Obama's amazing sense of humor

[foxpaws]

Yes, but I had assumed we (you) were working up towards why that was a good idea....

Sort of depends on where you go here - I sort of think we have some form of 'social justice' when it comes to healthcare without any federal mandates - no one will be denied emergency care in a hospital, regardless of ability to pay.

 

[Kstills]

Sort of depends on where you go here - I sort of think we have some form of 'social justice' when it comes to healthcare without any federal mandates - no one will be denied emergency care in a hospital, regardless of ability to pay.

Well, color me surprised.

I believe Federal regulations account for the majority of the problems with HC and it's delivery, and that the added mass of this latest legislation (assuming it's funded by the next Congress ) is simply more of the same.

I had expected you to be a full bore supporter of the latest HC reform effort...hmmm...

 

[Kstills]

Kstills, you wanted to focus on differences, here is one of the biggest ones; conceptions of justice.

Conservatives, libertarians and the framers viewed justice as a process that treats everyone equally. Liberals view justice as equality of results. The two conceptions are utterly incompatible and entail completely different policy approaches.

"Social" justice necessitates collectivism, playing favorites and a rejection of the rule of law.

Traditional justice necessitates the rule of law and an impartial government.

Understood.

Which is why Fox's reply to my request for a definition was a refreshing change from what I had expected.

I half expect, after seeing her response to my HC reform gambit, to hear that she's voting for Ron Paul in the next election....

 

[shagdrum]

I sort of think we have some form of 'social justice' when it comes to healthcare without any federal mandates - no one will be denied emergency care in a hospital, regardless of ability to pay.

So..the governmental mandate of not being denied emergency care is not from the federal government?

Also, you seem to be attaching social justice to some type of equality. I thought that didn't fit into your definition of social justice.

 

[shagdrum]

Understood.

Which is why Fox's reply to my request for a definition was a refreshing change from what I had expected.

I half expect, after seeing her response to my HC reform gambit, to hear that she's voting for Ron Paul in the next election....

Oh, she claimed to be against the Healthcare reform on this forum throughout the debate. Yet she defended it at every opportunity.

She has also claimed to be interested in opposing views on this forum yet conclusively demonstrated that she only interested in propagating her own views; intentionally misrepresenting those views she claims to be interested in understanding in the process.

She has claimed to read certain books yet been unable to grasp let alone recognize the fundamental arguments from those books when presented to her on this forum.

 

[foxpaws]

Oh, she claimed to be against the Healthcare reform on this forum throughout the debate. Yet she defended it at every opportunity.

She has also claimed to be interested in opposing views on this forum yet conclusively demonstrated that she only interested in propagating her own views; intentionally misrepresenting those views she claims to be interested in understanding in the process.

She has claimed to read certain books yet been unable to grasp let alone recognize the fundamental arguments from those books when presented to her on this forum.

whew - got to get the 'poo' gear out again.

I stated very clearly what I was for and against in the health care bill - I don't like single payer, and was against that from the beginning. I don't like the federal mandate - I stated that quite often, although I can understand what problem they are trying to address with it. I find it odd that last decade the right was for a federal mandate (Heritage Foundation wrote a great big thing on how good it was), and this decade they 'changed their minds'... I guess anyone can change their mind - right?

I do like insurance pools - removing 'across state' competition rules - am torn about the employer mandate - would like to see the administration of all of it taken to state level (colorado has a pretty good program here already).

I was appalled at the fear mongering when it came to 'death panels'.

And Hayek - well, if shag knew how long ago I read Hayek he might understand... however I have reviewed Hayek recently...

 

[foxpaws]

Understood.

Which is why Fox's reply to my request for a definition was a refreshing change from what I had expected.

I half expect, after seeing her response to my HC reform gambit, to hear that she's voting for Ron Paul in the next election....

I like Ron Paul, but he is easily lead astray it seems like, or seems a bit oblivious to some of the factions that embrace some of what he says. Sometimes they make him appear 'fringe', because they are so 'fringe'.

But, there are many things I like - some of his personal freedom things (get the government out of the marriage business, the flag can be burned, his stand on the war, on the Patriot Act, etc) and others I don't - his rather staunch stand on abortion for instance.

I actually have voted Libertarian in the past - might do so again - you never know which way the political winds may blow.

Oh, what I was looking for in HC was insurance reform, better access to it, less ways for the insurance companies to deny and close ranks, things that really needed fixing. To go bankrupt, even though you have health insurance, because you have a complex, expensive health problem, seems to be antithesis to what really should happen.

 

[shagdrum]

I was appalled at the fear mongering when it came to 'death panels'.

You took the comment out of context and misrepresented it. When that was pointed out all you could do was dismiss the legitimate concern behind it.

And Hayek - well, if shag knew how long ago I read Hayek he might understand... however I have reviewed Hayek recently...

that doesn't explain why you couldn't even grasp the most fundamental arguments the book makes. If you had read the book at all you could understand those fundamental arguments.

 

[foxpaws]

So shag, a 'concept I didn't grasp' or a 'concept I didn't agree with'

There is a world of difference.

Hayek isn't the lord of economics that you place him to be...

And using the words death panels is fear mongering, when no 'death panels' exist - no matter what 'context' it is in...

 

[shagdrum]

So shag, a 'concept I didn't grasp' or a 'concept I didn't agree with'

There is a world of difference.

I mean what I said. If you understood it, it would be clear. You didn't.

Either you are exceedingly stupid (something you have shown yourself not to be), or you were lying when you claimed to have read the book (something more likely given your history on this forum).

Hayek isn't the lord of economics that you place him to be...

Relevance?

Or is it simply another of your little snarky attacks/ dishonest attempts to ostracize me?

And using the words death panels is fear mongering, when no 'death panels' exist - no matter what 'context' it is in...

We have already covered your lies and disingenuous outrage on this.

 

[Kstills]

I like Ron Paul, but he is easily lead astray it seems like, or seems a bit oblivious to some of the factions that embrace some of what he says. Sometimes they make him appear 'fringe', because they are so 'fringe'.

But, there are many things I like - some of his personal freedom things (get the government out of the marriage business, the flag can be burned, his stand on the war, on the Patriot Act, etc) and others I don't - his rather staunch stand on abortion for instance.

I actually have voted Libertarian in the past - might do so again - you never know which way the political winds may blow.

Oh, what I was looking for in HC was insurance reform, better access to it, less ways for the insurance companies to deny and close ranks, things that really needed fixing. To go bankrupt, even though you have health insurance, because you have a complex, expensive health problem, seems to be antithesis to what really should happen.

Why?

Because that's not 'fair'?

 

[shagdrum]

Because that's not 'fair'?

And...which conception of social justice is she running with?

 

[foxpaws]

Why?

Because that's not 'fair'?

No, because you have played by the rules, and then the game keepers change the rules, or hide behind corporate gibbility goop, or just decline, deny and wait. Time is on their side, not yours, if you get ill.

 

[shagdrum]

No, because you have played by the rules, and then the game keepers change the rules, or hide behind corporate gibbility goop, or just decline, deny and wait.

What "rules" specifically are being changed?

And what is "corporate gibbility goop"?

 

[foxpaws]

Either you are exceedingly stupid (something you have shown yourself not to be), or you were lying when you claimed to have read the book (something more likely given your history on this forum).

Or how about a third option - I know you have an either/or world that you deal in shag - but most of the rest of humanity doesn't.

How about I read it 25 years ago -

Let's see - do you remember, in great detail, everything you read 25 years ago?

Oh, that's right - it would have been 'One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish'.

Do you remember the underlying philosophical meanings throughout the book...

The subtle tie-in with the current (at the time it was written - 1960) cold war escalation?

This one has a little star. This one has a little car. Obviously a reference to the Soviets (star) and Capitalists (car).

We have already covered your lies and disingenuous outrage on this.

Fine, and when they line your grandmother up in front of the death panel, I'll retract my statement.

Oh, but wait, it could have already happened with your grandfather, when the insurance company didn't approve a certain medicine because it didn't have enough clinical study behind it, and the cost ($1,000 a day) was prohibitive. So, rather than use that, they decided to keep him on vitamin C...

 

[04SCTLS]

Under the Canadian healthcare system despite it's shortcomings no one has to worry about going bankrupt paying medical bills.

This is part of Canada's economic model based on healthcare security.

 

[shagdrum]

Or how about a third option - I know you have an either/or world that you deal in shag - but most of the rest of humanity doesn't.

Your solution is to, once again, inject a false premise?

Let's see - do you remember, in great detail, everything you read 25 years ago?

You don't need to "remember in great detail". the basic arguments the book makes should be easily understood the rest of your life, even if you forget the details.

Yet you didn't understand them or recognize them, even if you couldn't identify the Author of the Book they were from.

I know you are trying to make it appear that I am imposing some absurdly high standard on you to understand in minute detail all the arguments made in the book, but I am not. I posed some very basic, simple arguments from that book to you and you didn't grasp them.

In fact, the few times you have tried to comment on some arguments in the book, you have misrepresented them in rather obvious ways to anyone who has read the book, but would not be obvious to someone only familiar with radical left critiques of the Hayek that misrepresent the book and it's arguments.

 

[shagdrum]

Under the Canadian healthcare system despite it's shortcomings no one has to worry about going bankrupt paying medical bills.

No, they just have to worry about long lines (months and even years) that cause much unnecessary suffering and unnecessary death.

 

[foxpaws]

Your solution is to, once again, inject a false premise?



You don't need to "remember in great detail". the basic arguments the book makes should be easily understood the rest of your life, even if you forget the details.

Yet you didn't understand them or recognize them, even if you couldn't identify the Author of the Book they were from.

I know you are trying to make it appear that I am imposing some absurdly high standard on you to understand in minute detail all the arguments made in the book, but I am not. I posed some very basic, simple arguments from that book to you and you didn't grasp them.

In fact, the few times you have tried to comment on some arguments in the book, you have misrepresented them in rather obvious ways to anyone who has read the book, but would not be obvious to someone only familiar with radical left critiques of the Hayek that misrepresent the book and it's arguments.

OK - bring one up - right here - one I missed, not one that I disagreed with. And, yes, for the sake of time passing, make it pretty generic - as you stated you did.

I might not have recognized it shag - we both have a tendency to 'wall of text' and I may have skimmed over it... And once again - I might not have recognized them because it was 25 years ago, and even then I thought a lot of it was a bunch of old fashioned 1944 thoughts, watch out the soviets are going to get us sort of stuff...... It is very dated in parts, and many parts aren't very relevant today.

 

[foxpaws]

No, they just have to worry about long lines (months and even years) that cause much unnecessary suffering and unnecessary death.

Just like here - where you go to your primary physician, when he can fit you in, then he tells you to go to a specialist, then you wait for the approval for the specialist from your insurance company, after getting the tests approved the specialist can finally figure out you need procedure 'a', then you wait to get the procedure approved by your insurance company, and then you wait for a doctor that will take your insurance that also does the procedure, and then the insurance company decides that they want to have a cheaper procedure done...

I don't want Canada's system by any means, but to say that insurance companies don't do many of the same things... is to stick your head in the sand.

 

[04SCTLS]

No, they just have to worry about long lines (months and even years) that cause much unnecessary suffering and unnecessary death.

I have some experience of the canadian system.
My mother just had a hernia operation 3 weeks ago
after having been diagnosed about 2 months sooner.
I had instant treatment years ago when I almost cut off a finger on a table saw.
My brother had cancer treatment without having to wait unnecessarily.
I'm not saying it's perfect but this long lines long wait stock retort
of yours is totally overblown or "mischaracterized" to use your term.

You're very black and white about your opinions.
If it's not good, it's bad.
I say universal healthcare has many advantages and some shortcomings.
Both systems have anecdotal horror stories.

 

[shagdrum]

OK - bring one up - right here - one I missed, not one that I disagreed with. And, yes, for the sake of time passing, make it pretty generic - as you stated you did.

You just pointed out a prime example in this thread...

might not have recognized them because it was 25 years ago, and even then I thought a lot of it was a bunch of old fashioned 1944 thoughts, watch out the soviets are going to get us sort of stuff...... It is very dated in parts, and many parts aren't very relevant today.

It was hardly a "watch out the soviets are going to get us" type book. If you had read the book, you would know that.

In fact, Hayek intentionally avoided talking much about the Soviets because they were our ally at the time he wrote the book; during WWII.

His focus was more on the core problems with collectivism in general and on National Socialism in Germany (Nazism) and how it came to be. The Soviet's were hardly even part of the book.

 

[shagdrum]

Both systems have anecdotal horror stories.

The problems are not anecdotal but systemic and stats back this up.

 

[foxpaws]

You just pointed out a prime example in this thread...



It was hardly a "watch out the soviets are going to get us" type book. If you had read the book, you would know that.

In fact, Hayek intentionally avoided talking much about the Soviets because they were our ally at the time he wrote the book; during WWII.

His focus was more on the core problems with collectivism in general and on National Socialism in Germany (Nazism) and how it came to be. The Soviet's were hardly even part of the book.

Sorry - socialists... shag it has been a long time... I am sorry - I really do hope you understand that reading a book 25 years ago, it is hard to remember it, when you didn't like it to begin with. So, do you remember all the stuff you read in high school - especially the stuff you didn't agree with - that is what this is like... read a few thousand books in between Hayek and now... it really is hard to remember a book you relegated to 'junk'.

Ok - I will read it again - how's that - I assume you had to read it for school or something - so, I'll put it next in the pile... God, it will be worse than reading Rand again...