Health Care for Everyone

[milefile]

Danoff, you look more and more like neon duke's lackey. I'll have something to say to you when you have something to say to me.

I'm also very flattered that this thread lives on with me as the new subject (not to mention that my prediction has come true). I love it when people can't stop thinking about me. I mean look at all the posts about me, all that analysis, all that juxtapositioning and mental trickery.

It takes you that long to express an idea only because it is so contrived. You claim it is simple, but it requires a political party to achieve anything (more of the same old party politics, *yawn*). It requires excessive and superfluous words to scratch the surface of any actual phenomena, and still fails.

Neon duke says "this is right and that is wrong because, just because." And then the fun starts with the interminable, circular rationalizations i.e. "It's true because it's ture... just because... it's universal, permanent." And yet evidence everywhere proves otherwise. I "substantiated" that so many times. Why should I do it again? Why, just because you are willing to beat a dead horse, should I? Why is a willinglness to waste my time and indefinitely repeat myself supposed to be "good"?

 

[Danoff]

now who's repeating themselves?

Is it me thinking about you? Or the other way around?

 

[Danoff]

Danoff, you look more and more like neon duke's lackey

What is it with you and the name calling? Didn’t you learn anything in elementary school?

 

[Danoff]

I'm also very flattered that this thread lives on with me as the new subject

I would like to maintain the subject of this thread as “Heathcare for Everyone”. I will, however, take time out to defend (and explain) myself.

 

[Danoff]

It takes you that long to express an idea only because it is so contrived.

My examples are contrived because You do not understand the fundamental concepts.

You claim it is simple, but it requires a political party to achieve anything (more of the same old party politics, *yawn*).

I don't know who you're talking about here. Me? I don't play party politics. Show me where I have instead of claiming it to be true. (typical)

It requires excessive and superfluous words to scratch the surface of any actual phenomena, and still fails.

Oohhh come on!!!!!!! Really!!!! My words are superfluous???? Mine??!!!???? NOT YOURS !!!???!!! WAKE UP?

Read your own posts over again and tell me your words are not superfluous.

 

[Danoff]

note: I was referring to other threads (safety belts, minimum wage)

 

[Danoff]

And then the fun starts with the interminable, circular rationalizations

It's right because it feels right. And when something feels right, its right.... because that's the definition right... feeling right. Right?

 

[Danoff]

And yet evidence everywhere proves otherwise. I "substantiated" that so many times.

What mythical evidence would you be referring to? Was it when you were claiming that I’m a lackey when you substantiated? When you called neon an ass? How about when you said:

It's a complicated problem. I can't and won't solve it. And my opinion on it changes from time to time. I want to be some kid of hard-ass and say, "too bad... you, and you, and you, will die because you're poor and it's your own damn fault." And it doesn't seem right.

That’s obviously carefully substantiated. How about when you said:

So lets say, hypothetically, a family member of yours gets, say, cancer. It is totally operable, but the entire procedure, surgery, hospital bill, anesthesiologists, oncologists, MRI bill, etc, would cost upwards of $100,000. Very few people can pay that. These people will die?

It’s concrete, but how does it support your case? It assumes that you’re right and then draws that conclusion. Maybe you meant when you gave us the example of

That entire post can be found in countless other places on this very site, and on the Rush Limbaugh show every day. It's called regurgitation. And a long one at that. Spare us. Anyone can paraphrase conservative dogma.

No wait, that has nothing to do with the thread at all…. There must be one in here that you’re talking about…

The same is true for any adherent to a particular "ism" or ideology. It's especially relevant to your mention of "different concepts of fairness", of which neither side is willing to acknowledge. This is central to any so-called "liberal/conservative" dichotomy in that is it is conspicuously absent.

That’s not it.

You are defensive and belligerent, stingy and pompous. You erroneously believe you have the solutiuons to modern life. If we all just thought like you the world would be perfect.

Nope…

This is BS. Nice try though.

The two of you have no integrity at all. You'll say anything to be right and it ends there.

You obviously have more time on your hands than me to be willing to continue spinning your wheels like that. Enjoy. Like I said, everything I need to say on this topic is already there, and wasting my time on you enhances nothing. Time to move on to the next thing.

I just can’t find it Mile. I’ll have to take your word for it.

 

[milefile]

Danoff, why don't you make an argument? Pick something from a post of mine or anybody's, and argue against it. It's all I did until I realized I was merely repeating myself. You didn't answer my questions. You pick out the parts that you don't like and criticize them. Fine. But if that's all you do there's nothing to take seriously. This thread is four pages long. Find something I said and argue against it. Otherwise the discussion is over. I have, here and in other threads, provided ample evidence that there is nothing permanent about anything, except that everything is impermanent. Your saying I didn't isn't going to make me go and dig it all up for you, or repeat myself for you. Like I noted, it's all there, argue against it, or don't, it's up to you.

I come here to describe my perspective, compare and contrast it to others', and argue until the argument becomes a stupid, circular waste. After that there is no point wasting any more energy. You want to keep arguing for it's own sake.

The most baffling thing is the way you and neon duke both make things up just so you can argue.

And I mention party politics because you have labeled yourself as "a libertarian." Anyting you say can and will be used against you.

 

[milefile]

Danoff, nice trick. The fact of the matter is I never said I am for universal health care. And you arguing agianst me like I said I was. Why? This is the waste of time I am talking about.

All you listed were questions I asked. Yes, I ask questions while arriving at a decision. So you're aguing against questions?

Your post just wastes space and shows nothing, again.

 

[milefile]

You and neon duke talk very tough. Of course niether you, nor I, have ever been in a situation where decisions to implement your opinion of what is best for everybody occurr.

If you think I am for universal health care because I said I wouldn't want to be the one tell Joe Schmoe who has been laid off for two months and has no health coverage that he will die because the treatment for his leukemia is to expensive, you're a strange person. If you think I am for universal health care because I think it is worth trying to help people your drawing conclusions I can't follow. If you think that because I have compassion I am for universal health care I challenge you to show me how you came to that conclusion. Nobody has yet done this. And yet all over this forum I am accused of wanting to tax and spend and take things away from people. Show me one place where I ever indicated I am for that. You are arguing gohsts.

And I am convinced you and neon duke are callous and mean because the mere suggestion that just maybe people can be helped, without even so much as hinting at how, was answered with arrogant hostility. Why? Does your so-called "philosophy" require that suffering must be ignored? Do you have no ideas on how people can be helped? Or is just that if somebody needs help they are somehow a liability to society and their existence should be encouraged to end? Please explain it to me.

 

[Danoff]

None of the quotes that I posted above are really questions.

You are the one who picks parts of arguments and criticizes while NOT SUBSTANTIATING your own argument. I was trying to substantiate your lack of substantiation above. You’ve obviously missed it. So I’m forced to repeat myself (which I hate).

This thread is four pages long because although it started out as a discussion about health care, it became a series of personal attacks from you. (Like they all seem to)

Find something I said and argue against it

It’s hard to find something you said that has any content (illustrated above with your quotes).

I have, here and in other threads, provided ample evidence that there is nothing permanent about anything, except that everything is impermanent.

No. You have not. Not only have you not provided ample evidence that nothing is permanent. I challenge you to find any evidence you have presented at all anywhere on this forum to back that up. (and I do mean evidence, not generalities)

And why are you talking about that anyway? It’s beside the point.

You want to keep arguing for it's own sake

Here I go again - having to repeat myself. This is plain wrong. I am here to listen to good well thought out viewpoints. I am not enjoying this argument - I am sitting through it in hopes that something substantial will come out of it.

The most baffling thing is the way you and neon duke both make things up just so you can argue

PROVIDE SOME FREAKING EXAMPLES FOR ONCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(hereafter this will be referred to as line 33)

And I mention party politics because you have labeled yourself as "a libertarian." Anyting you say can and will be used against you.

My turn to yawn. You have tried over and over to make this party politics. The whole time I haven’t even held the libertarian party line. Give me a break, and see line 33.

The fact of the matter is I never said I am for universal health care

I never claimed you were. See line 33.

So you're aguing against questions?

How do you arrive at that? The only questions you asked in this thread have been in your first and last post. I wish we could have stuck to those questions rather than making this one long personal attack. See line 33.

Your post just wastes space and shows nothing, again.

You arrive at this because you didn’t understand what I was telling you. And by the way - what I’m doing here is not picking parts of your arguments and arguing against them. I am systematically dissecting your posts. There is a difference. My way uses evidence (there’s that theme again).

Of course niether you, nor I, have ever been in a situation where decisions to implement your opinion of what is best for everybody occurr.

Beside the point.

If you think I am for universal health care because…

I don’t need to address this paragraph because I never claimed this premise. Also, when you say “And yet all over this forum I am accused of wanting to tax and spend and take things away from people.” You should be talking to Duke.

And I am convinced you and neon duke are callous and mean

Repetition is not fun, but here goes again. Please refrain from personal attacks. And if you felt like it, on this part you still could have (insert line 33 here).

…because the mere suggestion that just maybe people can be helped, without even so much as hinting at how, was answered with arrogant hostility.

See line 33. (I’m not saying you can’t do it, I’m suggesting you try).

Does your so-called "philosophy" require that suffering must be ignored? Do you have no ideas on how people can be helped? Or is just that if somebody needs help they are somehow a liability to society and their existence should be encouraged to end? Please explain it to me.

Finally, some substance. Do you really want to know? It’s called charity, and it’s given freely by whoever wants to help. I am perfectly fine with people helping ease suffering OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL.

Did that require superfluous language? Did it take a long time? Is it complicated or contrived?

Makes perfect sense though doesn’t it?

 

[Duke]

It sure makes sense to me. In fact, I even raised it several times as a perfectly valid occurance, in the list below, which is repeated. I trust I don't need to emphasize which ones are charitable.

• I can buy food, clothes, a house, and cars with it.
• I can roll it up into a little tube and snort cocaine through it.
• I can open a soup kitchen or an orphanage.
• I can endow a fellowship for Libertarian Architecture students at my favorite university.
• I can bury it in little jars in my back yard.
• I can invest it in the stock market, T-bills, or horse races.
• I can tithe it to the church of my choice.
• I can take 20% of my paycheck in crisp $5 bills at the bank, and hand one to each homeless person I meet on the way home.

Charities are welcome to appeal to my guilt, compassion, common sense, etc. If they succeed, I'll donate.

I contribute to the MS Society because my sister has MS. So does one of my best friends from college. I contribute in his name because I have lost touch with hm and don't even know if he's still alive - but I remember him.

I contribute to the United Way. I've contributed to charter schools before my child was even a student there, and with no guarantee that she would ever be one. I've contributed to the architecture department at both of my colleges. I've contributed to the Diabetes Foundation because that disease killed my mother-in-law. I've contributed to the American Cancer Society because my father died of cancer.

Which leads me to another point.

My father died of lung cancer. Smoking for 25 years will do that to you, even 15 years after you quit. It was possibly treatable. They tried some basic measures and some surgery, but it wasn't enough. More money might well have kept him alive, but it would have bankrupted my mother and left her without support. He died.

So I walk the walk, not just talk the ****ing talk.

 

[milefile]

See this thread. Read from where the link dumps you off to the end of the thread. My perspective is described there, with examples.

It is the context, the fundemental difference between you and me. If you want something clarified, or you want me to relate it to any particular subject, I will.

*Edit*
Aside from the irrelevant accusations of being a "liberalist" who wants to centrally conrtol distribution of resources (and maybe even that, too), this is the argument we are having, over and over and over, or at least what I have been trying to argue over and over. It informs all of my beliefs and is how I evaluate, and all thinking is evaluation, judgement. The amazing thing is that I actually almost always agree with you and neon duke. I simply propose a different way of getting there.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by milefile
If you want something clarified, or you want me to relate it to any particular subject, I will.

Thank you for the offer. I appreciate the perseverence you probably needed to make it.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by neon_duke
Thank you for the offer. I appreciate the perseverence you probably needed to make it.

I don't follow. Are you being sarcastic? I seriously can't tell anymore.

 

[Duke]

I'm being sincere. I'm sure it took no small effort for you to make a good-faith offer to go over the topic again. I appreciate that, since it is the reason I come here and read what people have to say.

 

[Danoff]

Mile:
I'd like to make sure that you wanted me to re-read the baby hippo message. If not, I read the wrong one.

I need you to relate that story to the lack of universals and principles, if that's even what we're talking about anymore. I'm not sure how this relates back to the universal health care unless you're saying you're totally against it.

Are you saying that your whole way of looking at life can be derived from natural selection? Because that IS very defferent from the way I see things.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by danoff
Mile:
I'd like to make sure that you wanted me to re-read the baby hippo message. If not, I read the wrong one.

I need you to relate that story to the lack of universals and principles, if that's even what we're talking about anymore. I'm not sure how this relates back to the universal health care unless you're saying you're totally against it.

Are you saying that your whole way of looking at life can be derived from natural selection? Because that IS very defferent from the way I see things.

Not just that. But it is one example. It goes on in posts that follow regarding history and force and maybe more, I can't remember. That's just where it seems like it starts.

 

[westside]

Milefile, the baby hippo message and the rest of that thread doesn't present any examples that support your perspective--not any concrete evidence. Your "evidence" consists of hypothetical examples of people getting sick, getting cancer, unable to pay for it, or stealing food and later building lives, etc. You discuss your perspective at great length in that thread, and with a lot of interesting detail, but no supporting evidence. Supporting evidence would be, for example, something like

--cost savings from paying dental care out-of-pocket versus insurance
--the fact that doctors are quitting their jobs because they can't afford malpractice insurance
--the fact that paying insurance is voluntary whereas paying your taxes is not
--the money spent by police forces to enforce seat belt laws
--the fact that second hand smoke causes cancer
--the fact that business can lose smoking customers if a smoking ban is passed

etc...

Do you have any examples like that for your "necessity" and "abstraction" and "no universal principles" perspectives?

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by westside
Milefile, the baby hippo message and the rest of that thread doesn't present any examples that support your perspective--not any concrete evidence. Your "evidence" consists of hypothetical examples of people getting sick, getting cancer, unable to pay for it, or stealing food and later building lives, etc. You discuss your perspective at great length in that thread, and with a lot of interesting detail, but no supporting evidence. Supporting evidence would be, for example, something like

--cost savings from paying dental care out-of-pocket versus insurance
--the fact that doctors are quitting their jobs because they can't afford malpractice insurance
--the fact that paying insurance is voluntary whereas paying your taxes is not
--the money spent by police forces to enforce seat belt laws
--the fact that second hand smoke causes cancer
--the fact that business can lose smoking customers if a smoking ban is passed

etc...

Do you have any examples like that for your "necessity" and "abstraction" and "no universal principles" perspectives?

Ugh. I am not arguing particulars, and you haven't been in on the several simultaneous arguments I've been having with these two over the course of a couple weeks. I see your point, but I am emphasizing existential or moral aspects to perspectives, as you might see is the slant of the argument(s).

 

[westside]

I haven't been "in on it" but I've been reading it, actually, and I'm interested in your ideas about no universal principles...I just don't see how your perspective relates back to, say, giving health care to people who can't pay for it, and I was curious if you had any examples.

 

[Duke]

I have to step in here and do two things:

1) Welcome westside to the forums. I'm eager to see more of your writing.

2) Point out that milefile wasn't necessarily promoting socialized health care. When reduced to the basics, his point was that it is difficult to let people die when it is physically possible for them to be cured.

The issue of universal health care was the original topic, and I sort of polarized his statement for him. Admittedly he was never able to explain his point clearly enough for me, but a lot of that emphasis was mine, not his.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by westside

--cost savings from paying dental care out-of-pocket versus insurance
--the fact that doctors are quitting their jobs because they can't afford malpractice insurance
--the fact that paying insurance is voluntary whereas paying your taxes is not
--the money spent by police forces to enforce seat belt laws
--the fact that second hand smoke causes cancer
--the fact that business can lose smoking customers if a smoking ban is passed

etc...

Do you have any examples like that for your "necessity" and "abstraction" and "no universal principles" perspectives?

People say that health insurance is voluntary. That is technically correct. In the political arena of values this can be used as an argument and certain mindsets will approve because it supports a priciple they value.

But no responsible adults choose to not have health insurance, especially if they have kids or a wife that doesn't work. They may discuss the voluntary nature of it, and talk about how much it costs and how inadequate it may seem, but at the end of the day one fact in the form of looming possibilty always lingers: serious illness. Unless you are abnormally rich this will wipe you out financially. An extended stay in the hospital, surgery, prolonged care and/or prescriptions surpass most middle class salaries. People know this, and heed the threat by opting into health insurance, even though it is voluntary. Rational people do not volunteer for unecessary risks. It uncovers a wrinkle in the priciple that "voluntary" satisfies; it reveals an exception. And if there's one there are others.

I think it was neon duke who said that eating is voluntary, as well. Indeed, it's true. But rational people do not choose not to eat, in fact, the need to eat is so great people will steal for it. This illustrates the same thing, gray area in the perfect certainty.

In both cases people chose what is most beneficial for them, as they always will. My co-worker who would've paid less out of pocket for his kids healthcare will not opt out of the insurance plan because a possibility is controling the decision, the possibility of serious, long term illness.



I'm going to skip seat belts and smoking here as I'm not in the mood for an essay.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by milefile
But no responsible adults choose to not have health insurance.

Rational people do not volunteer for unecessary risks. It uncovers a wrinkle in the priciple that "voluntary" satisfies; it reveals an exception. And if there's one there are others.

But I don't think it does reveal an exception or a wrinkle.

Rational people do not drive without their seatbelts on, either, or ride a motorcycle without a helmet, or smoke. Yet many words have been expended on this board in defense of the rights of people to take those risks.

Regardless of the beneficence of health insurance, it remains voluntary.

 

[westside]

Milefile, I definitely agree that no responsible adults choose not to have health care, unless they're very rich. But the key word there is choose. They can choose how much risk they want to take, which insurance company they want, what type of coverage. Just because rational people choose it doesn't mean it's not voluntary.

Universal health care, however, mandated by the government, would not be voluntary.

I'm not sure I exactly follow your argument, milefile. Rational people choose it, yes--does this mean it should be universal? Does this mean it is a necessity, as you discussed in earlier threads? Does it mean we should pay health care for those who are not rational enough to insure themselves, as you seemed to be suggesting earlier?

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by neon_duke
But I don't think it does reveal an exception or a wrinkle.

Rational people do not drive without their seatbelts on, either, or ride a motorcycle without a helmet, or smoke. Yet many words have been expended on this board in defense of the rights of people to take those risks.

Regardless of the beneficence of health insurance, it remains voluntary.

I'm not saying it's not voluntary. I am pointing out that for most people circumstances, or the possibility of certain circumstances, in effect, coerce them. As always, there is the option to not go along, and there are consequences, even if they're only possible consequences.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by westside
Milefile, I definitely agree that no responsible adults choose not to have health care, unless they're very rich. But the key word there is choose. They can choose how much risk they want to take, which insurance company they want, what type of coverage. Just because rational people choose it doesn't mean it's not voluntary.

I know. See above.

Universal health care, however, mandated by the government, would not be voluntary.

I also know this.

I'm not sure I exactly follow your argument, milefile. Rational people choose it, yes--does this mean it should be universal?

No. But it is a necessity. Those facts don't contradict eachother.

Does it mean we should pay health care for those who are not rational enough to insure themselves, as you seemed to be suggesting earlier?

No. But we do now.

Now if anyone says health care is not a necessity I have no response. In the wilderness of life devoid of civilization it is not. But in a civilized society we try to preserve human life, or lives. If you collapse in a mall and are rushed to the hospital, you will not be denied treatment for lack of insurance. You may be taken to another hospital. What else could they do? Dump you off on the side walk to die? There are certain burdens that come with being human. No it's not fair or desireable. But I do believe there is a minimal obligation to preserve a life in an objective sense. I can't imagine a society that would deprive anyone on such a basic level. I don't think socialized medicine is the way to do it either, although it is a way. And I'm also sure I am in enough company on this that if we did live in a country where there were no government funded hospitals, there would still be a place to go.

 

[westside]

First of all, I don't think "health care is a necessity" is a fact, as you stated. I think that's an opinion.

Second, why would you have no response if someone said health care is not a necessity? You would not discuss it any further? You would not explain why you believe it is? You would not, for example, discuss the definition of health care, or necessity, or anything else to see why you disagree?

But more importantly, I'm trying to understand your definition of necessity. It seems like a universal principle to me, from your perspective.

You make the argument that we have a "minimal obligation to preserve life." So then why were you earlier arguing that we should not require parents to put seatbelts on their kids?

A basic obligation to preserve life means everyone has a right to health care. So I think you're arguing for universal health care. Are you arguing for the sake of compassion? Just pure necessity? And can you offer a real example of how this works--because who pays for the doctor, nurses, drugs, and other hospital expenses? Can you give some concrete examples of how your philosophy here works?

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by westside
First of all, I don't think "health care is a necessity" is a fact, as you stated. I think that's an opinion.

Ask a Christian Scientist what they think.