US/Obama Healthcare Plan Consolidated MEGA-THREAD

[Jocabia]

Life expectancy compared to Japan? Perhaps if you were not McDonald's extra large fries eating, SUV driving, obese people as a nation you would live longer. Not a health care issue.

Again, you ignore the fact that the free market is a relatively new phenomenon, and insist on examples. Just because there is no example of something doesn't mean it is not true. Is the free market the best way of providing, food for example? Yes. Was it the best way of providing food 400 years ago? Yes. But were there examples of the free market providing it? Few if any. Doesn't mean it is not the best system.

Is Democracy the best form of government? If we had this discussion in 1775 would you be crying that there are no working examples of it? Seems rather ridiculous.

Just because something has not been tried, doesn't mean it does not work.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/22/burg ... -in-japan/

Yup, in Japan they don't have extra large fries, right?

As far as your free market bullshit, how the hell is the free market a new phenomenon. We've had free markets. As one would expect, when we do, they exploit the government and the worker, because there is money to be made. We had child workforces and we had monopolies and we had arms being torn off under unsafe conditions. It's government intervention that provides child labor laws, safety laws, antitrust laws, fire services, police services. And it should be with health services. Because it's yet another thing where the needs of the free market are counter to those of society.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

Also, you are argueing 2 different things: Affordable healthcare and universal healthcare(insurance).

I am with you that reducing the cost of healthcare is important. NO doubt. So is reducing the waste and fraud of medicare/aide. Fine. We dont need another system. We just need to clean up the system we have.
Pass comprehensive litigation reform
Give insurance companies the ability to compete across state lines
Make insurace portable (across companies)
Reduce the amount of time and paperwork doctors need to file claims
Eliminate "cherry picking" of the insured
Eliminate "pre-existing conditions" clauses, (sticky here, for several different reasons I can get into if you want)

yeah, I have no problem with passing legislation to make Healthcare more affordable. Most of the measures dont even require expanding the Govmt.

As far as Universal Insurance Coverage:
Make the changes necessary to reduce costs.
Cover through existing, but streamlined, Medicare/aide programs the old, chronically ill, and the children of the poor
Make private insurace affordable (see above) and empower employers to administer the insurance in effective/efficient ways
For those who are UNWILLING to work. NO govmt handouts. Incentivise people to donate to private charities on a 1:1 deduction basis. For every dollar you giveto charity, 1 dollar comes directly off your bottom line tax bill. This will cover those who are lazy so they arent dying in the streets. At least most of them, we cant have everything now can we?

They are entirely intertwined. Reducing costs requires us to get people taking care of themselves. Preventive maintenance works. It keeps people working. It keeps that on the job. It helps them live longer, have healthier babies and basically be less of a burden. Preventive care requires universal care.

The government option is just an option. If private insurers put a good product at a fair price, they have no concern with competition. FedEx and UPS aren't struggling. Hell, water is given away for just about nothing, straight from the tap, and people still go to the store to buy it. Government competition hasn't proven to be stifling. Insurance companies have stifled competition for years. It's time we stop allowing it.

I think we are close on an accord. We disagree on the Govmt option but that is OK. You still havent addressed my "hobo with cancer" question. Or will you rescind your statement that "No one is promising FREE healthcare"

Dude, seriously, if you can't read then this isn't the forum for you. I addressed it. Other people addressed it. This is what's wrong with our education system. People are lazy. You're exactly what you're complaining about. You even replied to my point on it. The "hobo" has coverage today. There is already free healthcare for the destitute. This is what is wrong with some Americans. You think you're entitled to respect for ideas and opinions, no matter how stupid they are or how uneducated their foundation. Your "hobo with cancer" question is based on ignorance. Your "free healthcare" comparison thread was pretty much a study in misunderstanding what is going on in America today.

You want no coddling? Well there it is plain as day. How ya feeling now? Aren't you happy I'm not coddling you? Aren't you feeling more motivated to be educated?

Where did you address the sick hobo? Also, where do you get off being disrespecful to me. If you cannot debate me in a respectful manner, I will simply ignore you.

[Jocabia]

Just an option? Funded by taxing health insurers? And they run charities and will not pass that cost along to the consumers. The public option will become the only option for an overwhelming majority over time.

I always love the free market guys. They somehow just ignore the economics. I assume you know what price elasticity is, right? They can pass it on if they like, but it will make it more difficult to compete. Somehow you can never touch the profits of corporations because they'll just raise prices, as if consumers have no power whatsoever. So do you believe in the market or don't you? Because I have yet to see one of the free market guys who actually believe the consumer has any say in the situation at all.

Meanwhile, if insurers who have been making money hand over fist in a devestating economy suddenly can't compete with this "awful" public option then they don't deserve to compete. If consumers choose the government option over the private option it's because the government option is more affordable and provides more quality. I'm okay with that.

[Surote]

Because of the shortcomings of the privately-funded and deregulated insurence industy, my grandmother died of easily treatable bone cancer. I am in complete and total support of government provided and regulated healthcare.

And Sibirsky if people do start to go to the government more then the corps it just means corps are bad at providing service and I know you want to protect the corps but you know if they don't change there out of here.

They will go because it will be cheaper and they are either unable, or not willing to pay for the more expensive private insurance.

Well that's how it goes if the government is cheaper then your corps are just dead.

Plus the corps don't act right where does everyone go for help the government so really are healthcare corps doing anything helpful.

[Jocabia]

Also, you are argueing 2 different things: Affordable healthcare and universal healthcare(insurance).

I am with you that reducing the cost of healthcare is important. NO doubt. So is reducing the waste and fraud of medicare/aide. Fine. We dont need another system. We just need to clean up the system we have.
Pass comprehensive litigation reform
Give insurance companies the ability to compete across state lines
Make insurace portable (across companies)
Reduce the amount of time and paperwork doctors need to file claims
Eliminate "cherry picking" of the insured
Eliminate "pre-existing conditions" clauses, (sticky here, for several different reasons I can get into if you want)

yeah, I have no problem with passing legislation to make Healthcare more affordable. Most of the measures dont even require expanding the Govmt.

As far as Universal Insurance Coverage:
Make the changes necessary to reduce costs.
Cover through existing, but streamlined, Medicare/aide programs the old, chronically ill, and the children of the poor
Make private insurace affordable (see above) and empower employers to administer the insurance in effective/efficient ways
For those who are UNWILLING to work. NO govmt handouts. Incentivise people to donate to private charities on a 1:1 deduction basis. For every dollar you giveto charity, 1 dollar comes directly off your bottom line tax bill. This will cover those who are lazy so they arent dying in the streets. At least most of them, we cant have everything now can we?

They are entirely intertwined. Reducing costs requires us to get people taking care of themselves. Preventive maintenance works. It keeps people working. It keeps that on the job. It helps them live longer, have healthier babies and basically be less of a burden. Preventive care requires universal care.

The government option is just an option. If private insurers put a good product at a fair price, they have no concern with competition. FedEx and UPS aren't struggling. Hell, water is given away for just about nothing, straight from the tap, and people still go to the store to buy it. Government competition hasn't proven to be stifling. Insurance companies have stifled competition for years. It's time we stop allowing it.

I think we are close on an accord. We disagree on the Govmt option but that is OK. You still havent addressed my "hobo with cancer" question. Or will you rescind your statement that "No one is promising FREE healthcare"

Dude, seriously, if you can't read then this isn't the forum for you. I addressed it. Other people addressed it. This is what's wrong with our education system. People are lazy. You're exactly what you're complaining about. You even replied to my point on it. The "hobo" has coverage today. There is already free healthcare for the destitute. This is what is wrong with some Americans. You think you're entitled to respect for ideas and opinions, no matter how stupid they are or how uneducated their foundation. Your "hobo with cancer" question is based on ignorance. Your "free healthcare" comparison thread was pretty much a study in misunderstanding what is going on in America today.

You want no coddling? Well there it is plain as day. How ya feeling now? Aren't you happy I'm not coddling you? Aren't you feeling more motivated to be educated?

Where did you address the sick hobo? Also, where do you get off being disrespecful to me. If you cannot debate me in a respectful manner, I will simply ignore you.

You said you don't want any coddling. I'm not supposed to coddle children, but I'm supposed to coddle you? If you say things that are ignorant, I will point out that they're ignorant. That is debate. Respect is earned. If you feel you cannot earn it, then go for putting me on ignore.

Meanwhile, I just answered your "hobo with cancer" question again. It's the same answer as before. Do you remember when I asked you if you've heard of medicaid and medicare (because the hobo gets medicaid today) and you said your wife is on medicare? You replied to my answer. Now I have to go show you where?

So which part am I supposed to respect? That you don't know that the destitute CURRENTLY gets free medical care through medicate? The part where you think new healthcare bill means "free" healthcare? The part where you made a comparison between medical care and cookies? The part where you went on a rant about how unfair it is that people don't have to work? The part where your rants are all over the map complaining about problems that you're trying to prevent solutions to? The part where you ignore the success of similar systems in other economies? The part where you ignore that the current system is killing people? The part where you use logical fallacies to avoid debating? Which part?

[Jocabia]

Buxtahatche is a veteran of a current foreign war. He laid his life on the line to protect your right to say what you are saying. Before you charge a veteran with being the "decay of the nation", I suggest you enlist and put your own life on the line, or simply say "thank you for your service" and then sit down.

Your appeals to emotion are irrelevant.

I have no idea who Buxtahatche is in the real world (the beauty of an anonymous forum), and I don't care - because it doesn't affect the quality of his/her arguments.

Being a veteran, even if true, does not give you a better or more valid opinion.

To address what you said, Buxtahatche is just one more of a long line of people complaining about the decay of our nation, while trying to destroy all the things that made this nation great in the first place. Being a veteran doesn't change that.

And don't even get me started on how veterans of CURRENT wars are doing not a damn thing to protect my right to say anything.

Your hasty genealizations are irrelevant too sir.

Again, you don't know what a logical fallacy is. Show me where he used a "hasty generalization" and why it invalidates his argument. A dollar to the hole in a donut says you cannot. Just like every other logical fallacy claim you've made to avoid a point.

I'm a veteran. Marine Corps. Am I suddenly infallible too?

[Grave_n_idle]

Buxtahatche is a veteran of a current foreign war. He laid his life on the line to protect your right to say what you are saying. Before you charge a veteran with being the "decay of the nation", I suggest you enlist and put your own life on the line, or simply say "thank you for your service" and then sit down.

Your appeals to emotion are irrelevant.

I have no idea who Buxtahatche is in the real world (the beauty of an anonymous forum), and I don't care - because it doesn't affect the quality of his/her arguments.

Being a veteran, even if true, does not give you a better or more valid opinion.

To address what you said, Buxtahatche is just one more of a long line of people complaining about the decay of our nation, while trying to destroy all the things that made this nation great in the first place. Being a veteran doesn't change that.

And don't even get me started on how veterans of CURRENT wars are doing not a damn thing to protect my right to say anything.

Your hasty genealizations are irrelevant too sir.

Again, you don't know what a logical fallacy is. Show me where he used a "hasty generalization" and why it invalidates his argument. A dollar to the hole in a donut says you cannot. Just like every other logical fallacy claim you've made to avoid a point.

I'm a veteran. Marine Corps. Am I suddenly infallible too?

This should be interesting... this is like irresistible force/immovable object - I always wondered how this one was resolved.

[Jocabia]

Buxtahatche is a veteran of a current foreign war. He laid his life on the line to protect your right to say what you are saying. Before you charge a veteran with being the "decay of the nation", I suggest you enlist and put your own life on the line, or simply say "thank you for your service" and then sit down.

Your appeals to emotion are irrelevant.

I have no idea who Buxtahatche is in the real world (the beauty of an anonymous forum), and I don't care - because it doesn't affect the quality of his/her arguments.

Being a veteran, even if true, does not give you a better or more valid opinion.

To address what you said, Buxtahatche is just one more of a long line of people complaining about the decay of our nation, while trying to destroy all the things that made this nation great in the first place. Being a veteran doesn't change that.

And don't even get me started on how veterans of CURRENT wars are doing not a damn thing to protect my right to say anything.

Your hasty genealizations are irrelevant too sir.

Again, you don't know what a logical fallacy is. Show me where he used a "hasty generalization" and why it invalidates his argument. A dollar to the hole in a donut says you cannot. Just like every other logical fallacy claim you've made to avoid a point.

I'm a veteran. Marine Corps. Am I suddenly infallible too?

This should be interesting... this is like irresistible force/immovable object - I always wondered how this one was resolved.

Appeal to humor.

[Grave_n_idle]

Appeal to humor.

Alas, only an appeal. I tried.

[Sibirsky]

Just an option? Funded by taxing health insurers? And they run charities and will not pass that cost along to the consumers. The public option will become the only option for an overwhelming majority over time.

I always love the free market guys. They somehow just ignore the economics. I assume you know what price elasticity is, right? They can pass it on if they like, but it will make it more difficult to compete. Somehow you can never touch the profits of corporations because they'll just raise prices, as if consumers have no power whatsoever. So do you believe in the market or don't you? Because I have yet to see one of the free market guys who actually believe the consumer has any say in the situation at all.

Meanwhile, if insurers who have been making money hand over fist in a devestating economy suddenly can't compete with this "awful" public option then they don't deserve to compete. If consumers choose the government option over the private option it's because the government option is more affordable and provides more quality. I'm okay with that.

More affordable because of taxpayer subsidies. That is not fair competition.

3% is hand over fist?

[Grave_n_idle]

Just an option? Funded by taxing health insurers? And they run charities and will not pass that cost along to the consumers. The public option will become the only option for an overwhelming majority over time.

I always love the free market guys. They somehow just ignore the economics. I assume you know what price elasticity is, right? They can pass it on if they like, but it will make it more difficult to compete. Somehow you can never touch the profits of corporations because they'll just raise prices, as if consumers have no power whatsoever. So do you believe in the market or don't you? Because I have yet to see one of the free market guys who actually believe the consumer has any say in the situation at all.

Meanwhile, if insurers who have been making money hand over fist in a devestating economy suddenly can't compete with this "awful" public option then they don't deserve to compete. If consumers choose the government option over the private option it's because the government option is more affordable and provides more quality. I'm okay with that.

More affordable because of taxpayer subsidies. That is not fair competition.

3% is hand over fist?

3% is just the percentage. It can be a lot, or a little.

Also - 3% for demanding some money, and then maybe giving it back? Yeah - that's a pretty good margin.

[Sibirsky]

Just an option? Funded by taxing health insurers? And they run charities and will not pass that cost along to the consumers. The public option will become the only option for an overwhelming majority over time.

I always love the free market guys. They somehow just ignore the economics. I assume you know what price elasticity is, right? They can pass it on if they like, but it will make it more difficult to compete. Somehow you can never touch the profits of corporations because they'll just raise prices, as if consumers have no power whatsoever. So do you believe in the market or don't you? Because I have yet to see one of the free market guys who actually believe the consumer has any say in the situation at all.

Meanwhile, if insurers who have been making money hand over fist in a devestating economy suddenly can't compete with this "awful" public option then they don't deserve to compete. If consumers choose the government option over the private option it's because the government option is more affordable and provides more quality. I'm okay with that.

More affordable because of taxpayer subsidies. That is not fair competition.

3% is hand over fist?

3% is just the percentage. It can be a lot, or a little.

Also - 3% for demanding some money, and then maybe giving it back? Yeah - that's a pretty good margin.

3% is 3%. It's a thin margin. Microsoft makes 27% or so.

[Jocabia]

So now that replied to that silly hobo post five times along with several others replying, it's your turn:

man. going down this SAME road got me banned in July.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acc ... ex-eng.php
here is the CANADA source. I'll find more
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/06/can ... marks.html
"Based on the UK's National Health Service target of 18-weeks from initial referral by a family physician to start of treatment, a majority of Canadian patients had wait times that exceeded the 18-week target. Access is particularly poor for: ophthalmology (adult strabismus), obstetrics and gynecology, gastroenterology, plastic surgery and orthopedics."

Do I really need to go on?

You used a blog as a source? Err...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-b ... 55749.html

I Object: Tu quoque fallacy.

This one makes a complaint, but it doesn't address the original point which is that your source is a blog.

It should also be noted that while Huffington Post contains blogs, it also contains news articles. The link was to a news article, not a blog. Try again.

Lines. Waiting.

When something is free, people will line up for it. Healthcare and the dollars to support it are limited. When you give away a limted resource, you run out.

Try this. Bake 4 dozen cookies. Take them to your local movie store and sit out front with a table. Put 2 dozen cookies on the table and put a "free cookies" sign on the table. Observe. People will come by and grab them by the handfuls, and they will be gone in like 3 minutes.

Now, take away the "free cookie" sign and replace it with "Cookies $2 each". See how long those cookies last.

Source showing that in countries where healthcare is free, waiting times are longer than they are currently in America?

man. going down this SAME road got me banned in July.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acc ... ex-eng.php
here is the CANADA source. I'll find more
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/06/can ... marks.html
"Based on the UK's National Health Service target of 18-weeks from initial referral by a family physician to start of treatment, a majority of Canadian patients had wait times that exceeded the 18-week target. Access is particularly poor for: ophthalmology (adult strabismus), obstetrics and gynecology, gastroenterology, plastic surgery and orthopedics."

Do I really need to go on?

Are you aware that the Canadian system is not being proposed in the US?

More importantly, I'll ask again, why is waiting in line worse than dying?

Oh and I object: Argumentum ad populum

Address this. Why would we prefer waiting in line to dying? If waiting in line increases the standard of care, then why would we care?

More importantly, how the hell is pointing out that the current system is killing people and that's a worse result for a healthcare system than waiting in line for non-emergent services an argumentum ad populum? You do realize that just citing fallacies is not enough. You have to actually show why they apply.

Show me a source that says we are dying in the streets. This is not about healthcare. It is about losing your home after illness to pay for the healthcare.

You are only entitled to emergency care. Thousands of people die in the US every year due to lack of access to care.

I Object: Appeal to Emotion

Talking about the results of the healthcare system isn't an appeal to emotion. That our current system kills people is relevant. You avoided addressing this fact. Do so now.

Buxtahatche is a veteran of a current foreign war. He laid his life on the line to protect your right to say what you are saying. Before you charge a veteran with being the "decay of the nation", I suggest you enlist and put your own life on the line, or simply say "thank you for your service" and then sit down.

Your appeals to emotion are irrelevant.

I have no idea who Buxtahatche is in the real world (the beauty of an anonymous forum), and I don't care - because it doesn't affect the quality of his/her arguments.

Being a veteran, even if true, does not give you a better or more valid opinion.

To address what you said, Buxtahatche is just one more of a long line of people complaining about the decay of our nation, while trying to destroy all the things that made this nation great in the first place. Being a veteran doesn't change that.

And don't even get me started on how veterans of CURRENT wars are doing not a damn thing to protect my right to say anything.

Your hasty genealizations are irrelevant too sir.

Here's another. Where is the hasty generalizations and why is that an excuse to avoid addressing the overall issue?

Now, let's start here and move forward from there.

[Jocabia]

Just an option? Funded by taxing health insurers? And they run charities and will not pass that cost along to the consumers. The public option will become the only option for an overwhelming majority over time.

I always love the free market guys. They somehow just ignore the economics. I assume you know what price elasticity is, right? They can pass it on if they like, but it will make it more difficult to compete. Somehow you can never touch the profits of corporations because they'll just raise prices, as if consumers have no power whatsoever. So do you believe in the market or don't you? Because I have yet to see one of the free market guys who actually believe the consumer has any say in the situation at all.

Meanwhile, if insurers who have been making money hand over fist in a devestating economy suddenly can't compete with this "awful" public option then they don't deserve to compete. If consumers choose the government option over the private option it's because the government option is more affordable and provides more quality. I'm okay with that.

More affordable because of taxpayer subsidies. That is not fair competition.

3% is hand over fist?

3% is just the percentage. It can be a lot, or a little.

Also - 3% for demanding some money, and then maybe giving it back? Yeah - that's a pretty good margin.

3% is 3%. It's a thin margin. Microsoft makes 27% or so.

Dude, I'd totally take 3% of the kind of money that goes through health insurance companies. Their profits are up because while healthcare costs were increasing and heathcare premiums were increasing that gives them more money for that 3.3% they collect. Their profits were going up. And of course, the 3.3% doesn't account for the millions that board members are taking out.

Meanwhile, if Microsoft was profiting on the deaths of people, I'd be concerned about their profits. If they were profiting by puting a margin on top of the cost of a required service, then I'd care little for them actually succeeding. What's important is that if insurance companies are making our lives better, they will continue to exist. If they're not, they won't. They have to prove they can do better than a public option. Can they?

[Jocabia]

Time for my insurance covered sports massage. Be back later.

[Grave_n_idle]

3% is 3%. It's a thin margin. Microsoft makes 27% or so.

So?

If I kill 3% of the people I meet, and you kill 27% of the people you meet... do we both kill a lot of people?

Or, am I absolved just because you're this generations Gacy?

[KiloMikeAlpha]

So now that replied to that silly hobo post five times along with several others replying, it's your turn:

man. going down this SAME road got me banned in July.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acc ... ex-eng.php
here is the CANADA source. I'll find more
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/06/can ... marks.html
"Based on the UK's National Health Service target of 18-weeks from initial referral by a family physician to start of treatment, a majority of Canadian patients had wait times that exceeded the 18-week target. Access is particularly poor for: ophthalmology (adult strabismus), obstetrics and gynecology, gastroenterology, plastic surgery and orthopedics."

Do I really need to go on?

You used a blog as a source? Err...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-b ... 55749.html

I Object: Tu quoque fallacy.

This one makes a complaint, but it doesn't address the original point which is that your source is a blog.

It should also be noted that while Huffington Post contains blogs, it also contains news articles. The link was to a news article, not a blog. Try again.

Lines. Waiting.

When something is free, people will line up for it. Healthcare and the dollars to support it are limited. When you give away a limted resource, you run out.

Try this. Bake 4 dozen cookies. Take them to your local movie store and sit out front with a table. Put 2 dozen cookies on the table and put a "free cookies" sign on the table. Observe. People will come by and grab them by the handfuls, and they will be gone in like 3 minutes.

Now, take away the "free cookie" sign and replace it with "Cookies $2 each". See how long those cookies last.

Source showing that in countries where healthcare is free, waiting times are longer than they are currently in America?

man. going down this SAME road got me banned in July.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acc ... ex-eng.php
here is the CANADA source. I'll find more
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/06/can ... marks.html
"Based on the UK's National Health Service target of 18-weeks from initial referral by a family physician to start of treatment, a majority of Canadian patients had wait times that exceeded the 18-week target. Access is particularly poor for: ophthalmology (adult strabismus), obstetrics and gynecology, gastroenterology, plastic surgery and orthopedics."

Do I really need to go on?

Are you aware that the Canadian system is not being proposed in the US?

More importantly, I'll ask again, why is waiting in line worse than dying?

Oh and I object: Argumentum ad populum

Address this. Why would we prefer waiting in line to dying? If waiting in line increases the standard of care, then why would we care?

More importantly, how the hell is pointing out that the current system is killing people and that's a worse result for a healthcare system than waiting in line for non-emergent services an argumentum ad populum? You do realize that just citing fallacies is not enough. You have to actually show why they apply.

Show me a source that says we are dying in the streets. This is not about healthcare. It is about losing your home after illness to pay for the healthcare.

You are only entitled to emergency care. Thousands of people die in the US every year due to lack of access to care.

I Object: Appeal to Emotion

Talking about the results of the healthcare system isn't an appeal to emotion. That our current system kills people is relevant. You avoided addressing this fact. Do so now.

Buxtahatche is a veteran of a current foreign war. He laid his life on the line to protect your right to say what you are saying. Before you charge a veteran with being the "decay of the nation", I suggest you enlist and put your own life on the line, or simply say "thank you for your service" and then sit down.

Your appeals to emotion are irrelevant.

I have no idea who Buxtahatche is in the real world (the beauty of an anonymous forum), and I don't care - because it doesn't affect the quality of his/her arguments.

Being a veteran, even if true, does not give you a better or more valid opinion.

To address what you said, Buxtahatche is just one more of a long line of people complaining about the decay of our nation, while trying to destroy all the things that made this nation great in the first place. Being a veteran doesn't change that.

And don't even get me started on how veterans of CURRENT wars are doing not a damn thing to protect my right to say anything.

Your hasty genealizations are irrelevant too sir.

Here's another. Where is the hasty generalizations and why is that an excuse to avoid addressing the overall issue?

Now, let's start here and move forward from there.

I am not sure you addressed the sick hobo question. You stated that "no one is promising FREE healthcare" but that we need "universal coverage".

Now, a hobo who has no money, and by definition of universal coverage, has insurance. This same hobo gets cancer and goes and gets treatment. His insurance pays the bill. The hobo paid nothing. How is this NOT free healthcare?

You hasty generalization based on the statement "And don't even get me started on how veterans of CURRENT wars are doing not a damn thing to protect my right to say anything" is implying that no veterans of CURRENT wars are doing a dman thing to protect free speec. That, sir, is a hasty generalization, which is a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies are used in NSG to invalidate arguments.

Next. What specific issue are you arguing? It may help to argue one specific point. The problem with this "mega thread" is that is a mashup of several relevant issues. I will have no problem arguing an issue if you state clearly what your issue is.

As for the respect. Respect does not equal coddling. Respect is a sign of intelligence. I refuse to debate someone who is un-intelligent because it has no purpose. I believe that I have respected you, please offer me the same courtesy.

As for Buxtahatche, your inflamatory remarks against HIM are not only uncalled for, they are considered flaming and/or flamebaiting. I have no doubt that he is a big boy who can fight his own battles. I will not stand by, however, while veterans are being bashed, anonymously or not.

Now, do we have an accord, or shall I consider you ignored?

[Sibirsky]

3% is 3%. It's a thin margin. Microsoft makes 27% or so.

So?

If I kill 3% of the people I meet, and you kill 27% of the people you meet... do we both kill a lot of people?

Or, am I absolved just because you're this generations Gacy?

We both get the death penalty. I was just using Microsoft as an example of how much money people elsewhere are making. Suppose we wanted to cut costs (we do) and we made insurers become not for profits, we'd cut premiums by 3%? That is a joke.

[Grave_n_idle]

Suppose we wanted to cut costs (we do) and we made insurers become not for profits, we'd cut premiums by 3%? That is a joke.

So, you think malpractise reform is a joke?

[KiloMikeAlpha]

Jocabia, lets address things one at a time and try to avoid using LONG multi-level nested quotes. It become too hard to wade through the quote code to address the issue. Plus it is actually, I think, against the rules to make a "Pyramid"

[Grave_n_idle]

Now, do we have an accord, or shall I consider you ignored?

Ignoring Jocabia for things I said would be kind of pointless.

Here's my advice. Go back through the post, read it slowly, and reply to the actual comments Jocabia made.

If you ALSO want to reply to the post I made, it would be a good idea to do it separately.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

Suppose we wanted to cut costs (we do) and we made insurers become not for profits, we'd cut premiums by 3%? That is a joke.

So, you think malpractise reform is a joke?

We most certainly need malpractice reform. It is one of the major factors in reducing the cost of healthcare.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

Now, do we have an accord, or shall I consider you ignored?

Ignoring Jocabia for things I said would be kind of pointless.

Here's my advice. Go back through the post, read it slowly, and reply to the actual comments Jocabia made.

If you ALSO want to reply to the post I made, it would be a good idea to do it separately.

I tried to reply to the post that Jocabia made. The nested comments made it very hard to do so. I am not ignoring them, I just thing that they will be easier to address and follow if they were a bit separated.

[Jocabia]

I am not sure you addressed the sick hobo question. You stated that "no one is promising FREE healthcare" but that we need "universal coverage".

Now, a hobo who has no money, and by definition of universal coverage, has insurance. This same hobo gets cancer and goes and gets treatment. His insurance pays the bill. The hobo paid nothing. How is this NOT free healthcare?

You hasty generalization based on the statement "And don't even get me started on how veterans of CURRENT wars are doing not a damn thing to protect my right to say anything" is implying that no veterans of CURRENT wars are doing a dman thing to protect free speec. That, sir, is a hasty generalization, which is a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies are used in NSG to invalidate arguments.

Next. What specific issue are you arguing? It may help to argue one specific point. The problem with this "mega thread" is that is a mashup of several relevant issues. I will have no problem arguing an issue if you state clearly what your issue is.

As for the respect. Respect does not equal coddling. Respect is a sign of intelligence. I refuse to debate someone who is un-intelligent because it has no purpose. I believe that I have respected you, please offer me the same courtesy.

As for Buxtahatche, your inflamatory remarks against HIM are not only uncalled for, they are considered flaming and/or flamebaiting. I have no doubt that he is a big boy who can fight his own battles. I will not stand by, however, while veterans are being bashed, anonymously or not.

Now, do we have an accord, or shall I consider you ignored?

How many times do people have to tell you that the sick hobo is ALREADY covered. There need be no proposal to give him free care because he gets it now.

The "hasty generalization" was a comment on whether or not the current wars are actually protecting our freedoms. As I said, you don't understand the fallacies you're attempting to use. Meanwhile you didn't address the point of that one or any of the others.

You get only the respect your ideas earn. See, if you demonstrate through your posts that you are educated on the subject and we simply disagree then you'll get a response based on that. However, if your responses consist of ignoring history and current affairs, calling out every response you can't think of a good reply to as being a fallacy (without any explanation of why you think the fallacy applies or addressing the overarching point at all), silly comparisons to cookies and free jeans and the like, then you get treated as such.

I'll give you the respect of giving your arguments the merit they earn and no more. Ask GnI. He and I are friends but if he says something I think is stupid, I tell him I think it's stupid. That's respect. I know he has the intelligence and understanding to recognize that his arguments are under attack in debate and he's not. So one day I can treat his arguments as intelligent (because they are) and another day I can treat a different argument as ignorant (because it is). That's respect. You want coddling. You want me to pretend like your arguments are intelligent when they aren't.

That's my accord. You want me to treat an argument as intelligent then offer one. If you can't, don't. But don't complain to me for calling out your arguments for ignoring the evidence or calling for me to answer the same dumb question ten times.

[Jocabia]

Now, do we have an accord, or shall I consider you ignored?

Ignoring Jocabia for things I said would be kind of pointless.

Here's my advice. Go back through the post, read it slowly, and reply to the actual comments Jocabia made.

If you ALSO want to reply to the post I made, it would be a good idea to do it separately.

I tried to reply to the post that Jocabia made. The nested comments made it very hard to do so. I am not ignoring them, I just thing that they will be easier to address and follow if they were a bit separated.

They were seperated. They were seperate posts. You refused to address them as seperate posts which is why I brought them together.