

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’.”

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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

Sorry you had to wait Joe but my job and vacation come first.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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:

1. common defense
   1. program x <-- defense spending
   2. program y <-- defense spending
   3. program z <-- defense spending
2. general welfare
   1. program UHC <-- welfare spending
   2. program y <-- welfare spending
   3. 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:

1. common defense <-- defense spending
2. general welfare
   1. program UHC <-- welfare spending
   2. program y <-- welfare spending
   3. program z <-- welfare spending

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

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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. 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?

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.
__________________

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

Nice recovery. All great questions requiring answers. Of course these same questions are not limited to UHC. I'm not for single payer, I'm for covering the uninsured not by any means necessary as you make it sound but by reasonable means. There are many factors that aught to be considered but 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.

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?

[In order to address your anything/something immediacy goal, I wonder if there is a way to create a short term legislation while a study was conducted("Be it enacted that this bill expires in 3 years unless reenacted by two thirds majority of both houses" or something like that). Not sure it could be done given the incredible market realignment that is going to happen regardless of what legislation eventually passes.]

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 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.

[Miller101]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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?

[In order to address your anything/something immediacy goal, I wonder if there is a way to create a short term legislation while a study was conducted("Be it enacted that this bill expires in 3 years unless reenacted by two thirds majority of both houses" or something like that). Not sure it could be done given the incredible market realignment that is going to happen regardless of what legislation eventually passes.]

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 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.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.
...

Originally Posted by Miller101

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.

[Miller101]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Miller101

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!